Send Help: A Review

SEND HELP

I might have caught one or two episodes of Survivor. I never understood the appeal of the show. However, Survivor is still popular, going on twenty-six years and 50 seasons as of this writing. Send Help has one of its characters deeply fascinated by Survivor, which may explain part of why the premise went as it did. However, Send Help is not original. It is as if someone blended Triangle of Sadness and Misery.  

Seemingly meek corporate drone Linda Liddle (Rachel McAdams) does all the hard work only to see men like Donavan (Xavier Samuel) take the credit and the promotion. Despite an off-screen promise from her late boss, Linda is not given an executive promotion by that boss' successor and son, Bradley Preston (Dylan O'Brien). Bradley is a bit of a nepo baby, engaged to the beautiful Zury (Edyll Ismael) and more interested in his golf than in the corporation. He also has decided that Donavan will get the job. Preston executive Franklin (Dennis Haysbert in basically a cameo) advises him to keep the late Mr. Preston's promise. Seeing how slovenly, meek and frankly disheveled Linda is, however, Bradley balks.

Still, she is needed and goes with Bradley, Donavan and another man to Bangkok. On the plane, Donavan shows the other men Linda's failed Survivor audition tape. They openly laugh at the footage, but a sudden storm causes the plane to crash into the ocean. The next morning, Linda finds herself a literal survivor. She eventually finds Bradley washed up on the shore, alive but injured. It is now where Linda's Survivor skills kick into high gear. It is also here where the power dynamics shift. 

Bradley slowly recovers from his leg injury. He is displeased at how good Linda is at being Robinson Crusoe to his incompetence. He has some right to be displeased given how Linda tortures him physically and psychologically. They become the ultimate frenemies. More twists and turns take place between them. Some are almost murderous. Their interactions are nothing compared to what Linda has in store for Zuri, who unexpectedly shows up. Who will live and who will die on the island? Will the mystery of what is beyond the rocks that form an X reveal unexpected comforts? Who will triumph in the end?     

I saw Send Help with my cousin. He is the one who pointed out the similarity between Send Help and Misery, one of his and my late aunt's favorite films. It was later that I thought of how Send Help also draws from Triangle of Sadness. I have no way of knowing if screenwriters Mark Swift and Damian Shannon drew inspiration from any of those films. My guess is that they drew more inspiration from Survivor than from Misery, Triangle of Sadness or perhaps Cast/Swept Away (for full disclosure I as of this writing not seen either Cast Away or either version of Swept Away). As I left Send Help, I was very uncomfortable with its ending. 

I have rarely if ever warmed to a film where the villain wins. My first thought after finishing Send Help was that it was like Misery if Annie Wilkes had won. Linda Liddle is not a good person. Right from the start, she is intrusive, clingy and slovenly. I think we are meant to see her as quirky, maybe endearing. I found her more like Selina Kyle in Batman Returns, only more annoying than put-upon. The old "man taking credit for all the work a woman does" bit is old hat. Why she opted to put a Post-it sticker with her name on the report rather than type it onto the page one can guess at. My guess: it was to show how Donavan could easily remove it and thus, take credit for something that he did not do. Presumably, everyone knew that Linda did the work. However, no one seems to think that Donavan getting the credit would not work. 

She attempts to invite herself to an after-hours karaoke group by mentioning her favorite go-to song, Blondie's One Way or Another. I found her song selection, which ends Send Help, a bit too on-the-nose about her supposed triumph over all those evil men pushing her down. Moreover, in a curious bit, I wondered about her cockatiel. Before she leaves for Bangkok, we see Linda's sole companion is her parakeet. Presumably, she has no friends or family. She was stranded on the island for perhaps a week, maybe longer.

Who fed the bird? We are meant to think that the cockatiel that she leaves with at the end of Send Help is the same one that she had before she left on her ill-fated flight. I think that bird would have been dead by the time she returned. 

Also, Send Help seems pretty happy to paper over how much of a psycho Linda Liddle was. I might point out that the name "Linda Liddle" seems a bit again, too on-the-nose. Linda means "pretty", something that she is not. Liddle, I figure, is meant to suggest how small and meek she starts out as. She wasn't. Try as the film might, I actually found myself siding more with Bradley than with Linda.

One of his major objections early on is on her appearance. It should be noted that Linda openly eats at her desk. She also has bits of food (tuna if I remember correctly) on her face. If she is so slovenly to not care about her appearance in an office setting, how would she work at the executive level? If she makes it clear that she does not care about how she looks or comes across, how would she interact with high-level officials? Linda's manner would make potential clients wary of hiring the Preston financial management group. Bradley might be a nepo baby, but he also knows that how one presents themselves reflects on his company. 

As a side note, I do not know if director Sam Raimi opted to deliberately echo Office Space with Donavan's appearance. I genuinely expected someone to comment how he looked like Gary Cole's Bill Lumbergh. To be fair, Donavan does have a touch of American Psycho's Patrick Bateman in him, though that might just be my interpretation. 

There is also the question about Linda's Survivor audition tape. What we were shown was silly and made Linda look both desperate and ridiculous. It did not look like a serious effort to get on the show. It looked like someone making a fool out of themselves. I think most anyone who came upon Linda's Survivor audition tape would have laughed. It has been years since I have seen American Idol. However, people still laugh at the cringeworthy failed auditions. Why would this be any different? 

Are we also meant to ignore how Linda murdered up to four people? One she killed prior to the events of Send Help if we go by the screenplay. A scene where it is implied that Linda will castrate Preston is the equivalent to Annie Wilkes' maiming of Paul Sheldon. Granted, I knew that she was not actually castrating Bradley. However, that whole scene should have made people turn against Linda, not towards her. Did I mention how she is essentially a serial killer?

My moral compass has not shifted to a level where I can cheer on someone who kills and ends up triumphant. 

The more I think of it, the more I reject Send Help's premise. I do not think that, given the situation, that Bradley and/or Linda would have behaved the way that they did. 

In terms of acting, I think both Rachel McAdams and Dylan O'Brien did well. I have been a longtime O'Brien champion. His Bradley Preston kept a pretty solid balance between entitled and desperate. McAdams played the part correctly as this needy woman who turns more psychotic. 

I was not convinced by the ending. Apart from having our murderess win, I never believed that Bradley would not have discovered the island's great secret so late in the game. I also was a bit puzzled on Zuri's fate. Not so much on what happened to her. More of how she ended up where she did. I found it to be one of those "something will happen if the plot requires it to" moments.

I know Send Help is getting high praise. I figure many people enjoyed it. I left Send Help initially not loving it but not hating it. I still do not hate it. I just found myself liking it less and less. McAdams and O'Brien make Send Help tolerable viewing. Send Help, to my mind, is a strong contender for the most overrated film of 2026.  

DECISION: D+

Peter O'Toole Nomination Number Five: An Analysis

PETER O'TOOLE NOMINATION 

NUMBER FIVE: 

AN ANALYSIS

How was Peter O'Toole to know that his fifth Best Actor nomination would find itself embroiled in controversy? Not the actual nomination itself for his performance in The Ruling Class. Instead, he was one of the four men who lost to a winner who opted to turn Best Actor into a now famous or infamous moment of political activism on the Oscar stage. Had he won, the chances of Peter O'Toole going on about Native American rights and representation in film/television would have been thin. Still, one can imagine that his The Ruling Class character would certainly have disrupted the ceremony far worse than what ultimately happened that night.

The 45th Academy Awards finds our favorite Oscar bridesmaid facing off against three films instead of four. He also faced, once again, almost impossible odds to have any real chance in winning.

Peter O'Toole found himself facing a very lonely battle in 1972's Best Actor race. His performance in The Ruling Class was that film's sole Oscar nomination. This was the first time that O'Toole was singled out for recognition when his film was ignored for any other Oscar consideration. This would happen twice later on when both My Favorite Year and Venus were similarly not nominated for anything else except for O'Toole. 

That was already bad enough for O'Toole's chances. Making matters worse is that his other competitors were in films that had multiple Oscar nominations. The Godfather had ten nominations, tying it with Cabaret as that year's most nominated film. Sounder and Sleuth had four nominations each.  Both The Godfather and Sounder were Best Picture nominees. Those were very hard hurdles for someone with one nomination to overcome.

Add to that how Sleuth had not one but two Best Actor nominees: Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine. With The Godfather, Sounder and Sleuth getting more recognition, it would have been pretty much impossible for The Ruling Class to break out to be O'Toole's first win. 

As a side note, Sleuth is one of only three films where the entire credited cast received Oscar nominations. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Give 'Em Hell, Harry! were the others. 

Despite those odds, there was still a chance, thin as it was, for O'Toole to have something of a fighting chance. Films where two actors compete in the same category rarely led to either one of them winning. More often than not, two nominated actors from the same film in the same category almost always cancel each other out. There are as of this writing 77 occasions when two actors/actresses have been nominated in the same category for the same film. Of those 77 dual nominations in all four acting categories, one actor/actress has beaten out his/her costar and fellow nominee to win an acting Oscar a mere 25 times. Peter O'Toole himself had faced off against his Becket costar Richard Burton in 1964. Both of them lost. 

As such, the likelihood that either Olivier or Caine would win was small. Prior to Sleuth's dueling nominations, one nominee beating out his costar for Best Actor had happened only twice. The first was Bing Crosby over Barry Fitzgerald for Going My Way. The second was Maximilian Schell beating his fellow Judgement at Nuremberg costar/nominee Spencer Tracy. 

Complicating matters is how Fitzgerald was nominated for both Lead and Supporting Actor the same year for Going My Way. While he ended up winning Best Supporting Actor, Fitzgerald's situation could have led to a bizarre double win for the actor. This was the first and only time that someone was nominated in both acting categories for the same performance. Fitzgerald's dual nomination for the same role in the same film was the impetus to alter Academy rules. From now on, an actor could be nominated in only one category for a particular film. An actor could be nominated in Lead and Supporting in the same year, but it had to be for different films. 

That would lead to another unforeseen effect: category fraud. There would come occasions when a leading performance would be submitted in the supporting category and vice versa. I have long argued that Peter O'Toole's sixth nomination for The Stunt Man was a supporting role. There have been arguments that Jennifer Connelly and Zoe Saldaña won Supporting Actress Oscars for leading roles. Conversely, one of O'Toole's fellow nominees this year could be considered a supporting role in a leading category.      

Marlon Brando had approximately 40 minutes of screentime in The Godfather. He was nominated for Best Actor in a Leading Role. Al Pacino had approximately one hour and seven minutes of screentime in The Godfather. He was nominated for Best Actor in a Supporting Role. As the kids say, "make it make sense". Yes, Brando was the title character in The Godfather. However, his role was significantly shorter and smaller than Pacino's was. Was Brando lead? Was Brando supporting? 

That same issue, curiously enough, affects the last Best Actor nominee. Paul Winfield was on screen for 35 minutes in Sounder which runs one hour and forty-five minutes long. That means that Winfield was off the screen for most of Sounder. The plot required him to be absent as his character was imprisoned and his son's journey was one of Sounder's main plot points. However, as with Brando, a strong case can be mounted that Winfield was a supporting and not lead performance. Curiously, few people take issue with Winfield's Best Actor nomination the way that they do with Brando's Best Actor nomination.

With all that said, let us now look at our nominees. The nominees for Best Actor in a Leading Role of 1972 were:

Marlon Brando in The Godfather

Michael Caine in Sleuth

Laurence Olivier in Sleuth

Peter O'Toole in The Ruling Class

Paul Winfield in Sounder  

This was an interesting race as we had two nominees from the same film, two nominees with remarkably short screentime and one nominee who was that film's sole nomination. If one looks at this year's slate, I think it becomes clear that the winner was pretty much inevitable.

Poor Peter O'Toole was not going to win. The Ruling Class faced off against other films that had more nominations and more recognition. He was excellent as Jack Gurney, 14th Earl of Gurney. He was on the screen longer than both Marlon Brando and Paul Winfield. However, The Ruling Class was not going to push The Godfather or Sounder or Sleuth out. 

Paul Winfield's major drawback was that his screentime was so limited. He did have some benefits. Sounder was a Best Picture nominee. Sleuth and The Ruling Class were not. Sleuth was competing against itself. Winfield therefore could almost count on Caine and Olivier cancelling each other out. With O'Toole having almost no chance, Paul Winfield could mount a more serious challenge to Marlon Brando. Winfield's strengths were, however, no match against two points. First is that limited screentime. Save for Marlon Brando all his other nominees were on screen longer than Winfield was. That meant that Caine, Olivier and even O'Toole left longer and stronger impressions than Winfield. 

Second was Marlon Brando's star power. Brando was mercurial. Brando was temperamental. Brando was slipping into greater and greater eccentricity. Despite all that, Marlon Brando was still a name. He was a bigger name than Paul Winfield. He was probably a bigger name than Michael Caine or Peter O'Toole. Laurence Olivier is probably the only one of the other nominees who could legitimately challenge Marlon Brando in terms of both star power and acting prowess. 

Fortunately for Marlon Brando, The Godfather was a bigger hit than Sleuth. It was also a bigger hit than both Sounder and The Ruling Class. I think more people saw The Godfather than any of the three other Best Actor nominated films. The Godfather also had more nominations than The Ruling Class, Sleuth or Sounder. It had more nominations than those three films combined: ten to nine. 

As I think of this year's Best Actor race, I think that Marlon Brando won less because of his specific performance and more because the other nominees could never mount a serious challenge to him. Caine and Olivier were pretty much evenly matched in Sleuth. That ended up knocking each other out. Winfield pretty much disappeared for most of Sounder. O'Toole was in a film with one nomination. Each of Brando's competitors faced a stumbling block that they could not overcome.

That is not to say that Marlon Brando was not worthy in terms of his performance. His Don Vito Corleone was highly praised then. The film and Brando's performance have grown in stature in the ensuing years. There are people who absolutely adore Marlon Brando in The Godfather. His performance has become iconic down to being easily recognizable and ripe for parody. Yes, it is a relatively short performance. However, Marlon Brando did leave his stamp on the role. It just looked that through a series of circumstances, and the quality of his performance, Marlon Brando was going to easily win.

How was anyone to know that Marlon Brando playing a gangster would lead to his proxy Sacheen Littlefeather talking about Native American representation when declining the Oscar on Brando's behalf? This is not the time to talk about Miss Littlefeather's role at the Oscar ceremony. Neither is this the time to talk about whether Sacheen Littlefeather really was whom she claimed to be. I will say briefly that I found her short speech eloquent given the immense pressure that she was under both from the Academy and from Brando himself. I also think that she was put in a very difficult situation and handled the whole thing with grace. Finally, I maintain that the Academy Awards are not the place for any political causes. 

The story of John Wayne allegedly attempting to rush the stage and being held back by six security people is a myth. It never happened. If you see the post-Oscar interviews, you can see Wayne clearly avoiding any discussion on what had occurred. He was not enraged, let alone violently so. He, like Littlefeather, was quite dignified and succinct. The press persisted in getting Wayne to say something, anything, about the whole kerfuffle. He cut them off gracefully. If memory serves correctly, he told them either "Talk to Brando" or "Go get Brando". It makes for a nice story: the embodiment of the Western and solid right-wing Republican furiously attempting to storm the stage against a small Native American woman. In this case, however, I think it is blending the John Wayne image with Marion Morrison the person. 

Finally, how would I rank the nominees? Here is my slate in terms of Best to Worst:

Marlon Brando

Michael Caine

Laurence Olivier

Peter O'Toole 

Paul Winfield

I should start out by saying that none of the five nominated performances are bad. I would be happy had any of them won. As I think on it, I put Brando first despite his short screentime.

He dominates the screen whenever he appears. The Don is the title character. People instantly recognize Marlon Brando in/as The Godfather. They do not do that with any of the other nominees save perhaps Paul Winfield.

As Sleuth has two leads, how to match them against each other? Thinking long and hard, I think Caine had the harder role and the better performance. Sleuth is a masterclass of acting with Caine and Olivier both giving bravura performances. It makes it hard to choose which one would edge out the other. However, one must, and I went with Caine barely beating out Olivier.

Both Caine and Olivier were neck-and-neck. That forced the last two nominees down. Peter O'Toole went all-in with The Ruling Class. I could have easily had him at second. However, O'Toole was in a very eccentric film that veered dangerously close to going over-the-top. Peter O'Toole touched that line of being too much but never went over it. As I kept thinking, I simply could not put O'Toole over either Caine or Olivier. 

It pains me to put Paul Winfield last. He was deeply moving in Sounder. Unfortunately, his limited screentime was a major issue. He was simply in too little of Sounder to be a lead. 

Marlon Brando should have won Best Actor for The Godfather over all the other nominees. His Best Actor win stands.

In conclusion, the Academy made the right choice in not awarding Peter O'Toole the Best Actor Oscar on his fifth nomination.

Melania: A Review

MELANIA

In these highly charged times perhaps it would be impossible to judge the documentary Melania without bringing in one's own feelings on the subject. Melania is a slickly produced film that gives one little insight into the enigmatic First Lady. It is also not without some positives that make for an interesting albeit curious viewing.

Melania Trump tells her story of the twenty days the New Year's Day 2025 and Inauguration Day when her husband would be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States. There is a lot to do as she goes from the Trump estate of Mar-a-Lago to their penthouse at Trump Tower in Manhattan.

Her staff presents her with the official invitations to the pre-Inaugural candlelight dinner. Her longtime designer Hervé Pierre works on her Inaugural coat and gown. He is excited that his creation will be at the Smithsonian. I suppose that he was too excited to notice that Mrs. Trump's Inaugural coat made her look like the love child of Carmen Sandiego and the Hamburglar. 

In between all that though comes events that will force a personal reflection. Former President Jimmy Carter had died shortly before the Inauguration. His funeral was set for January 9, 2025. This would require that the Trumps attend the funeral as a former President and First Lady at the time. January 9, 2025, was also by coincidence the first anniversary of the death of Mrs. Trump's mother. All those conflicting feelings, coupled with the preparations for the ceremonial aspects of the Inaugural, swirled around Mrs. Trump.

Grief comes, but it also goes. With the official state funeral done, Melania can return to her many focuses. There is the Inauguration. There is her Be Best and Fostering the Future Initiatives. There is her son, Barron, who wants to stay out of the limelight. At last, the former First Lady becomes First Lady again, and she can dance until her feet are tired.

One should not even bother pretending that Melania would give anyone genuine insight into this most mysterious of First Ladies. Melania Trump enters and exits wearing high stiletto heels. The viewer learns very little about her. While Mrs. Trump narrates the documentary, she never has a formal sit-down interview. In many ways, Melania does not reveal the First Lady as it shields her. She begins and ends Melania as a mystery.

We do learn a few things about Mrs. Trump. We learn that she not only loves Michael Jackson music but met him once, describing him as nice. She reveals that her favorite song out of many in his catalog is Billie Jean. She even sings a bit for us, though she quickly dismisses the idea that she is doing a version of Carpool Karaoke. 

I think some of the musical choices in Brett Ratner's documentary are more revelatory. Melania starts with sweeping images of Mar-a-Lago set to the Rolling Stones' Gimme Shelter. Frankly, I found that a very odd choice. It does not help that we hear The Crystals' Then He Kissed Me playing when the-now President and First Lady are returning from one of the three inaugural balls that they attended. I do not know if either or both Ratner and Trump were deliberately echoing Goodfellas or not. There is a strange blending of the elegant pre-Inaugural candlelight dinner with Chase from Midnight Express. 

What exactly were Trump and Ratner attempting to do here? My own sense is that both of them are signaling a certain defiance against all who oppose them. 

Melania features sometimes amusing moments. There is Hervé Pierre, forever fluttering about with his couturier frocks. The film sometimes attempts to show a more home movie feel with presumably footage shot by Mrs. Trump's father Viktor Knavs. A more unintentionally amusing moment is when the once and future First Lady examines some of the dishes for the candlelight dinner. We see a golden egg almost floating on a dish. One wonders if Mrs. Trump had raided Willy Wonka's factory. 

More unintentionally amusing moments come from President Trump. We see and hear him sporadically. He's still rather boastful and slightly conspiratorial. He brags about how his electoral college vote was the biggest (it isn't). He also believes that the College Football National Championship was deliberately scheduled to overshadow his inauguration. To be fair, other unintentionally amusing moments came from other political figures. We were not shown former President George W. Bush's eccentric reaction to things; we did see then-President Joe Biden look a mix amused and confused by the goings-on. We also saw then-Vice President Kamala Harris clearly unamused by the same goings-on. 

The few times Barron Trump popped up were also interesting. We saw him shake hands with former President Biden and even egg on the crowd at the Capital One Arena where the Inaugural Parade was shifted due to the weather. Barron Trump never spoke. Those moments: the dinners, the celebrations, the elaborate choreography of ceremony, were interesting. 

A little-noted moment in Melania should be in my view. Before the inauguration, Mrs. Trump had a private meeting with Aviva Siegel. She was one of the hundreds of Israelis that Hamas abducted during the horrors of October 7. At the time, her husband Keith was still being held prisoner. As Mrs. Siegel described her experiences and hopes for the safe return of her husband it is hard not to be moved by her story. We see Mrs. Trump hug her and tell her that her husband will bring Keith Siegel back*. As she leaves in the elevator, it looks as if Mrs. Trump's brittle veneer cracks slightly. Melania Trump seems close to tears as the elevator door closes. 

My sense is that Mrs. Trump never wants to be seen as vulnerable. She would rather be seen discussing her initiatives with French First Lady Brigitte Macron or Jordan's Queen Rania. The only time that Mrs. Trump acknowledges the camera is right before she is escorted into the Capitol Rotunda for the formal Inauguration. Turning slightly mischievously to face us, she says, "Here we go again". She wants to present herself as a confident woman. "I will move forward with purpose, and of course, with style," she closes as Sunny plays while her official White House picture is taken. However, I think that even her harshest critics will find the Siegel section impactful.

"Nobody like here. She's difficult but nobody like her," now-President Trump tells Ratner as Melania closes. He adds that he is joking. One thing is certain: Melania Trump is set on controlling her image and narrative. She is in the history books, for good or ill. Melania does not reveal much if anything that Mrs. Trump does or does not want revealed. She begins and ends Melania as a Slovenian Sphinx. 

*We are told in an on-screen postscript that Keith Siegel was released alive.

DECISION: C+

Train Dreams: A Review

TRAIN DREAMS

Dreams come and go speeding through one man's life in Train Dreams. Visually arresting, Train Dreams may try some viewers' patience with its poetic, lyrical manner. However, Train Dreams is worth the effort if one has that patience.

Told in voiceover by an unnamed narrator (Will Patton), we learn the life story of Robert Grainier (Joel Edgerton). Robert has no past as he was orphaned early in life. He arrives in the Pacific Northwest on presumably an orphan train. Robert wanders through life until he meets Glady Olding (Felicity Jones). He is immediately smitten with her as she is with him.

They marry and soon have a daughter, Katie. Robert travels far for whatever work he can find. He lays track for the trains. He is a lumberjack. He is also haunted by a strange incident while building a bridge over a gorge. For reasons never explained, a couple of the men grab a Chinese laborer and toss him over the almost complete bridge to his death. Robert is literally haunted by the man, seeing him appear randomly.

As time goes on, Robert finds joy in Gladys and Katie. He yearns to spend more time together and work closer to home. He pretty much keeps to himself while working in the forest. Robert does bond with the wise Arn Peeples (William H. Macy), an old hand at logging who is seen as eccentric by the younger men. A freak accident kills Arn, which pushes Robert to stay put with his family.

Their plans are consumed by fire. This forest fire devastates Robert beyond measure. He bears his great personal losses with stoicism. Now as a cart hauler for the local community, Robert takes Clare Thompson (Kerry Condon) to her new station at the forest's edge. She is with the newly formed Forest Service and has a similar outlook to Robert's. Robert may chuckle at being the local hermit, but there is truth to that. As the decades go by, what will be the end of Robert Grainier?

Train Dreams is a little over an hour and a half. I suspect that the film's very steady, stately pace will drive some viewers bonkers. That sense of frustration will also probably come from Patton's narration. He fills in a lot of information about Robert Grainier that sometimes comes across as overbearing. I struggled to remember where I saw and heard a similar conceit. I now remember. It was in The Life of Chuck. Both films have much in common. They attempt to make a relatively simple life something of an epic. They rely heavily on voiceover. They attempt to speak on the importance of even the most mundane life. They are both adaptations of short works (in Train Dreams' case, Denis Johnson's novella).

Unlike The Life of Chuck, I found that director/cowriter Clint Bentley (adapting Johnson's work with Greg Kwedar) opted to not load the voiceover to a maddening degree. I would not call it sparse. I would call it less intrusive. I also would say that it was a bit overdone in terms of what was being said. 

Train Dreams is a very quiet film. It is slow, but not in a bad way. It does have moments of action, like the forest fire that consumed Robert's life. However, for the most part even what could have been shocking moments are shown as quite still. There is when a random black man appears and ends up killing a logger who talked endlessly about Jesus. The killer informs the surprisingly passive loggers that the man they knew as Apostle Bob was really Buckskin Sam, an outlaw who had killed the killer's brother. This scene was shot with one long master shot, which I thought a curious choice. 

Arn's death was a bit odd. It had both voiceover and a surprisingly comic manner despite the filmmaker's best intentions. Again, while I see what Train Dreams was going for, it did not mean that it always worked. 

What did work in the film, worked well. Adolpho Beloso's cinematography is almost sinful in its luxurious and lush look. Even the mass forest fire looks beautiful. Train Dreams fits the title, creating this visually splendid film that makes it almost like a series of painting.

The film is also quite well-acted. Joel Edgerton has had his share of misses. In Train Dreams, he has a strong performance. His Robert's stoic manner is what makes the story work. He is able to have moments of drama, such as when he imagines Katie returning. However, Edgerton knows that Robert is an internal man, one who keeps things within himself. A standout moment is when he is with Condon in a smaller but no less effective performance. As he talks to Claire about his loss, we see Robert as quiet and soft. This is a man who keeps so much within himself. However, this scene is devoid of big, dramatic moments. He does not cry nor break down in tears. Instead, Edgerton stays true to the character. Robert is a man who observes and feels but rarely is overwhelmed by his feelings.

As stated, Kerry Condon also does well as Claire, the impatient but caring Forest Service ranger. "The dead tree is as important as a living one", she tells Robert. The subtext I think is clear. In his role, William H. Macy gives Arn a weary acceptance of life. It is almost as if he is what Robert might become. 

Train Dreams does have a dreamlike quality to it. That might make some viewers grew impatient. However, when one sees it, I think it might be best to accept the film's placid manner than to fight it. See it for the beautiful visuals, which is one of its best qualities. 

DECISION: C+

I Want to Live! A Review (Review #2120)

I WANT TO LIVE!

True crime meets true tragedy in I Want to Live! Blending film noir with a documentary manner, I Want to Live! gives us a sympathetic portrait of a mostly unsympathetic figure.

Barbara Wood (Susan Hayward) is a good-time girl who loves the men and the jazz. This jazz baby is also a longtime criminal. She drinks, dances, flirts and presumably more than flirts through life. Her BFF Peggy (Virginia Vincent) cuts out after two mutual friends ask Peg and Babs to provide false alibis. Barbara, for her part, agrees to lie for them and ends up locked up for perjury. 

After her prison term, Barbara tries to go straight. She marries Hank Graham (Wesley Lau) and has a child, Bobby. However, Hank is a junkie who even slaps Barbara around when she refuses to turn over their last $10 so he can get a fix. She then goes back to petty crime to keep body and soul together. Her old criminal partner Emmett Perkins (Philip Coolidge) welcomes her back with open arms. His associate John Santo (Lou Krugman) is thoroughly antagonist and openly hates baby Bobby. 

Things go wildly wrong after their latest heist. Barbara was the getaway car driver of a robbery. However, an elderly crippled widow, Mable Monahan, was murdered. The police have tagged Perkins, Santo and Graham for the crime. Barbara, initially unaware of the murder, plays up her image as "Bloody Babs: The Tiger Woman". She finds the whole thing just the latest in her defiant run-ins with the law.

All this makes great headlines for San Francisco newspaperman Ed Montgomery (Simon Oakland). It is not until after she realizes that murder was the case that they gave her that Barbara panics; horrified by the charge, Barbara foolishly attempts to get a false alibi as Hank is nowhere to be found. To her horror and disappointment, she finds that her supposed alibi is really officer Ben Miranda (Peter Breck). Her past dooms her to be found guilty. The press attention also plays a role in dooming the so-called Queen of the Murder Mob, along with Perkins and Santo, to be sentenced to death.

Montgomery soon begins having doubts about Graham's guilt. She was involved in the Monahan robbery. However, was she the actual murderess? Psychiatrist Carl Palmberg (Theodore Bikel) diagnoses that Graham is amoral but averse to violence. She is also left-handed, while Monahan's killer was right-handed. Montgomery shifts from Graham's antagonist to ally. He begins writing articles making a case that she is innocent. At the minimum, he pushes for a commutation on her death sentence by gas. It is now a battle against the clock to save Barbara Graham. Will she make it out alive? Has her time finally run out?

The veracity of I Want to Live! has been brought into question in the ensuing years. Nelson Gidding and Don M. Mankiewicz's screenplay makes the case that Graham was innocent and wrongly executed. Gidding and Mankiewicz used actual court testimony, Montgomery's articles and Graham's own correspondence to craft their story. As such, one can argue that I Want to Live! is biased in Graham's favor. We also see this when Graham does her best to go straight. 

The film, however, does not downplay Graham's less-than-noble virtues. We see her consistently defiant even when it goes against her own best interests. She is a party girl, ready with a snippy comeback no matter what the circumstances. "Life's a funny thing", someone observes to Graham early in I Want to Live! She replies with a touch of sarcasm, "Compared to what?". As the film comes to a dramatic close, one of the guards in the gas chamber advises her to take deep breaths to make the execution easier. Graham softly but bitterly replies, "How would you know?".

A strong element that makes I Want to Live! both gripping and moving is director Robert Wise's decision to make the execution preparations very methodical. We see the precise preparations for the execution. As stated earlier, I Want to Live! has an almost documentary-like manner in these scenes. There are many dramatic moments, especially when Graham is in her cell waiting to see if she lives or dies. In between them though, we see how the gas chamber is set up. It makes for very sad viewing.

Sadder viewing comes from Graham's final hours, which feel stretched into days. At one especially difficult moment, she is being walked towards the gas chamber when the silence is broken by a telephone ring. As she is walked back to her cell, Susan Hayward as Graham softly says, "Why do they torture me so?".

I Want to Live! has a firm anti-capital punishment slant. It also has a heart in Susan Hayward. Winning an Academy Award on her fifth nomination, Hayward creates a moving portrait of this at-times self-destructive and self-defeating woman. Hayward makes Barbara Graham into a tough but vulnerable broad. Graham is a survivor, a sly and tough cookie who knows the score. "What's your occupation? What do you do?" one of her criminal cronies asks her. Her smart reply? "The best I can". 

We get to see Graham's tough exterior in the film. We also see through Hayward's performance the frightened and desperate woman railroaded into a disaster. Hayward has what always helps an actress: a court testimony scene. On the stand, we see Graham's shift from disbelief to desperation and ultimately to quiet resignation. Once the jury hears about her past conviction for perjury, Graham realizes that it is all over for her. 

Hayward as Graham has a running manner of throwing fake dice to see what comes up. We see that ultimately, she got snake-eyes. She plays Graham as belligerent, showing that she will stand up to everyone. She also makes one feel great sadness for her at the end. Hayward does this effectively by controlling her voice. She never fully screams or rages. However, it is when she is quiet and soft that makes her performance all the more impactful.

As her final appeal fails, she says softly, "I want a mask". She does not want to see anyone on the way to the execution. Moments like those break your heart.

I Want to Live! also has strong performances from Oakland as Montgomery. He shifts well from someone who uses her to sell papers to someone who tries to undo the damage. Virginia Vincent in her small role does well as Peg, the girl who cut out to become a respectable housewife. She stayed loyal to the end. 

A surprising element in I Want to Live! is the use of a jazz score written by Johnny Mandel. It gives the film an urgency and decadence that matches the story. Of particular note is when we see Graham slip back into a life of petty crime. The drums and bongos push the tension of the situations. Fortunately, Wise also opted to keep the final section quiet. That too makes the end more tragic.

I Want to Live! in some ways is a B-picture. There is a strong element of grittiness and lack of polish. However, these are not noble people. They are criminals and hoods. I Want to Live! shows us that Barbara Graham was also a person. She made terrible choices and paid the ultimate price for them. One cannot but be moved by the film. The real-life Barbara Graham may have ultimately been guilty of murder. The film version of Barbara Graham was a victim who was sleazy but innocent.

1923-1955

DECISION: B+

Sounder: A Review (Review #2119)

SOUNDER

Growing up is difficult at any age. It is much harder when the general society is openly against you. Sounder, based on the young adult novel, is a deeply moving adaptation. Standout performances from both the adult and child actors and a relatable story elevate Sounder to being a solid film for all generations.

Life is hard all around for everyone in 1933's Louisiana. For the Morgan family, it is harder. The Morgans are sharecroppers who scrape by season through season. However, what they do not have in terms of financial wealth is made up for with a wealth of love. Patriarch Nathan Lee Morgan (Paul Winfield) works hard and plays hard. Baseball, that is, with an incredible pitching arm. Mother Rebecca (Cicely Tyson) watches over their three children. The oldest, David Lee (Kevin Hooks) does go to school. However, he has to sit at the back of the class due to his race. 

The Morgans are a strong family unit, struggling but loving. The family has six members: two parents, three children and their beloved dog, Sounder. Along with the sharecropping, Rebecca makes extra income by washing clothes for Mrs. Boatwright (Carmen Matthews) who lives in town. Things seem to be getting better when Nathan manages to bring meat for the family. It soon becomes clear how he got that meat. Sheriff Young (James Best) has to arrest him. Nathan is sentenced to one year at a labor camp.

Sheriff Young cannot or will not divulge which camp Nathan is going to. Mrs. Boatwright does manage to get the name of the camp. With that, David and Sounder set off to make contact. On that journey, David encounters a school made up of black students, complete with a black teacher. Miss Camille Johnson (Janet MacLachlan) welcomes David into her class and home. She also gives Nathan, a voracious reader already, nonfiction books. Alongside his beloved Three Musketeers, a gift from Mrs. Boatwright, there are biographies of Harriet Tubman and The Souls of Black Folk by W.E.B. DuBois. Will David make contact with Nathan? Will Nathan return to his wife and children? Will David return to Miss Johnson's school or follow in the sharecropping ways?

Sounder focuses on an African American family in the early half of the twentieth century. However, its story of love and familial bonds is a universal one. I was reminded of Coal Miner's Daughter in how a loving and united family can be a greater resource than mere money. Sounder does not shy away from the hardships of the Morgans. It also does something that is sadly still rare in many films: present a family with strong parents and obedient children. Sounder is a very languid film, with a steady pace throughout. It never rushes. It never builds up to big dramatic moments. Instead, it moves at an almost quiet pace.

This quiet allows the viewer to know all the characters, with their virtues and their flaws. We see Nathan and Rebecca as loving and protective. They are deeply committed to each other and their children. A particularly effective moment is when the children find meat for breakfast. Nathan, David and Sounder had all failed to catch a racoon. How exactly Nathan managed to find meat is understood by Rebecca but not the children. Paul Winfield and Cicely Tyson look at each other, and their glances tell us everything.

It is all but impossible to not be moved when Nathan returns. As Sounder barks at someone coming down the road, we see the growing figure. Rebecca recognizes him and rushes to his side. In this reunion, I think there would not be a dry eye in the house. 

This is due, I believe, to the performances. Paul Winfield and Cicely Tyson received Best Lead Actor and Actress nominations for Sounder. Both of our leads crafted moving characters. Tyson made Rebecca a strong and loving figure by how she balanced gentleness with resolve. Even at her angriest, such as when she makes clear that she will bring in the crops on time, Tyson never shows shouting rage. Instead, we see in Tyson a firm determination. Rebecca does things because she has to if she is to care for her family. We also see Rebecca's grace and love of family. One of best moments is when she goes to see Sheriff Young to see about visiting Nathan. She is told that visiting days are only on Sundays and that "womenfolk" are never allowed. In other films, perhaps, there would be a great dramatic moment. Instead, Tyson underplays the shock and disappointment. It is that sense of disappointment that makes her more effective.

Winfield has his best moment at the end. He is first jolly, then somewhat enraged that David wants to stay with the family rather than go to school. Eventually, father and son talk. It is clear that Nathan knows that David has a greater opportunity by moving than by staying. He explains this in a loving way that the young David can understand. It is a wonderful moment not just of acting. It is a wonderful moment of fatherly love.

Young Kevin Hooks was also excellent as David Lee Morgan. Sounder is really about him and his evolution to a greater knowledge of the world around him. He works well with the adult cast, which is no small feat given the caliber of talent in the film. Special mention should also go to Janet MacLachlan as Miss Johnson. She, like Tyson, gives her character grace and strength. It is almost as if they represent different sides of the same coin. Tyson's Rebecca and MacLachlan's Camille both cared about David. All their actions were motivated by their concern. One was educated and one was not. However, they both were strong women.

Blues legend Taj Mahal, who has a small role as wandering musician Ike, wrote Sounder's score. It is surprising that Mahal was not singled out for Academy Award consideration. Sounder received four nominations: Picture, Lead Actor and Actress and Lonne Elder III's adaptation of William H. Armstrong's novel. The blues-tinged score and Martin Ritt's able and firm direction were oddly left out.

Sounder is a love letter to the strength of family. It is also an ode to the power of education to have us rise. Heartfelt performances and the universal themes of familial love elevate Sounder to be a deeply moving film.

DECISION: A-

Peter O'Toole Oscar Nomination Number Six: An Analysis

PETER O'TOOLE OSCAR NOMINATION NUMBER SIX: 

AN ANALYSIS

On his sixth Academy Award nomination, Peter O'Toole faced yet again more insurmountable odds to have much chance of winning the long-elusive Oscar. Two of his competitors were in Best Picture nominees. Two were already Oscar winners. However, O'Toole's nominated performance for The Stunt Man actually had a slight leg-up on at least two of his fellow Oscar nominees. 

This would be the last nomination that O'Toole received for a film where he was not that film's sole nomination. Out of his eight overall career nominations, three (The Ruling Class, My Favorite Year and Venus) were for films where only his work was singled out for recognition. Out of these, only The Ruling Class came prior to this particular nomination. 

This time, it was different. His Best Actor nomination for The Stunt Man was one of three that the film received. Besides the nod for O'Toole, The Stunt Man received two other surprisingly high-end nominations. One was for Best Adapted Screenplay. The third was for Best Director. This nod is a somewhat ironic nomination given that O'Toole played a tyrannical director in The Stunt Man. This indicates, if not strong support for The Stunt Man, at least a greater awareness among Academy members of the film. For once, Peter O'Toole was not the nominee whose nomination was that film's sole nomination.

That distinction went to Jack Lemmon, who was on his seventh career nomination for Tribute. Lemmon was Tribute's only Oscar nomination that year. As such, it was Lemmon, not O'Toole, who had even less of a chance at winning Best Actor. O'Toole had another advantage when it came to fellow nominee Robert Duvall. The Great Santini had scored only two nominations: one for Duvall as Best Actor and one for Michael O'Keefe as Best Supporting Actor. As such, the chances of Lemmon winning were almost nil. Duvall had a slightly better chance, but not by much. The Great Santini did not leave as great an impression on the Academy as The Stunt Man. In retrospect, Peter O'Toole had a slightly, slightly stronger chance to best two of his rivals.

The unfortunate thing for O'Toole, however, was that his two other nominees were in stronger positions to win. Both Robert De Niro and John Hurt were in films that were tied for the most Oscar nominations that year. Raging Bull and The Elephant Man each received eight nominations. Raging Bull and The Elephant Man were battling it out not just in Best Actor. They faced off against each other in Best Picture, Best Director and Best Film Editing as well. These are major categories, meaning that Academy voters were watching Raging Bull and The Elephant Man more than The Stunt Man, The Great Santini and especially Tribute. 

Where would O'Toole's chances to finally win stand this year? First, let us look at our choices.

The nominees for Best Actor in a Leading Role for 1980 were

Robert De Niro in Raging Bull

Robert Duvall in The Great Santini

John Hurt in The Elephant Man

Jack Lemmon in Tribute

Peter O'Toole in The Stunt Man

It is a most curious coincidence that two of 1980's Best Picture and Best Actor selections were for black-and-white biopics from two legendary directors: Martin Scorsese and David Lynch. Separate from how good or bad Duvall, Lemmon and/or O'Toole were, the battle was always between Robert De Niro as Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull and John Hurt as John Merrick in The Elephant Man. The other three should have just been glad to be invited. I do not think that any of them had any real shot of pulling an upset. 

Jack Lemmon was probably the least likely to surprise. He was already a two-time Oscar winner by this point. His second win for Save the Tiger had been seven years ago. Therefore, one could say that it had been a while. However, it was not that long of a while. Moreover, as already stated, Lemmon was Tribute's sole nomination. He had been nominated the year before for The China Syndrome. That film received four nominations to Tribute's one. Save the Tiger had, like The Stunt Man, three Oscar nominations. 

As a side note, this would be the second of three occasions when Jack Lemmon and Peter O'Toole would face off for Best Actor. They had first battled in 1962 on Peter O'Toole's first nomination and Jack Lemmon's fourth nomination. They would return to dueling for the prize a mere two years later. They both lost on all three occasions.  

Oddly, if someone was going to ride an overdue narrative, it was not going to be six-time nominee O'Toole. It was going to be three-time nominee Robert Duvall. He had been nominated those three times within nine years. The Great Santini was his third nomination, but it was his second consecutive nomination after his Best Supporting Actor nomination for Apocalypse Now. He had been more consistent in his nominations than O'Toole, who had gone without a nomination since Duvall's first for The Godfather the same year that The Ruling Class had been nominated. Therefore, Robert Duvall was fresh in Academy members' memory. Peter O'Toole was not.

Still, The Stunt Man was a bigger hit than The Great Santini. It also got three major nominations to The Great Santini's two. Was there any chance that Peter O'Toole could have snuck in? Sadly, no. Again, I go back to how Robert De Niro and John Hurt were dominating everyone else. Raging Bull and The Elephant Man are held up as some of the best films of 1980. The Academy gave each eight nominations. This year, the big question was whether Best Actor would go to a black-and-white biopic or to a black-and-white biopic. It was always going to come down between De Niro and Hurt. We know that in the end, Robert De Niro won that fight. He was one of two Oscars for Raging Bull. The Elephant Man went empty-handed, its 0-8 record one of the worst in Academy history. 

Now, how would I have ranked the nominees? Here is my slate in order from Best to Worst:

Robert De Niro

John Hurt

Robert Duvall

Peter O'Toole

Jack Lemmon

I would like to point out that Donald Sutherland never received a competitive Academy Award nomination in the whole of his career. As of this writing, Richard Gere has not received a competitive Academy Award nomination in the whole of his career. Why do I mention that? Well, it is because Jack Lemmon simply has no business being a nominee this year. 

Jack Lemmon in Tribute is an abomination. I sat in stunned disbelief that this hammy, over-the-top, embarrassing performance was nominated for an Academy Award. Tribute is simply dreadful. It is basically a filmed play, and not a particularly good play either. Lemmon originated the role of Scottie Templeton in Tribute on Broadway. For reasons lost to history, no one either in front or behind the camera apparently understood that what works on a stage does not necessarily work in film. Lemmon was hammy throughout Tribute, playing to the rafters where a more toned-down manner would have done much better. He mugs, he prances, he does funny faces and wears funny costumes, even a chicken outfit. I know that they were going for pathos. They ended up with pathetic.

Jack Lemmon took the slot that could and should have been filled by someone who actually acted rather than made faces. Richard Gere in American Gigolo, his star-making turn, would have made a better choice. Donald Sutherland in that year's Best Picture winner Ordinary People would have made a brilliant choice. Every one of Sutherland's costars was nominated: Mary Tyler Moore for Lead Actress and both Judd Hirsh and Timothy Hutton for Best Supporting Actor, with Hutton winning. Yet the Academy overlooked Sutherland's more nuanced performance for Lemmon's cartoonish performance. 

Tommy Lee Jones in Coal Miner's Daughter would also have done better than Jack Lemmon in Tribute. You also had Jack Nicholson in The Shining, Dabney Coleman in 9 to 5 and John Travolta in Urban Cowboy. Those performances and films are still remembered. No one remembers Tribute. It helps that Nicholson, Coleman and Travolta were actually good in The Shining, 9 to 5 and Urban Cowboy. That is something that cannot be said about Jack Lemmon in Tribute. 

Exactly how bad, how flat-out awful was Jack Lemmon in Tribute? Seeing Sam J. Jones nominated for Best Actor in Flash Gordon makes more sense than Jack Lemmon getting nominated for Best Actor in Tribute. I am being somewhat facetious in saying that it would not surprise me if literal bribes were given and taken to get Jack Lemmon nominated for Tribute. That is how awful, bizarre and inexcusable Lemmon's nomination is. 

I cannot express fully just how much I loathe Jack Lemmon in Tribute. This is a simply inexplicable nomination.

So, of the rest, I sadly have to put Peter O'Toole near the bottom. Why? His performance as crazed director Eli Cross was quite good. It is one of his best. Unfortunately, it is also a case of category fraud to me. I had knocked down Forest Whitaker when he beat out Peter O'Toole for The Last King of Scotland because I thought Whitaker was really a Supporting and not Lead performance. 

In the same vein, I think O'Toole was a Supporting and not Lead performance. Had he been nominated for Best Supporting Actor, I think it would it have been a better fit given his role. He also could have actually won. The Stunt Man is not about Eli Cross. It is about the actual stunt man, Cameron (Steve Railsback). He would have been a more logical choice for Best Lead Actor in The Stunt Man than Peter O'Toole was for that film. 

Just as Lemmon essentially stole a spot for a whole slew of better performances, O'Toole did the same here. The difference though is that Peter O'Toole gave a good performance. Jack Lemmon did not. However, Jack Lemmon's nomination, however flawed, was definitely for a Leading Role. Peter O'Toole's nomination was for a Supporting Role passed off as a Leading one.

I wavered long and hard between the last three. Robert Duvall has a couple of strikes against him. First, few people remember The Great Santini. I take into consideration whether a performance has stood the test of time. Duvall's performance as Bull Meechum is nowhere near bad. In many ways, it is quite exceptional. He balances Bull's brutality with a vulnerability that said brutality hides. That being said, Duvall's brief cameo in To Kill a Mockingbird is better remembered than his turn in The Great Santini. 

Second, he is outmatched by at least one of the great screen performances. The Great Santini is well-acted. It is however not held up as one of Robert Duvall's best performances, let alone compared to his other nominees. 

It is to Robert Duvall's credit that he came very close to pushing John Hurt out to third. It is more impressive when you consider that I kept flipping back and forth between Hurt and Robert De Niro for the top spot. Duvall and De Niro in a head-to-head matchup would have been an easy choice: De Niro. What about Hurt and De Niro?

I wavered greatly between Hurt and De Niro. Both are brilliant. Both have stood the test of time. Sometimes I had John Hurt first. Sometimes I had Robert De Niro first. Ultimately, I went with De Niro because of a few reasons. The complaint that John Hurt had the makeup do some of the heavy acting lifting is not an unfair one. I think it helped Hurt's performance. However, that help is a double-edged sword. 

I also thought which one of the two is the one people still remember, still hold up as one of the all-time greats. That goes to De Niro. He transformed completely. It was not just physically, though there is that. De Niro also brought Jake LaMotta's complexity: that rage mixed with regret which made for compelling viewing. People still talk about Robert De Niro in Raging Bull. People do talk about John Hurt in The Elephant Man. 

They just do not talk about it as much as they do about De Niro's performance. 

Robert De Niro should have won Best Actor for Raging Bull over all the other nominees. His Best Actor win stands.

In conclusion, the Academy made the right choice in not awarding Peter O'Toole the Best Actor Oscar on his sixth nomination.