1971

Winner:

When my only goal was to see the Best Picture winners, I did not think much of The French Connection. I was not necessarily looking at the films critically, just watching them to see if I liked them or not. This one is not a bad film, and I suppose I enjoyed it enough, but it is one of the reasons I decided to watch all the nominees, and not just the winners. Surely this was not the best film of 1971, I thought at the time. I watched it again to make sure. It was directed by William Friedkin, whose only other Best Picture nominee was The Exorcist, a film I would argue is better. He won Best Director for his efforts. Nothing about the production is spectacular, despite the technical nominations (it won for editing, and was nominated for cinematography and sound). People point to the car chase scene, but there is now The Fast and the Furious, Part 20 or whatever and this car chase does not stand the test of time. That is hyperbole. At the time I write, that particular franchise has eight films, and plans for two more. My larger point it that the car chase scene so frequently cited as a classic is truly nothing special now. In fact, everything about the story is not so special now. Hell, Netflix does better produced shows about the international drug trade, much better written and produced. But what about this individual story? It is somewhat interesting, but when does that make a Best Picture winner? It is incredibly slow for a crime drama, and nothing about the story is satisfying or really keeps your attention. I have seen better stories done in half the time on network television on a random Tuesday night. Yet it still won an Oscar for the screenplay. So what about the acting? I am sure the performances are good, but nothing about the characters is remotely likable. And if none of the characters appeal to you, why do you care what they do? I’m no fan of Gene Hackman, but that might have less to do with his acting and more to do with the fact he’s the perfect actor to play a gruff, barely likable tough guy. I can’t recall a single sympathetic performance of his, though he somehow won Best Actor for this one. Roy Schneider was nominated for his supporting role and I thought he did the better job, though he was hardly charismatic or energetic. And that’s essentially the problem with the film. The energy feels far too low for a crime drama, except for sporadic moments like the car chase. The first time I saw this, I thought it was one of the weakest winners. Having seen it again to make sure, I think it might be also one of the weakest nominees, though this is an extremely weak year. It certainly didn’t deserve to make the AFI lists of best films and rank as the number eight best thrill on screen. Perhaps it was groundbreaking for the time, but looking back the 1970s would produce countless crime films that equaled this one, many of them B movie afterthoughts.

Nominees:

A Clockwork Orange, the groundbreaking British novel, was first published in America without the final chapter, and that is the version upon which Stanley Kubrick based the film. The last chapter is redemptive, at least somewhat, and that would have made for a different film. Without the last chapter, the film is even more empty and evil wins the day. If that’s the case, what is it trying to say? Kubrick said of the last chapter that it was unconvincing and inconsistent with the rest of the novel. Maybe he has a point. Maybe not. The strength of the novel is inventive use of language to create a sense of space and time, a feat I have only seen matched to this degree once since, with Trainspotting, the Irvine Welsh novel turned film that speaks to a similarly hopeless world. The film does a superb job of capturing the language, but that’s no credit to the film, since at least in this aspect only had to stand out of its own way to tell the story. It has an incredible sense of voice, but it is borrowed. As for the rest of the story, I don’t think the film effectively or clearly addresses the social issues attributed to the novel, yet it was rightfully nominated for the screenplay. Like every Kubrick film, it contains memorable scenes and lines, though in this case very violent ones. The film is shocking even by today’s standards and would likely receive a similar rating, or should. Like every Kubrick film, it also loses momentum and lags once it gets going. As for the production, Kubrick did his usual excellent job and was nominated for Best Director. Particularly the classical score makes the film. I’m not sure it would have worked without it. It’s a bit surprising the film didn’t receive more technical nominations, but it did receive one for editing. The acting is solid, but the characters were supposed to be teenagers and were not believable that way. Still, Malcolm McDowell is iconic in his role. Rightfully, the film should be considered a classic of the 1970s, but probably not as high as people think, and it certainly has its weaknesses. Perhaps it’s more of a cult classic than an actual classic. But you could also argue it was the best of the nominees this year.

Fiddler on the Roof was an adaptation of a Broadway musical that was at the time the longest running musical in history. Musicals, perhaps by nature, include long scenes unnecessary to the basic telling of the story on a basic level. Hence the question must be asked, do these scenes improve the storytelling? The primary reason I do not automatically like musicals is that the music is not very good, and therefore does not add to the storytelling. Perhaps this is because I love good music as much as I love good film. Bad music or bad movies do not cut it for me, and when they are combined, the music often detracts from the movie. That being said, this is a very good story, bringing alive the plight of the Jewish people in Czarist Russia as well as making their everyday lives human, at times very beautiful, at times very humorous, and at times quite devastating. Some of the scenes express powerful emotions beautifully, such as when the one daughter leaves for Siberia to be with her husband and says goodbye to her father. The humor is often clever as well, and the overall energy is superb, except for when it more than occasionally bogs down. Almost immediately, it’s apparent some scenes could have unfolded more quickly. It’s a half hour before you even see trouble brewing on the horizon for the Jewish community. Most scenes could have unfolded faster. The wedding scene is a prime example. The songs and choreography are often memorable (“Matchmaker, Matchmaker” and “If I Were a Rich Man” for example), though sometimes they are forgettable. The background music was done by John Williams, and rightfully deserved an Academy award. The fiddler is one of the best parts of the film. The film was directed by Norman Jewison, who was nominated for Best Director. I would argue this is his best film, though I’m not too enthusiastic about making that argument. The film won for cinematography, which was solid even if not quite spectacular, and sound. It was also nominated for art direction. The actors were all chosen well and do a superb job of bringing the story to life. Leonard Frey and Chain Topol received Oscar nominations but did not win, and Chaim Topol was likely the most deserving. His narration was superb at framing the story. In the end, a very good movie emerges, though some of the unnecessary parts might have been trimmed to make it better. It is highly entertaining and interesting, except for the parts that linger too long. It is well deserving of a Best Picture nomination.

The Last Picture Show is less of a narrative and more of a bleak series of portraits about coming of age in a small, dying Texas town. Nothing of substance happens in the movie but little of substance happens in a town like that anyway. The film was adapted from a semi-autobiographical work by Larry McMurtry and the screenplay was nominated for an Oscar. Ideally, I prefer a stronger narrative, though some of my favorite films have less of a storyline, and it’s not always necessary for a compelling movie, especially a coming of age one. Instead, the appeal with such films is characters who are identifiable. Compared to some films about teenagers, I do not identify with these characters as much. Perhaps I lack the experience of growing up in a small, hopeless town. I might say part of it is because these are not adolescents of my generation, but if you consider the matter, coming of age stories usually stand the test of time since the concerns are universal, making your way in a world that seems much more unyielding than your life as you once knew it, finding a balance between optimism and despair, not fitting in to the demands of the previous generation, and so forth. What sets this apart from other coming of age stories, and makes it either harder or easier to like, is that most similar films have humor in them and this one is simply bleak. It lacks even a semblance of a happy ending, or at least some witty aphorism for a finale. I don’t like to quote from other reviewers but Roger Ebert summed it up perfectly. “It is about a town with no reason to exist,” he wrote, “and people with no reason to live there. The only hope is transgression.” The story is not especially compelling for its genre, when you reflect upon its larger meaning. And if you nominated a film based on its story alone, unless you should reward brutal reality, the film should not be nominated. But… the production is splendid. It was directed by Peter Bogdanovich, and he was nominated for Best Director for only his second film. While he would go on to have a critically acclaimed career, he would never again make a film that would be nominated for Best Picture or really stand the test of time. Black and white was precisely the right choice for the intended mood, and the lighting is impeccable. It was rightfully nominated for the cinematography and perhaps should have won. I would have changed up the soundtrack, however. I do appreciate Hank Williams, but his songs very much blend into one. It feels like one is on loop for the entire film. Besides the immaculate production, the acting is impeccable. The film won awards for both Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress (Ben Johnson and Cloris Leachman), had two additional people nominated in the categories (Jeff Bridges and Ellen Burstyn), and you could still argue the best supporting roles in the film were not even nominated. The cast was full of people who would go on to have distinguished careers. The film is rightfully a Best Picture nominee. When you have such technical brilliance, it deserves to be mentioned among the year’s best. But the story has limited appeal, and that keeps it from being a classic.

Nicholas and Alexandra is the story of the Russian monarchs at the end of the Romanov Dynasty. The true story of the last years of the Romanov Dynasty and the Russian Revolution is rich and fascinating. This film largely fails to capture any semblance of the appeal. There’s a good story in there somewhere, but the script includes too many needless scenes and lingers far too long on them. It’s hard to believe this was directed by the same person, Franklin J. Schaffner, as Patton the previous year (though to be fair, he also did a film as completely different as the original Planet of the Apes). They are both similar in length, and both about intriguing subjects, but one is interesting and the other is not. To be fair, it is an exquisite period piece and the production is generally outstanding. It won Academy Awards for art direction and costume design, and those were good choices. It was nominated for cinematography and score as well. The ensemble acting is generally good, but no performance stands out and carries the film, even though Janet Suzman was nominated for Best Actress as Alexandra. Most films of the era have a credited cast of less than a dozen. This one had dozens. In the end, some of the parts are quite good, but the whole is lacking. While it is not truly awful and undeserving of even a nomination, it is a borderline Oscar candidate at very best, and that is a stretch. In the end, despite the generally excellent production, I’ve seen documentaries on the events that tell a more compelling story. Essentially, it feels like a very beautiful movie that was made for television.

Other notable films - McCabe & Mrs. Miller holds the distinction of being the only Robert Altman film I have ever enjoyed, but what a magnificently produced film, and a fascinating story that is also unique. It absolutely belongs on the list this year. I enjoyed it better than the actual winner. / Summer of ’42 is a coming of age story set on Nantucket in WWII about young teenage boys discovering the opposite sex one summer. It starts out and spends a lot of time being a bit hokey and has some outdated masculinity but ends up being universally beautiful. The production is often beautiful, especially the cinematography and score, the latter of which won an Oscar.

Top Five: A Clockwork Orange, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, Summer of ’42. Fiddler on the Roof, The Last Picture Show