Recommendations for nominated films 1970-1990

[Eric]

Ha, I bet "bloc" was a misspelling.

[Mister Tee]

Damien, did you ever read Films in Review, the magazine associated with NBR? Their annual Oscar articles (by a guy named N. C. Chalmers) and summation of the NBR choices (by Hart, I believe) were often hilarious reactionary.

Those Oscae wrap-ups were mind-boggling. There were a few comments Mason and I wanted to include in Inside Oscar, but our editor deemed them too outre and offensive. The only one I recall is Gene Pitney, singing the great "Town Without Pity" being referred to as "a hopped-up Harlem hillbilly."

I recall that in his otherwise negative review of Death In Venice, Henry Hart praised Sylvana Mangano's performance as Tadzio's mother because (paraphrasing) "she was very convincing as one of those women who turn their sons homosexual."

One that sticks in my mind was the take on Jose Feliciano's rendition of "The Windmills of Your Mind" -- (also paraphrasing) "He caterwauls in such fashion as to make it difficult to sympathize with his affliction".

I'd found bound volumes of the magazine in the NU library, and read all the articles back to '51 (and, while they were hilariously off-base, especially as we got to the turbulent 60s, they did provide alot more info than anything else that was available at the time -- i.e., pre-Inside Oscar). The awards show for '71 was the first I read in real time; I eagerly looked forward to their backward take, amd they didn't disappoint -- saying Isaac Hayes' win showed the dangers of "bloc-voting" (hmm...what bloc is that?); prefacing Jane Fonda's win with "I regret to announce the best actress award went to..."; and proclaiming Nicholas and Alexandra "the only nominee even close to an artistic whole".

I think they dropped Chalmers shortly after that, which was a shame; he was to film criticism what Bill Kristol is to political punditry -- so consistently wrong it takes your breath away.

[Damien]

Damien, did you ever read Films in Review, the magazine associated with NBR? Their annual Oscar articles (by a guy named N. C. Chalmers) and summation of the NBR choices (by Hart, I believe) were often hilarious reactionary.

Those Oscae wrap-ups were mind-boggling. There were a few comments Mason and I wanted to include in Inside Oscar, but our editor deemed them too outre and offensive. The only one I recall is Gene Pitney, singing the great "Town Without Pity" being referred to as "a hopped-up Harlem hillbilly."

I recall that in his otherwise negative review of Death In Venice, Henry Hart praised Sylvana Mangano's performance as Tadzio's mother because (paraphrasing) "she was very convincing as one of those women who turn their sons homosexual."

[Reza]

Damien, did you ever read Films in Review, the magazine associated with NBR?

The career articles were always very good.....at a time when there was no internet.

[Mister Tee]

Since dws asked about 1776/the play-the movie, my recollection of its trajectory:

The musical came essentially from nowhere, opening on Broadway in early '69 to critical raves after little advance fanfare. Peter Stone was the only big name associated with it, and his more famous credits were still to come. The score was basically undistinguished (a phrase you'll never hear is "A medley from 1776"), but the book was considered quite strong, and pertinent to the times. All the publicity sold the show not as stodgy colonial-recreation, but as evidence that our founding fathers were a bunch of foresighted radicals, not unlike the folks wreaking daily havoc on college campuses. This latter element is what put the show over with hipster New Yorkers, while the patriotic themes (and the Tonys) helped sell it to tourists.

It's true that the cultural changes of the late 60s/early 70s made once-trendy shows go moldy -- Hello, Dolly!, the toast of the town in '64, couldn't have felt more antedeluvian by '69. But I think in the case of 1776, the mere fact of putting it on the screen, in those awkward period costumes, made it feel inherently old-fart-ier, and having a director who didn't seem to know how to tone down the performances to screen-level double-underlined all the flaws. There's a tendency, when a transfer from the theatre doesn't work, to assume that either the play was too inherently theatrical to work on screen, or simply never that good to begin with. But I think a bad job of directing can sabotage a work beyond reclamation. I'm not saying those who hated 1776 on screen would necessarily have liked it onstage, but I would say you shouldn't assume the screen version is the final word.

Damien, did you ever read Films in Review, the magazine associated with NBR? Their annual Oscar articles (by a guy named N. C. Chalmers) and summation of the NBR choices (by Hart, I believe) were often hilarious reactionary.

[Big Magilla]

On the other hand, Attenborough did give us the brilliant anti-war musical, Oh! What a Lovely War which he should be compelled to see every time he sets out to make a new film to be reminded how good he once was.

[Damien]

I can't think of a more stilted adaptation of a musical.

Attenbourough's A Chorus Line certainly bears mention here.

Didn't see it. Sitting through Gandhi was the end of the line with Sir Richard for me.

[flipp525]

I can't think of a more stilted adaptation of a musical.

Attenbourough's A Chorus Line certainly bears mention here.

[Eric]

Oh make no mistake, I think the National Board of Review is easily the least distinguished of the "big four" critics' groups and hesitate to even give them the distinction of being mentioned in the same company as the NYFCC or the NSoFC, even today. (That said, their general stodginess still gives me hope that the deca-slate for Oscar best pictures in the future will hold pleasant surprises. After all, somehow the NBoR found room for both A.I. and Mulholland Drive in their 2001 top 10.)

[Big Magilla]

The only thing the National Board of Review has really ever had going for it is that they are usually the first to announce. Their picks in that era were a mixed bag. Their 1967 and 1968 Best Picture picks, Far From the Madding Crowd and The Shoes of the Fisherman were atrocious choices. Their 1969 best director award to Hitchcock for Topaz, his least impressive film in twenty years, was disheartening to say the least.

On the other hand they were the first to draw attention to such charmers as Ring of Bright Water (1969) and Kes (1970).

Their 1972 list, issued 12/14/72, except for the godawful Man of La Mancha, was actually quite decent: Cabaret; Man of La Mancha; The Godfather; Sounder; 1776; The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds; Deliverance; The Ruling Class; The Candidate; Frenzy. Foreign films: The Sorrow and the Pity; The Emigrants; The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie; Chloe in the Afternoon; Uncle Vanya.

The 12/27/72 National Society of Film Critics announced winner: The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie.

The 1/3/73 New York Film Critics announced winner: Cries and Whispers.

The 1/16/73 announced Golden Globe nominees for Best Comedy or Musical: Avanti!; Cabaret (winner); Butterflies Are Free; 1776; Travels With My Aunt. Drama: Deliverance; Frenzy; The Godfather (winner); The Poseidon Adventure; Sleuth. Foreign: Cries and Whispers; The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie; The Emigrants (winner); Fellini's Roma; Mirage.

The Globes showed good sense in ignoring Man of La Mancha as a nominee for Best Comedy or Musical Picture, but for some unfathomable reason nominated James Coco's Sancho Panza for Best Supporting Actor, a performance so awful it makes Howard Da Silva's Benjamin Franklin in 1776 look like Gielgud performing Hamlet.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1246881352

[Damien]

I didn't see 1776 upon its first release, but caught up with it four years later when it was brought back to Radio City as part of the Bicentennial celebration,

I loved the Broadway musical -- I had asked for tickets as my Big present for my graduation from grammar school -- but the movie is atrocious. I can't think of a more stilted adaptation of a musical. My recollection is like Tee's -- that the reviews were mostly negative, although I think the film was primarily relegated by critics to the realm of the irrelevant. And it didn't make any money.

I agree with Tee that the reason for the Cinematography nomination was the Stradling name -- the Cinematography branch back then was the biggest Old Boys Network the Academy had (Charles B. Lang, who was a great cinematographer in the 40s and 50s at Paramount received a nomination the same year as Stradling, Jr. for the utterly undistinguished Butterflies Are Free.)

As I recall, the cinematography for 1776 was very (inappropriately) soft-focused, a style that many found impressive back then. (And as much as I love Bound For Glory, God how I hate Haskell Wexler's Oscar-winning photography in that film.)

Daniel, don't look to the National Board of Review in that period as being at all representative of early 1970s critical thinking. They were dominated by their head, a political, aesthetic and social reactionary named Henry Hart, and despite the Board's liberal humanism reputation, their lists pretty much follow his way of thinking.

I think Canby's review of 1776 is hilarious -- He was such a wonderful wordsmith. (It's limked to 1776 on IMDb) although, Daniel, your critique of Howard Da Silva's performance tops Canby.

[dws1982]

The most striking thing about 1776 to me was how retro it must've seemed in 1972. I know the musical was from 1969, but the movie itself seems like something that would've seemed at home in 1963, but as a movie from the 70's, from the same year of The Godfather and Cabaret (movies in long-established genres, but faraway from the old-school sensibility of 1776) it looks like an archaism.

The other striking thing was Howard Da Silva's perfromance, which was a disturbingly real approximation of those animatronic historical figures you see at Disney World and other amusement parks.

[Mister Tee]

Not that it rates around here, but Pauline Kael loathed it. I may be mainly remembering what the critics I most respected thought. (At the time, I'd never even heard of Maltin) All I can say is, nothing I read made me feel like I needed to see the film...and I DID see La Mancha in theatres. (I finally saw 1776 later on TV, and thought it deadly -- this despite liking it okay onstage)

Eric, as you probably can see from perusing their lists, NBR was even more hopelessly out of the critical mainstream then than it is now. No group was more supportive of the dying Hollywood white elephant establishment than they.

[Eric]

It was #5 on the National Board of Review list that year, which means it was pretty well liked among a certain mindset. (Of course, Man of La Mancha was #2 on the same list.)

[Big Magilla]

By the way, Magilla, my recollection would be a bit different from yours. It was impression most of the critics despised 1776 (the movie; the play was obviously a critical sensation).

Sourpuss Canby, who didn't see it on stage, panned it in the Times referring to the music as "something written by someone high on root beer" but other critics were kinder. Ebert, for example, gave it ***1/2, Maltin ***.

I can't find any other contemporaneous reviews, but I recall the film as being generally well received unlike Man of La Mancha which was severely and rightfully trounced.