In which I go all gooey over Scottish films

Captain's Log: 13 February
Last movie watched: Doubt (Um. Ummm. All I'll say is if you want to make it ambiguous as to whether a character has committed sexual assault, you might want to pay more attention to casting. Or maybe that was what they were going for.)
Song currently in head: Every Day and Every Night, or whatever it's really called, by Bob Marley.

The Writers Guild of America awards were announced in the last few days, which is exceptionally convenient, seeing as today's oblog is brought to you by the awards for Original Screenplay and Adapted Screenplay. There doesn't seem to be any outright winner so far, although the WGA winners were Milk (original) and Slumdog Millionaire (adapted). I still like WALL*E for original screenplay, because I'm intrigued by screenplays that depict action with little dialogue. Not to say I don't like the dialogue. Because I'm also intrigued by In Bruges' dialogue (still have to see this one). I'd say Slumdog has the best chance for adapted screenplay, and that's just fine with me. But the rest is up for grabs, which makes it kind of exciting.

I've been reading about this category, and apparently there was this massive kerfuffle when Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet (or should that be Kenneth Branagh's William Shakespeare's Hamlet?) was nominated for Adapted Screenplay, because some thought all he had done was put William Shakespeare's words on screen. Well I am here to side with Roger Ebert in defending this, because it's much more than that. It's visual, character depiction, timing -- there's a whole essay to be written on the topic of whether or not Ophelia was present during the "To Be or Not To Be" speech. And come ON, have you seen that scene? It's gorgeous.

Ahem.

Sooo. Films of the 1990s. I did well here too - I only have to see Unforgiven to complete the decade! We'll start, in the words of Julie Andrews, at the very beginning.

1990's Dances With Wolves is not only long, it's the last time Kevin Costner was taken seriously. Too harsh? Probably. He wasn't half bad in Mr Brooks. Ok, back to the point. This was Costner's masterpiece, about a Civil War lieutenant (question: why does this word get pronounced "left-tenant"? Why?) who travels to a remote military post and befriends the Native Americans. And then...whoa! Crazy officers, scalping, awesome nicknames, gorgeous-as-all-get-out animals, and then DEATH! DEATH! DEATH! And not of people! Talk about disturbing. There's apparently a sequal being planned, with Viggo Mortensen rumoured to take on the role of Dunbar. The soundtrack was also reportedly Pope John Paul 2nd's favourite piece of music. Talk about your recommendations.

He didn't say it, but I suspect that 1991's The Silence of the Lambs was the Pope's favourite movie. Probably. The last movie so far to win the Big Five Oscars, and Anthony Hopkins' performance is the shortest ever to win a Leading Actor Oscar (at just over 16 minutes on screen). It's also awesome. My favourite bit of trivia surrounding this film is to do with how Hopkins fashioned the voice of LEcter, apparently based on Truman Capote and (this is the good bit) Katharine Hepburn. Dunn!! I bet she'd be pleased. Probably.

Wait! Wait! I've just found a piece of trivia to match it:

The first moth cocoon found in one of the victim's throats was made from a combination of "Tootsie-Rolls" and gummy bears, so that if she swallowed it, it would be edible.

Man, somebody missed a marketing strategy just begging to be used.


Next! The last film shot in black and white (ok, and a tiny bit of red) to win Best Picture, it's Schindler's List, 1993. Feels a long time ago now. And there's very little that's funny that I can relate about this one. Unless it's the fact that I gave a speech once about how Steven Spielberg doesn't use sex scenes in his films (as a rule) and SOMEONE piped up that there's a sex scene in Schindler's List. Thanks ever so much. So what's it about? Oskar Schindler, to be brief, who risked his fortune and life to save the lives of Jews during the Holocaust by giving them employment. It was Spielberg's first directing Oscar, and it was absolutely right that he did win. He took no salary, and reportedly often found shooting days overwhelming. Also, it turns out Robin Williams used to call him up each day to cheer him up. Aw.

1994's Forrest Gump coined many a phrase, none more annoyingly-utilised than "Run, Forrest! Run!" And who among us hasn't used it? I visited the Bubba Gump Shrimp Corp. in New York, which is a restaurant, in case you were wondering, and they had signs on the tables saying either "Run, Forrest! Run!" or "Stop, Forrest! Stop!", depending on whether you wanted the waiter's attention or not. Anyway, back to the film. Apparently there are a lot of people who thought it was rubbish. I never heard any of that at the time. There's a lot of guff on the web about whether it's "pop propaganda" or "very sweet", but I don't see why it can't just be simpler than that. It's a good film. I liked it a lot. And Tom Hanks was amazing in it. Yes, it knocked The Shawshank Redemption out of the Oscars, but that's just how things go. This film was also the basis for my love for Gary Sinise, and his scene on the hospital floor is just about as good as you're ever going to see. There's one piece of trivia that says a studio (*cough*warnerbros*cough*) gave up the rights to this film because they thought the premise had already been exhausted in Rain Man. I hate studios for this reason.

Last but by no means least, it's 1995's Braveheart, and while just about all of it is different to what actually happened (and "Braveheart" itself is a reference to Robert the Bruce, not William Wallace), I still love it, for the music, the spectacle, the scenery and the major theme, which never fails to make me well up, being that of a brave fight for freedom against mountainous odds. For those of you who don't know (honestly), it's the story of William Wallace, a Scotsman who led the Scottish people in a war against the British, which was at the time attempting to clear Scotland of the Scots, and to keep it under the cruel thumb of King Edward 1 of England (by many accounts a great King for England, but a crappy King for Scotland). It's about the individual's right to freedom, to the basic human rights of life, love and justice, and the strength it takes to stand up to oppression, when bending is the easiest thing to do. A bit of trivia I've probably mentioned before, because I love it, is that Edward 1 demanded that his body, once deceased, be taken to Stirling castle and buried as a claim to the land as his own. His son, Edward 2 (the sequal) obeyed in as much as he took his father's bones most of the way, but somewhere near the border they were lost forever. I should probably note that this was told to me by a Scotsman, who while lovely and part of my favourite people in the world, has been known to tell a porky or two.

There's also controversy about a particular statue that has been erected at the base of the hill which holds the original Wallace monument (7 feet tall, just like the man himself). This second statue is of Mel Gibson as Wallace, and has the word "Freedom" inscribed at its base. It has not been popular and, well, you can see why. However, I will say this. It was commissioned by a man who was in hospital with what was thought to be a terminal illness, and he says that the film and its message of hope and strength is what got him through, and so he had the statue made to commemorate this. So I salute the sentiment, if not the actual statue.

Ok folks, I think that's about all I've got for tonight. Go see a movie.

Toodles!

"In the Year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland - starving and outnumbered - charged the fields of Bannockburn. They fought like warrior poets; they fought like Scotsmen, and won their freedom."
YEAH!
--- Angus Macfadyen, Braveheart ---