Skip to main content

Not only am I ain’t building no shapel, I’m taking off.

Lilies of the Field
(1963)

(SPOILERS) Watching a string of Best Picture nominees in succession, the proportion of sweetly good-natured films, ones designed to appeal to the Academy’s sentimental and nostalgic side (even if not necessarily nostalgic for a prior time period, but rather for an impossible-to-realise state of being), can be striking. You couldn’t exactly accuse Lilies of the Field of being custom fitted for such a purpose, since director Ralph Nelson was forced to put up his house as collateral to get it made, but taken on face value, it would be easy to assume otherwise.

Lilies of the Field’s place in the history books is assured due to Sidney Poitier winning the Best Actor Oscar, the first black actor to do so, and as such about as symbolic a Hollywood wall to break down as they come (particularly since the only previous black actor recognised was Hattie McDaniel’s Best Supporting Actress for Gone with the Wind, playing a reinforced stereotype in a less than progressive affair). Poitier gives a very naturalistic, sympathetic performance, his itinerant ex-army handyman contrasting effectively with Lilia Skala’s domineering Mother Maria. You might reasonably suggest there’s nothing very remarkable about the character or his playing thereof, but it’s difficult to argue such an award wasn’t a long time coming, and so difficult to begrudge that Richard Harris’ performance in This Sporting Life was easily the most impressive of those nominated that year. Paul Newman (up for Hud) certainly thought Poitier should take it: “I’d like to see Sidney Poitier get it. I’d be proud to win for a role I really had to reach for”. Skala was nominated for Best Supporting Actress, meanwhile, and with the three Tom Jones nominees lost to Margaret Rutherford. But how could one possibly be upset at losing to Margaret Rutherford?

The amiably rambling plot finds Poitier’s Homer Smith called upon to build a church in the Arizona desert for a group of Germanic nuns (well, German, Austrian and Hungarian). Mother Maria is rather haughty/imperious, while Homer is easy going except when provoked; despite being hoodwinked into providing his services for free, he perseveres with the sisters. Indeed, this element of the plot, while played for amusement, presents good Christian espousers of virtue and correct living as deceitful charlatans, allowing a diligent fellow to think he’s going to be rightfully – monetarily – rewarded for his services. And then guilt tripping him into continuing to offer them, gratis. Why, it’s tantamount to a church fleecing its congregation for a weekly tithe (the title references wily Mother Maria citing biblical passages in order to justify her lack of payment).

As noted, Homer, despite this mistreatment and Mother Maria failing to thank him (until right at the end, naturally, where respect is due), continues to labour for the nuns, and teach them English and lead them in gospel choruses (not sung by the tone-deaf Poitier). Still, for all Mother Maria’s air of superiority and rectitude, there’s never a hint of her seeing him in terms of the colour of his skin, despite his intimations otherwise – “Well, you get yourself another boy, huh?” – whereas the local construction contractor (played by the Nelson), also employing him, evidently does. Along the way to the chapel’s completion, Homer takes off for three weeks before returning, a sense of pride in his work kicking in; he spurns the help of Mexican labourers because he wants to complete the project himself (eventually a compromise is reached whereby he acts as foreman).

Perhaps because of its well-meaning Christian undertones, and because you do still see this kind of fare these days, just without such obvious religiosity unless it comes from an actual faith-based production house, Lilies of the Field hasn’t aged badly for the kind of tale it is. It lacks the vibrancy of the year’s bawdy winner Tom Jones, but it’s also poles apart from the over-extended, spectacular stodge of two of the other nominees – Cleopatra and How the West was Won – recognised for their expense more than their quality. An early example of an independent movie embraced by the Academy, Lilies of the Field can probably also be traced to the beginning of Poitier’s typecasting phase, where a rigidly responsible veneer was required of his parts. Poitier later said “The only real change in my career was in the attitude of newsmen. They started to quiz me on civil rights and the Negro question incessantly. Since I won the Oscar, that’s what they’ve been interested in”. For a while, that “spokesman” mantle was also Hollywood’s main claim on his talents. In Lilies of the Field at least, he’s able to have a little fun with such a role.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism