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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

It looks like we’ve got another schizoid embolism!

Total Recall (1990)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven offered his post-mortem on the failures of the remakes of Total Recall (2012) and Robocop (2013) when he suggested “They take these absurd stories and make them too serious”. There may be something in this, but I suspect the kernel of their issues is simply filmmakers without either the smarts or vision, or both, to make something distinctive from the material. No one would have suggested the problem with David Cronenberg’s prospective Total Recall was over-seriousness, yet his version would have been far from a quip-heavy Raiders of the Lost Ark Go to Mars (as he attributes screenwriter Ron Shusset’s take on the material). Indeed, I’d go as far as saying not only the star, but also the director of Total Recall (1990) were miscast, making it something of a miracle it works to the extent it does.

How do you like that – Cuddles knew all the time!

The Pleasure Garden (1925)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s first credit as director, and his account of the production difficulties, as related to Francois Truffaut, is by and large more pleasurable than The Pleasure Garden itself. The Italian location shoot in involved the confiscation of undeclared film stock, having to recast a key role and borrowing money from the star when Hitch ran out of the stuff.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

I’m not the Jedi I should be.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005)
(SPOILERS) Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is the only series entry (thus far) I haven’t seen at the cinema. After the first two prequels I felt no great urgency, and it isn’t an omission I’d be hugely disposed to redress for (say) a 12-hour movie marathon, were such a thing held in my vicinity. In the bare bones of Revenge of the Sith, however,George Lucas has probably the strongest, most confident of all Star Wars plots to date.

This is, after all, the reason we have the prequels in the first place; the genesis of Darth Vader, and the confrontation between Anakin and Obi Wan. That it ends up as a no more than middling movie is mostly due to Lucas’ gluttonous appetite for CGI (continuing reference to its corruptive influence is, alas, unavoidable here). But Episode III is also Exhibit A in a fundamental failure of casting and character work; this was the last chance to give Anakin Skywalker substance, to reveal his potential …

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.

I think the exorcism made the problem worse.

Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)
(SPOILERS) While I’ve seen instalments the originaland III a number of times, until now I hadn’t got round to checking out the near-universally reviled first Exorcist sequel. Going in, I had lofty notions Exorcist II: The Heretic would reveal itself as not nearly the travesty everyone said it was, that it would rather be deserving of some degree of praise if only it was approached in the right manner. Well, there is something to that; as a sequel to The Exorcist, it sneers at preconceptions right off the bat by wholly failing to terrify, so making its determined existence within the fabric of that film becomes downright bizarre (the relationship is almost like Back to the Future Part II to Back to the Future, but not). Further still, it warrants a twisted validation for being its own thing, refusing to rehash its predecessor like 90% of sequels, then and now, thus exerting fascination all its own. Unfortunately, John Boorman’s film is also equal parts lis…