Skip to main content

Mr Denby, I'm not ignorant, and I'm not selling my land. And I'm not giving my children over to anyone else to raise.

Places in the Heart
(1984)

(SPOILERS) The one that’s more famous for Sally Field’s Oscar acceptance speech than the film itself. Which is to say, despite its Best Picture Oscar nomination, I suspect few really loved Places in the Heart, they didn’t really love Places in the Heart. It’s a slight, pleasant American period (Great Depression era) picture that contrives to put forward an “It’ll be alright” homespun, righteous quality, despite the horrors going on at its fringes. Which can be affecting when done well (The Shawshank Redemption), but here, it tends to wither in the face of a lack of real backbone.

That’s a tendency with Robert Benton’s films, though, most noteworthy when there’s a strong character at the centre (Kramer vs Kramer, Nobody’s Fool), but too often slightly stolid. Field, as Places in the Heart’s steadfast widow Edna Spalding, resolute that she won’t lose her house and family, and operating as an institution for outsiders or the disenfranchised (Danny Glover’s drifter Moses, John Malkovich’s blind veteran Mr Will), is fine but so wholesome she’d be shoe-in for permanent residence on Walton’s mountain.

Accordingly, there’s much more life to be found in Glover and Malkovich’s supporting roles. They’re very much playing types – thief with a heart of gold, recluse who thaws out when confronted by a family – but succeed in breathing life into the familiar. Pauline Kael caustically suggested “Benton has conceived Mr Will as if blindness purified him and drove out ordinary faults; blackness does the same for Moses”. There’s something in that, but nevertheless, the actors make the parts compelling. Faring less well are the redundant extended family members (Ed Harris, Lindsay Crouse, Amy Madigan, Terry O’Quinn), fine performers all, but given subplots that fail to amount to very much and only mildly stir any interest, if they’re lucky (Crouse and Malkovich were both Academy Award nominated for their efforts).

The main thrust of the plot finds Edna attempting to grow and pick a cotton crop to prevent foreclosure by the bank, in the face of a tornado and assorted naysayers. Naturally, she prevails. Cynicism duly stated, there are nevertheless a couple of curious elements here, for a picture that’s so undilutedly “nice” (how could it be otherwise with Field starring, though Jessica Lange was apparently the first choice). The opening, where Edna’s husband (Ray Baker) is accidentally shot by drunk black boy Wylie (De’voreaux White, later Argyle in Die Hard), subsequently sees vigilante justice enacted; Wylie is tied to a truck and dragged behind it, his body then hanged. Later, Klansmen attempt to lynch Moses. In another film, Edna might have been required to stand up to this, but Benton has her seeing but oblivious – or too focused on her grief – in the first instance, and wisely resisting speechifying in the second (Moses elects to leave the farm, as he knows this will not be the end of it).

Then there’s the symbolic ending, which with the presence of O’Quinn, and the gathering of the living and the dead, in a church, was surely an influence at some point – possibly a very desperate point – on Damon Lindelof. Virtue and essential goodness are eternal and blessing awaits us all, or at least those of us exhibiting such qualities, in the beyond. An appealing sentiment, but still a little odd to find it so blatantly bannered across the final scene. Talking of bannering, the poster was always one that struck me; in combination with the thematically portentous title, it’s far more evocative than the actual picture.

Places in the Heart was evidently a labour of love for Benton, based on his great grandmother’s experiences, whose husband was also shot, and it’s a thoroughly decent, high-minded affair, which is surely why Kael suggested “All it lacks is Lassie”. Did it stand a chance at winning Best Picture? Not with Amadeus and The Killing Fields in the running (against A Passage to India and A Soldier’s Story, possibly more of a shot). As for Field, she was probably as good a winner as any that year, although I suspect, had A Passage to India really been David Lean’s last great hurrah, rather than slightly disappointing, Judy Davis would have been duly recognised.

Out of seven nominations, Places in the Heart won two statuettes, the other being for Benton’s screenplay (his fourth writing nomination out of five, and his second win in that field); it was a year with some curious possibles for scripting (Beverly Hills Cop surely coasted on Murphy’s improv, not the screenplay, while Splash deserved its nod, but still represents something of an outlier). The film is destined to rank as one of those half-remembered nominees, more engaging for revisiting a cast who have gone on to more illustrious things than its somewhat staid storytelling.


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.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

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…

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.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

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

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

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.