Tom Jones (1963) - Worst Best Picture ever?

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 5:17pm

Watching it now, and I haven't seen it since I was in college. It didn't work for me then. Not funny, horrible production values (some of the worst lighting, editing, and dialogue looping you will ever see, short of a "Johnny Sokko" marathon).

Seeing it for the second time today (in HD off of TCM) ... and my disdain for it has only increased.

How the HELL did this win anything other than a Razzie Award (which could only be given retroactively now)?

Many people talk about how funny it is, what a great "parody." It's neither funny, nor a parody (with the exception of Hugh Griffith and Edith Evans's farcical performances).

Seriously, what were they smoking or drinking or both in 1963 when this won the top award?

Updated On: 3/8/14 at 05:17 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 5:38pm

I'll have to watch it again, after reading your post. I remember really liking it as a young teen, but back then I didn't know the works of Osbourne or Richardson, and hadn't had to read the endless novel for university. I liked the anachronistic aspects...

It can't be worse than the stylistic followup adaptation of Moll Flanders with Kim Novak and Angela Lansbury which I recently watched (most of.)

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 5:49pm

I'm genuinely dumbfounded by this movie.

There are a few, scant moments that do feel like "intelligent parody" or even "unintelligent parody." Most of it is played as a straightforward comedy (a BAD one), sometimes dramatic, too. Sometimes just god-awfully bad. Mostly that.

But it never has a consistent tone that is really necessary for a farce or parody.

It also has some of the most brutal, ugly scenes with animals, including a very bloody deer hunt, a dog with beer thrown in its face (so funny, right?), a****fight (rooster fight), farm animals being kicked aside, horses spurred until they bleed, etc.

Even dead animals get abused, like that dinner scene where Albert Finney and his wench devour legs of lamb, etc. Hah! Hah! Hah!

Hilarious stuff! You know, for laughs.

Who am I supposed to like in this movie? I wish Sweeney Todd would enter in and grind them all into meat pies. They all deserve to die.

Seriously terrible movie, in all respects.

Updated On: 3/8/14 at 05:49 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 6:06pm

This is not meant to be an excuse for what you hate about the movie--but have you read the book?

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 6:13pm

No, I haven't read it. Maybe it would help. But it won't help the horrible, choppy direction, editing, cinematography, bad looping, etc.

I also think this might have been the best marketing campaign ever in the history of the Oscars (including Weinstein) to put this over as a "serious" contender for consideration.

Maybe people were tired of slick, well produced films.

This is the opposite of that. It might as well be a 16mm educational film shown in classrooms. Same production values.

Updated On: 3/8/14 at 06:13 PM

[strummergirl]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 6:49pm

Somebody explained to me what was in the Academy's mindset to award that film at that time. To the Academy, this is what a 'New Wave' film looked like to the Academy, in the way old people must think the youth of today are like and threw that movement a bone. I haven't seen it. There are surely much better Richardsons that are just better in quality and much more cinematically daring. Tony Richardson had just done A Taste of Honey and Loneliness of a Long Distance Runner so he had built up a lot of critical backing just on the festival circuit at the time.

I have to imagine at the time that of the competition, it seemed more consensus-leaning too.

The nominees:
America, America
Cleopatra
Lillies of the Field
How the West Was Won

Cleopatra was too much of a controversial, lightning rod due to it being far over-budget (put Cleopatra's budget into inflation for 2014 numbers, it is more expensive than Avatar) and Burton and Taylor made a scandal that I am sure angered quite a bit of Academy members to ever consider it. I actually like the movie but I have to agree with Mankiewicz's original assertion to split the films into two parts. It is clearly made that way.

America, America is another passion project by an equally controversial figure in Elia Kazan. It is also just as long as Cleopatra but despite its on-location shooting, it is in grainy black and white, looking even rougher than the film Kazan was honored with a decade before with On the Waterfront, but this time a cast of unknowns than Kazan's mix of rep players and respected character actors, many of them dubbed with dialogue, and perhaps it was just a miracle this got nominated. It would honestly have been my choice for that year but nothing like it has ever won before or since, unless you want to count The Godfather Part II, but that had stars and a budget.

Lillies of The Field also would've been a nice choice but it seems the consolation prize was Sidney Poitier breaking the color barrier in the Leading Actor category. If you watch his speech, the surprise and excitement of that moment far exceeded any award given out that night. Anne Bancroft couldn't wait to walk Sidney off stage to celebrate. Poitier, was not prepared and I think there seemed to be a strategy for voters. The older crowd is going for the period piece but Poitier is our guy, rather than Albert Finney who seemed to be favored because Tom Jones was winning everything. I love Albert Finney. He should've won something by now but I like that I have no excuse to watch Tom Jones had he won for it.

How the West Was Won is a weird nomination. Dare I say it is an experimental, anthology film but on steroids with an all-star line-up of Western Directors and cast. I have vague memories of watching this. Some work better than most. I guess this is like, 'At least somebody tried it' nomination because I can't find a comparable Best Picture nomination to this. This is the type of picture that goes straight to television, split out.

Updated On: 3/8/14 at 06:49 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 7:01pm

That's a great analysis, Strummergirl. Thanks. It makes sense, too, that the Academy saw this as New Wave cinema and consequently a breath of fresh air. But it's just so clumsy, all around.

It's interesting that 8 1/2 won the Foreign Film Oscar that same year. I could see that up for Best Picture (and even winning) as well, especially if they were looking for something fresh and new.

I also have to remember that while these films came out in 1963, at the very end of that year, Kennedy was assassinated. The Oscars weren't up for a vote until the early spring of 1964, so that might also explain such a "wild" departure. They were looking ahead to the future. Anything nostalgic or status quo might have felt painful at that moment. And the next two Best Pictures were both musicals (My Fair Lady and The Sound of Music), so people really wanted to escape from the conventional real world.

Tom Jones really doesn't hold up (to me). As you say, there are much better examples of New Wave cinema, and as far as a historical parody goes, any Monty Python film is leaps and bounds above Tom Jones. So is "Benny Hill" for that matter.

So is Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, for that matter.

And any Jon Waters film!

Again, thanks for the insight. It does help put this into perspective as I slog through the last half-hour or so.

I will say, the movie picks up whenever Edith Evans and Hugh Griffith are on the screen. And Joan Greenwood (what a delicious speaking voice!) and David Tomlinson (Mr. Banks himself) are also delightful in the dreary surroundings.

Updated On: 3/8/14 at 07:01 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 7:04pm

There definitely was a "hip" factor at the time to having a film based on, arguably, the first classic novel as adapted by the current bad boys of theatre. Richardson and Osbourne were, as I know you know, seen as the start of a new theatrical style, and I have zero doubt that played a part.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 7:06pm

Also, Hud was nominated for a lot of categories, Neal won, Newman nominated, and Melvyn Douglas won. Hud being not nominated for picture is shocking. Martin Ritt managed a director nomination, so what gives?

Also, How the West Was Won beat 8 1/2 for Original Screenplay. : / Just going to assume America, America and Love With a Proper Stranger split votes with Fellini.

The way the nominations are handed out seemed like an age generation war with Hollywood. Nice to see Richard Harris nominated for This Sporting Life but Bobby Darin gets a nomination for the ham-fisted turn as a PTSD Army man in Captain Newman, M.D. Also, Rex Harrison getting a nomination for a film he is not present the whole second half because he played Caesar and Caesar dies, which is a marker by Mankiewicz that this is Film I or Cleopatra and Film II is Cleopatra with Anthony. Guess Rex was already building rep for when he would win for My Fair Lady.

The only shocking thing is that the Stanley Kramer film of that year didn't break the Academy's back for nominations. It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World only got tech nods.


Updated On: 3/8/14 at 07:06 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 7:08pm

I just wish it played more as intended (a "bawdy" parody). It doesn't. I can easily forgive the crappy and choppy production values if it were half as good as a Jon Waters film, or (as I said) Monty Python.

Maybe this was (in a way) the forerunner of both of those.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 7:08pm

I mean back when theatre still meant more to the world at large, and at least critics and the snobs at the Academy, I'm sure it wasn't lost on them that the two men responsible for Look Back in Anger, etc, were contributing an original film (at least original in terms not being just a film based on one of their stage hits.)

Your first post though reminds me how annoyed I am that my cable service still doesn't have TCM in HD...

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 7:10pm

Hud is a MUCH better picture. I've seen it many times. I would pick that over Tom Jones.

And I agree, Stanley Kramer should have had a Best Director nomination for It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, even if the movie wasn't nominated. Speaking of that film, I could see it getting nominated if something like Around the World in 80 Days can win it.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 7:13pm

Eric, I'm guessing all of that advance reputation for Richardson and Osbourne (plus one hell of a marketing campaign) won the Academy over, probably before they had even seen it. Much advance hoopla.

Updated On: 3/8/14 at 07:13 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 7:19pm

It may not be a great or even a very good movie, but I like it. Which is a great deal more than I can say for dozens of movies that have won the best picture oscar.

So I'd have to say no, it's not the worst.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 7:20pm

I agree there--and I also agree that Hud should have won. Oh well, it wouldn't be the last time a film with Larry McMurtry's involvement lost a deserved best pic Oscar.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 7:21pm

You are far from alone, henrik.

Just read the user reviews on IMDb.com. Many people love it.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 7:25pm

I'm far from the biggest Kramer fan (his dramas mostly, Mad Mad Mad World is good fun) but in a year of cinematic excess and really, long, exhausted pictures getting nominated, that one seemed like a much better choice.

Just looking at the year. Some of the 'classics' so to speak, not nominated:

Charade

The Birds

Billy Liar- My goodness, e'er there were the English New Wave film that was 'different' from its competition were to be nominated, this would've been the film

The Great Escape

The Haunting

Jason & The Argonauts

The Servant- Just got to rec the hell out of this because this is brilliant stuff.

Shock Corridor

The Leopard- It did get a costume nod but still not even kudos, imo.

Also, Kurosawa's High & Low and Godard's Contempt, but hey, 8 1/2 got nominated so I am in no position to shade the Academy and their all too tricky voting history in the Foreign Language category.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 7:38pm

The Leopard (which I LOVED) really only got critical plaudits upon re-appraisal. The fact it was such a box office bomb probably hindered its chances too. While the film is actually quite subversive (Kathy Acker has an amazing piece on it) I assume at the time the Academy might have been trying to change their image and thinking an epic period piece was old hat. Or maybe not given the awards in the surrounding years.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 7:51pm

Oh, I know reappraisal for a few of these, Shock Corridor and Fuller specifically, made them the opposite of films to jive with the Academy.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 10:01pm

I have to say, as I continue with my Best Picture journey from start to finish, the 1960s are proving to be a fascinating roller coaster ride. You can feel it in the choices for the top Oscar, with everything from a traditional huge spectacle (like Lawrence of Arabia) to the "new" Tom Jones, and at the end of the decade you get "Oliver!" followed by "Midnight Cowboy."

There was definitely a pull in opposite directions about what "best" meant to people back then.

And with previous decades, you can sense the change and progression as well, but it's more of a smooth arc, rather than pendulum swinging back and forth repeatedly between old and new.

Updated On: 3/8/14 at 10:01 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 10:27pm

I never thought of it that way, but you're completely right. It must have been a big issue--in a way--for the Academy to stay relevant after the collapse of the studio system and the Code.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 10:43pm

The sixties was the craziest decade for these awards and it did not necessarily produce great winners. Just a real perplexing bunch of nominees when you really look at it even for just one year, but then you contextualize it year to year and then it just gets stranger. Each year there seemed to be picks to be a rebuke of the previous year. They seemed a little aware over how much was perceived that they loved musicals, fine in the early 60s, it was the best-selling music, but exhaustive in the latter half of the decade.

In the Midnight Cowboy year alone you had Goldie Hawn winning for Cactus Flower. This was before Lily Tomlin's breakout, and she said by the time she signed up for Nashville in the 70s that she was always seen as Ernestine, so imagine the feeling about Hawn, the Laugh-In alumna winning for Best Supporting Actress before she had shown any real craft.

Julie Christie won for Darling in the year The Sound of Music swept. That does read like not just anoint an up and comer but also make sure it is anybody Julie Andrews winning twice again. Then you have the director for Women in Dunes being nominated for Director that year. There always seems to be the attitude for when an imminent sweep is about to happen that crazy nominations are thrown in the hell of it and that year in particular had some curve balls.

You also have my all-time favorite (or notorious), 'THEY WON FOR THAT?!?!?' honor which was Lee Marvin for Cat Ballou. Oh, Lee. Poor Richard Burton could not catch a break at any point that decade all while he had his best work.

No year of the decade really feels too agreeable. It's all so messy. There definitely felt like there were culture wars within the Academy. I have to imagine the whiplash of 67-68-69 was quite a trip. They still managed to give John Wayne his first Oscar and Katharine Hepburn two (one that she deserved, the one where she tied with Streisand), but goodness.

Updated On: 3/8/14 at 10:43 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 10:57pm

No, I haven't read it. Maybe it would help.

I doubt it would help and I don't know what is wrong with Eric today.

The novel deserves its reputation as (one of?) the first great novels in English and easily holds its own with JOSEPH ANDREWS and VANITY FAIR. But if you already dislike the adaptation, best12, I doubt reading the superb original will make the adaptation seem better.

I haven't seen the movie and, since I value your opinion, have even less desire to see it now.

P.S. to Eric: Words cannot convey my disappointment. :P

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 11:01pm

Oh dear. Keep in mind the course I had was a killer, and we had under a week to read Tom Jones. I remember liking it a lot at first, and then just wishing I could have the whole thing done with. And yet, like I said, I liked the movie. I should re-watch (and if I didn't have 6 other books to read in the next three weeks for term, I would consider re-reading, too.)

Why are you lumping it with Vanity Fair? Just curious since that was considerably later...

[Roscoe]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 11:20pm

The film is a jape, a jest, a lark, a romp. The film represents the end of the British New Wave, which began with John Osborne's Angry Young Man play LOOK BACK IN ANGER, and the sort of films it spawned like SATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAY MORNING, A TASTE OF HONEY, THE ENTERTAINER, and so on -- serious social dramas probing Britain's postwar malaise. In TOM JONES these artists (Osborne, Richardson, Finney, George Devine) decided to kick back and have a laugh.

It gleefully, merrily and delightedly trashes all the clichés of Big Hollywood (and Big British) Costume films -- there's no polish at all, it's all very rough, lots of handheld camerawork and rough editing and location shooting and perhaps rather too blatantly post-dubbed dialogue. I like it a hell of a lot -- good fun from start to finish. That lovely silent film at the beginning, those glorious comic turns from Hugh Griffith and Jack McGowran and Edith Evans (the great moment when she stares down the highwayman) and David Warner and the great Joan Greenwood as Lady Bellaston, with Albert Finney and Susannah York at the height of their respective beauties.

Some of it, to be fair, hasn't aged particularly well. The big mashup of the Inn at Upton, for instance goes on a bit too long (despite that marvelous dinner scene), and the scenes in London feel rather unfocussed -- but it all ends with a big bang, Tom's rescue from Tyburn is good fun, and one of my favorite things in all of world cinema is that glorious moment when Joyce Redman's Mrs. Waters turns to the camera to tell the audience what Squire Allworthy is saying to Mr. Western, tying up all those plots in about three lines of dialogue. And Micheal MacLiammoir's reading of the final poem is a real delight, for me at least. "Tomorrow do they worst, for I have lived today!"

Best Best Picture ever? Nah, not quite. Worst Ever? Nonsense. Let's not get carried away. There's more intelligence in Finney's dinner scene with Joyce Redman than in the entirety of abortions like CHICAGO and CRASH and MILLION DOLLAR BABY and AMERICAN BEAUTY.

Question -- did those who've seen it recently watch the restored original cut, or the bastardized horror that Tony Richardson inflicted on the world in the late 1980s and which TCM seems to be running?

Updated On: 3/9/14 at 11:20 PM