Tom Jones (1963) - Worst Best Picture ever?- Page 2

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 11:30pm

Roscoe what a great post. It makes me actually much more interested to revisit the film.

What is the background on the edited version? I'm assuming I watched the un-edited one (whatever was on video tape back in the early 90s...) though it worries me if that's the version TCM aired today that I recorded.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 3/8/14 at 11:42pm

For some insane reason, Tony Richardson cut several minutes from the film in the late 1980s and re-released it. The cut version is, for me, simply unwatchable. It was all put back early in the 2000s, and that's the version that is currently out on DVD.

You can tell which version you're watching this way. The film opens with that silent film, followed by the opening titles, then there's the scene of Tom with Molly Seagrim, and then Tom goes hunting with Molly's father, Black George. Tom is nearly shot by Squire Western as a poacher, and is shown running merrily away with his birds, shouting happily. The next scene, in the original film, has some scenes involving Black George being arrested for stealing a sheep, which involves a trial scene involving Squire Allworthy and two men, Mr. Thwackum and Mr. Square.

The abominably cut version dispenses with the scene involving the theft of the sheep, an important scene which establishes Tom's passion for mercy and the brutality of Thwackum and Square.

Updated On: 3/8/14 at 11:42 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 12:04am

Thanks for that--I'll have to check which one was recorded, though from your comments I assume it was the edited one. Would be interesting to know why Richardson made such a cut...

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 6:41am

Roscoe---it was the full, restored version. And while I appreciate your explanation of why or how it works, it fails on all those levels for me. And yes, I would put it dead last for the 36 Best Pictures I've seen so far (I've actually seen all of them previously, but I'm watching them again now in order). I may change my mind when I re-watch a few of the more recent ones, but it won't come up far. I even liked The Greatest Show on Earth better, and that's hard to believe, because I thought that was the height of mediocrity. Tom Jones isn't just mediocre, it's truly bad. It's the un-funniest funny movie and the dreariest fun movie can recall.

... and what about all that crazy and blood-soaked abuse to animals throughout the film? It was disgusting! Is that supposed to be funny, too? A real deer with its throat slit and tongue wagging out, held up to the screen gleefully? A dog getting beer thrown in its face for laughs? Horses spurred until they bleed?

Updated On: 3/9/14 at 06:41 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 6:51am

strummergirl---in reading your post about the dichotomy of choices made by the Academy in the 1960s, I agree with you about Lee Marvin in "Cat Balou" as a real head-scratcher for a Best Actor win, but I at least enjoyed his performance. And I thought the film as a comedy/parody worked well. It's not my favorite of any genre or year, but it is a fun movie at least.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 8:10am

Best-- fair enough. Opinions differ all over the place. Looks like you really detest the film with a passion. I know the feeling.

But do calm down, man. I don't remember the abuse of animals being as consistent throughout the film as all that. There's that one really unpleasant hunt sequence which does seem to be working very hard at adding some unpleasant realism (the spurs digging into the horseflesh, and that awful shot of Squire Western with the deer) but I think it is part of the film's project -- to completely demolish all the genteel clichés of cinematic costume drama. The shot of Squire Western with the deer is supposed to be SHOCKING -- a savage eruption of violence that, don't forget, shocks the horse that Sophie is riding and makes it bolt. I always considered the whole sequence to be a cousin to the terrible shooting party sequence in RULES OF THE GAME -- all that violence lurking under the genteel façade of polite society.

The film's bizarre switches in tone can be, I guess, difficult to negotiate, it seems. The genial cinematic jokes like direct address to the camera and that moment where Tom covers the camera lens with his hat can sit oddly with the blunter moments of realism.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 8:18am

I realize I'm in the minority about this film, but that's the way I feel.

And I'll calm down about Tom Jones if you calm down about Chicago.

Deal?

EDIT: As for the bloody deer hunt, perhaps it would have worked better if it had been offset by anything approaching a "gentile society." The whole film is vulgar and grotesque, so the hunt lives within its own world, it doesn't contradict it or show anything more than a continuation of the established tone.

Updated On: 3/9/14 at 08:18 AM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 8:24am

I meant calming down and recognizing that the violence toward animals in the film isn't as consistent throughout the film as you had made it seem. Just the one sequence, really. And it isn't like the film is endorsing cruelty to animals.

No deal, sorry. Hating on CHICAGO is a matter of grave national import. Someone's got to be the voice of sense on that one.

Updated On: 3/9/14 at 08:24 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 8:27am

It's not just the one sequence. You should probably re-watch the film then. I described several instances of on-screen animal abuse in two previous posts. And I didn't even list them all.

Maybe you were laughing a lot and not seeing it, but it's definitely there.

Updated On: 3/9/14 at 08:27 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 8:39am

I think I've actually realized why this humor rubs me wrong after thinking about the animal abuse instances.

To use animal cruelty to "humorously illustrate" anything is the problem for me. The entire film consists of abusive humor, whether it's with animals or other humans. The mother and father thrown out for having an illegitimate kid. The woman kicked out of society (Diane Cilento in one of the least deserving Oscar-nominated performances in history) and shoved and spit on for being pregnant ... played for laughs.

These aren't funny scenarios. At least to me. They are abusive, and I don't feel like laughing at these misfortunes. They're ugly, and even in a parody, they aren't funny.

EDIT: Maybe it should be retitled "Jackass Presents the 18th Century."

Updated On: 3/9/14 at 08:39 AM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 8:45am

Fair enough, there are some little moments of some animals being treated rather callously, as when Edith Evans pushes some geese out of her way. Yeah, I thought that little bit was funny, and the animals weren't shocking mistreated, or even particularly inconvenienced. Likewise the bit where Hugh Griffith tosses some beer in the dog's face.

Not nearly as appalling as all those horses being tripped up in all those Hollywood westerns over all those decades. And TOM JONES does at least depict some ugly realities that so many other films bent over backward to avoid -- those awful shots of the bloody spurs, intercut I seem to recall with the horse reacting painfully, and that dreadful bloody deer.

Yeah, there's meat on their plates during the dinner scene. Don't forget those poor oysters being enjoyed by Mrs. Waters. Are they all supposed to be depicted as vegetarians?

BEST: "As for the bloody deer hunt, perhaps it would have worked better if it had been offset by anything approaching a "genteel society."

Well, I'm sure the folks involved in the deer hunt would describe themselves as being members of a society that is civilized if not necessarily genteel -- they've got every pretension of being God-fearing Upright Practicing Christians, and here in the foxhunt, and in the dreadful scene of the churchyard attack on Molly Seagrim, and in the scene where Thwackum and Square casually demand the death penalt for a man who has stolen a sheep to feed his poverty stricken family -- the film relentlessly exposes their hypocrisy.

Updated On: 3/9/14 at 08:45 AM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 8:55am

"These aren't funny scenarios. At least to me. They are abusive, and I don't feel like laughing at these misfortunes. They're ugly, and even in a parody, they aren't funny."

Here's where we disagree. I don't see that any of the scenarios you mention are being played for laughs. Partridge and Jenny Jones being made outcasts over the baby in Squire Western's bed in that comic opening is rather played for comic melodrama, I suppose, but I never once found the brutal attack on Molly Seagrim funny at all. It's an ugly ugly scene, all those shrieking harridans attacking a visibly pregnant woman. Only one person seems to be enjoying the situation, the appalling Mr. Square is shown licking his lips and that's hardly an endorsement considering the character. And there is the moment where Tom comes rather touchingly to her rescue, putting her on his own horse and giving her a little handclasp of encouragement before leading her to safety.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 9:02am

Well, if that's supposed to be touching instead of cartoonish, I wasn't touched by it. There wasn't an ounce of sincerity to it.

Everything seems to be grotesque. Even the "sincerity."

Too many false tears and cheesy smiles.

Updated On: 3/9/14 at 09:02 AM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 9:09am

Really? I always thought Tom's rescue of Molly was very tenderly done. He takes the weeds from her hair, leads her carefully away and puts her on his own horse, in front of the entire village that has brutally attacked her, entirely heedless of his own social standing in that village. I see nothing cartoonish in his rescue, or in her tears, that repeated "Don't leave me Tom" is far from cartoonish -- I see only a very decent brand of humanity and decency in his actions and in the way they are presented.

Updated On: 3/9/14 at 09:09 AM

[ClapYo'Hands]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 9:09am

"Bobby Darin gets a nomination for the ham-fisted turn as a PTSD Army man in Captain Newman, M.D."

I think that's a wonderful performance and Captain Newman, M.D. is a great film. Perhaps it should have even been nominated for Best Picture.

Updated On: 3/9/14 at 09:09 AM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 9:13am

And for what it's worth, I'm not sure I'd have been able to vote for TOM JONES for Best Picture over HUD. I hadn't realized they were the same year.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 9:19am

It's pretty astounding that Hud wasn't even nominated.

Also 8 1/2.

I would have easily voted for Cleopatra, which I also saw again recently, over Tom Jones. And Lilies of the Field, too. Hell, even America America.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 9:26am

The rest of my 1960s Best Pic jag continues with ...

My Fair Lady
The Sound of Music
A Man For All Seasons
In the Heat of the Night
Oliver!
Midnight Cowboy

And I absolutely love each of those films. So at least it's uphill from here.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 9:28am

I caught some of OLIVER! recently on TCM and rather enjoyed what I saw, until that never-ending Who Will Buy sequence. I'd like to revisit it from start to finish. Is there a decent home video?

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 9:31am

Yes! Twilight Time just released Oliver! with a limited run on Blu-ray. It's not a flawless print, but it's in better shape than ever before. Really solid picture and sound.

http://www.screenarchives.com/title_detail.cfm/ID/26212/OLIVER!-1968/

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 9:34am

I think if/when you see Who Will Buy? in context, it will work better for you. Since Oliver (the character) has grown up in such abject poverty with one miserable home after another, this is his one glimpse at the normal society of the day. He sees everything from servants to gentry, from merchants to schoolchildren, encapsulated into that one number.

Isolated, it would definitely feel like "what's the point? get on with it!", but in context it's the one bright "perfect" spot in the entire story before things turn sour again.

EDIT: I will also add that the last hour of the film is really the best part. It's where Carol Reed truly shines at building the dark story and some nail-biting tension. A master director at work.

Updated On: 3/9/14 at 09:34 AM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 10:16am

Right, I know the story well enough and had seen enough of the film to get the intent of Who Will Buy (the roses section of which has just started running annoyingly in my head). And there's that sudden cut to Fagin and the Dodger, I seem to remember, that comes as a bit of a shock, intentionally so.

And it is the first song of the second half of the movie, after the intermission, right got that. It just does seem to take its time for me, I get rather impatient with it, I start making "get on with it" motions before too long.

Updated On: 3/9/14 at 10:16 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 10:27am

By the way, most of those "ear worm" vendor calls, like the rose lady, the milkmaids, and the knife grinders ... those are authentic calls from the period. Lionel Bart incorporated them into his score.

They are (unfortunately for you!) intended to be ear worms---the annoying "commercial jingles" of their day. If you remember the tune, you remember the product. Same thing.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 11:02am

Cool.

I don't really have much of a problem with OLIVER, really. There are far worse things to have stuck in one's head than Who Will Buy. Catching some of it again the other day was rather pleasant, actually. Carol Reed gets a lot right, I think -- the musical numbers are handsomely brought off by and large, and it never gets too bloated for too long, as opposed to the colossal overproduced HELLO DOLLY where it feels like nothing takes ten minutes if it can possibly be prolonged for an hour. I'll take OLIVER's Who Will Buy over HELLO DOLLY's horrific Harmonia Gardens nightmare with those waiters flouncing around for an eternity.

It's part of my love/hate thing with musicals in general. When they work, they work gloriously (Fred and Ginger facing the music and dancing, the Jets getting cool in the garage, Bernadette Peters telling us that love is good for anything that ails us) and when they don't, well, we get nightmares like HELLO DOLLY and others. Purely in the eye of the beholder, of course.

Updated On: 3/9/14 at 11:02 AM

[wonkit]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 11:19am

My first comment is: using the Oscars as an indication of whether something is "good" never works. Like all awards systems, there are egregious failures and too many extraordinary achievements overlooked.

That said, I guess I am in Roscoe's camp on this film. For me, it is a rollicking commentary on the hypocrisy of all societies, using the 18th Century as a stand-in for the 1950's. The animal abuse, the mistreatment of women and "the lower classes" and the fact that the biggest villain is a churchman: the period depicted was brutal and unfeeling in so many ways, and at least the film didn't prettify any of it. But the comparison is Tom, who lives fully and loves and cares about something, with Blifil (spelling?), who is proper and looks out for Number One in so many cruel, deceitful ways.