Lisa Marie Reviews An Oscar Winner: My Left Foot (dir by Jim Sheridan)

Posted on March 17, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

“This is Christy Brown, writer, genius!”

So declares Patrick Brown (Ray McAnally) as he carries his son, Christy Brown, into a Dublin pub. It’s one of the most emotional moments to be found in the 1989 Best Picture nominee, My Left Foot. Based on the main character’s memoir, My Left Foot tells the story of Christy Brown, wh was born into a working class Dublin family of 15 and who grew up to become an acclaimed writer and artist. Afflicted with cerebral palsy, Brown’s left foot was the only part of his body that he had full control over. The film follow Brown as he learns to write, paint, and communicate with that foot. As a child, Christy Brown is played by Hugh O’Conor. As a young man, he’s played by Daniel Day-Lewis, who apparently stayed in character even when he wasn’t filming. Day-Lewis won his first Oscar for his performance as Christy Brown. Brenda Fricker won a Supporting Actress Oscar for playing Christy’s mother, Bridget Fagan Brown, making My Left Foot the first Irish film to win any competitive Oscars. I would argue that Ray McAnally, at the very least, deserved a nomination for Supporting Actor as well. (Sadly, McAnally passed away shortly before the release of My Left Foot.)

My Left Foot is an inspiring movie but, at the same time, it’s an honest one. Christy Brown’s life is never portrayed as being easy and Christy himself is never portrayed as being a saint. There are time when Christy is pissed off at the world, at one point even starting a brawl in a pub. Even after Christy is accepted into a school for people with Cerebral Palsy and he has the first exhibition of his work, there is still heartbreak. Christy has fallen in love with a woman named Eileen (Fiona Shaw) and when he discovers that she’s engaged, he comes close to ending his own life. It’s a not to watch as Christy’s pain feels so real and so intense that you almost feel like an intruder while watching. The film leaves you cheering for Christy and happy that he’s found a way to express his feelings and his intelligence but at the same time, it never fools you into thinking that Christy is going to have an easy life. The film’s too honest to end on a note of false hope.

My Left Foot features one of Daniel Day-Lewis’s best performances. (Though who say that every Day-Lewis performance is one of his best have obviously never seen Nine.) Day-Lewis not only captures Christy’s physical condition but, even more importantly, he allows us into Christy’s mind. We get to know Christy as much for his sharp wit and intellect as for his physical disability. Brenda Fricker plays Bridget as being earthy but supportive, someone who always tries to do the best for her son. But the performance that really makes me cry is the performance of Ray McAnally, who initially doesn’t know what to make of his son but who changes his mind once he sees Christy writing with his left foot. “Genius!” he declares and it brings tears to the eyes of everyone watching.

My Left Foot was also nominated for Best Picture and Best Director. Oliver Stone won Best Director for a much more grandiose portrait of disability, Born On The Fourth Of July. Best Picture, meanwhile, went to Driving Miss Daisy.

Far and Away (1992, directed by Ron Howard)

Posted on March 16, 2025 by Jedadiah Leland

The year is 1892 and Joseph Donnelly (Tom Cruise) is a poor tenant famer in Ireland, used and exploited by the wealthy landowners. Joseph falls in love with Shannon Christie (Nicole Kidman), the rebellious daughter of his landlord. Shannon dreams of going to America, where rumor has it that land is being given away in the territory of Oklahoma on a first come/first serve basis. Shannon even has some valuable spoons that she can use to raise money once they arrive in America. Joseph, after being challenged to a duel by the Christies’ money manger, Stephen Chase (Thomas Gibson), also decides that heading to America might be a good idea.

Life in America is not as easy as Joseph and Shannon thought it would be. They first end up in the dirty town of Boston, where Shannon loses her spoons and Joseph works for a corrupt political boss (Colm Meaney) and makes money as a bare-knuckles boxer. They’ll reach Oklahoma eventually but not before Stephen and the Christies come to Boston and Joseph ends up working on the railroad and getting called “that crazy mick” multiple times.

Far and Away was Ron Howard’s attempt to make an American epic, in the style of John Ford. It doesn’t work because Tom Cruise is too contemporary to be believable as a 19th century Irish immigrant and Howard tries so hard to push everything to an epic scale that it just makes it even more obvious how slight and predictable the movie’s story is. Far and Away is full of big movie moments but it lacks the small human moments necessary to really engage its audience. I will always remembers Far and Away because it was one of those films that seemed to take up permanent residence on HBO when I was growing up. I didn’t really care about the film’s flaws back then. Nicole Kidman was attractive and tall and she had wild red hair and back then, that’s all a movie needed to hold my attention. Unlike Cruise, Nicole Kidman can effortlessly move between historical and contemporary films and, of the two leas, she comes off the best. The movie is really stolen, though, by Colm Meaney, playing a ruthless political boss who could have taught Boss Tweed a thing or two.

Tomorrow is St. Patrick’s Day, when we will be celebrating the legacy of immigrants like the Christies and the Donnellys. Far and Away tries to pay tribute to their courage and their refusal to give up, even when things were tough and deadly on the frontier. For me, though, Far and Away will always just make me think of HBO in the 90s.

Film Review: Fahrenheit 451 (dir by Francois Truffaut)

Posted on May 19, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Tonight, HBO will be premiering a film version of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. This version will star Michael B. Jordan as “fireman” Guy Montag and Michael Shannon as Montag’s boss, Captain Beatty. It’s one of the more eagerly anticipated films of the current television season but it’s not the first version of Fahrenheit 451 to be filmed.

The first version was released, by Universal Pictures, in 1966. It was the first (as well as only) English langauge film to be directed by the great French filmmaker, Francois Truffaut. (It was also Traffaut’s first color film, allowing the flames to burn in bright yellow and red.) Unfortunately, Truffaut would later describe the film as being his “saddest and most difficult” film making experience.

Though there are a few noticeable differences, the film sticks closely to the plot of Bradbury’s novel. Guy Montag (Oskar Werner) is a “fireman” in the near future. Montag lives in a society where books have been banned and the populace is kept to docile through a combination of pharmaceuticals and mindless television programming. Montag’s wife, Linda (Julie Christie), is content to live life without questioning anything. However, when Montag meets a school teacher named Clarisse (also played by Christie), all of his previous assumptions are challenged. What if the government isn’t always right? What if ignorance isn’t bliss? What would happen if, instead of burning books, Montag actually read one? After witnessing a woman choosing to self-immolate herself so that she can die with all of her books, Montag is finally ready to quit being a fireman. But his captain (Cyril Cusack) tells Montag that he needs to go on one more call, this one to Montag’s own house.

Truffaut’s film leaves out most of the overly sci-fi elements of Bradbury’s original novel. For instance, in the novel, Montag is terrified of the robots dogs that the firemen use but the dogs never appear in Truffaut’s film. As well, Traffaut totally eliminates the character of Faber, the former English professor who uses a portable communicator to keep in contact with Montag. (Today, of course, that hardly seems like science fiction.) In Truffaut’s film, the setting is designed to appear as contemporary and familiar as possible, a reminder that the story may have been sent in the future but that the issues it dealt with were relevant to the present. With this film, Truffaut asked the audience, “How different is the world today from the world of Bradbury’s novel?”

Truffaut’s other big departure from Bradbury’s text was to cast Julie Christie as both Clarisse and Linda. In the book, Montag’s wife was named Mildred and Bradbury went of out of his way to establish her as being the exact opposite of Clarisse. In Truffaut’s film, the double casting of Christie seems to suggest that Clarisse and Linda are two sides of the same character. Montag loves them both, though each appeals to a different part of Montag’s psyche. Linda appeals to the side of Montag that wants to just accept things the were they are and be happy. Clarisse, meanwhile, represents the part of Montag that wants to be free to feel everything, even if it means occasionally being unhappy or uncertain. When Montag finally meets the Book People, he discovers that they are just as fanatical about memorizing and reciting books as Linda was about watching her television shows. Was this intentional on Truffaut’s part, a suggestion that both the government and the rebels are, like Clarisse and Linda, two sides of the same coin?

It’s an intriguing but uneven movie. Truffaut apparently didn’t have a great working relationship with Oskar Werner and, at times, Werner doesn’t seem to be particularly invested in the role of Montag. (Interestingly enough, it’s also been suggested that Jacqueline Bisset’s character in Day For Night was inspired by Truffaut’s experiences working with Julie Christie in this film.) When the characters interact, the dialogue sometimes feel stiff and dull, as if Truffaut never got over his discomfort with having to direct a film in something other than his native French. At the same time, the film is full of hauntingly beautiful images, from the defiant woman standing in the middle of her burning books to the Book People walking through the snow. Truffaut makes brilliant use of color and the visuals are often strong enough to overcome even Oskar Werner at his most sullen.

Fahrenheit 451 is an imperfect movie but one worth seeing. Will the new HBO version be able to match it? We’ll find out soon enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0PwQOr53SA

Embracing The Melodrama Part III #7: True Confessions (dir by Ulu Grosbard)

Posted on March 17, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

The 1981 film True Confessions tells many different stories.

It’s a story about Los Angeles. It’s not necessarily a story about Los Angeles as it exists. Instead, it’s a story about Los Angeles as we always imagine it. It’s the late 40s and, having vanquished the Nazis in Europe, men are returning to California and looking for a new life. Meanwhile, aspiring starlets from across the country flood into Hollywood, looking for stardom. It’s a city where glitz and ruin exist right next to each other. It’s the mean streets that were made famous by Raymond Chandler and, decades later, James Ellroy.

It’s a murder mystery, one that is based on one of the most notorious unsolved homicides of all time. The bisected body of woman named Lois Fazenda has been found in a vacant lot. When the newspapers discover that Lois was both a prostitute and a Catholic, she becomes known as “the Virgin Tramp.” One need not have an encyclopedic knowledge of unsolved crimes to recognize that Lois Fazneda is meant to be a stand-in for Elizabeth Short, the tragic and infamous Black Dahlia.

It’s a story about corruption. Crooked cops. Rich perverts. Greedy politicians. Sinful clergy. They’re all present and accounted for in True Confessions. As quickly becomes apparent, Los Angeles is a city where you can do anything as long as you have the money to pay the right people off.

And finally, it’s a film about two brothers. Tom and Des Spellacy grew up in a strong Irish Catholic family but, as they got older, their lives went in different directions. Tom (Robert Duvall) became a detective, the type who is willing to cut corners but who, in the end, takes his job seriously. Des (Robert De Niro) entered the priesthood and is now a monsignor in the Los Angeles diocese. Des is ambitious and he has a powerful mentor, Cardinal Danaher (Cyril Cusack).

Though Tom and Des have gone their separate ways, they are still linked by Jack Amsterdam (Charles During). To the public, Jack is a wealthy and respected businessman. However, Tom and Des both know the truth. When Tom first joined the department, he worked as a bagman for Jack and he knows that Jack made most of his money through a prostitution ring. Des know that Jack donates to the Church as way to cover up his own corruption but Des looks the other way. The Cardinal, after all, wants Jack’s money.

When Tom starts to investigate Lois’s death, it doesn’t take him long to figure out that Jack is probably the one responsible. Meanwhile, Jack and his lawyer (Ed Flanders) start to pressure Des to convince his brother to let the case go. Finding justice for Lois Fazneda could mean the end of both Tom and Des’s career.

Based on a novel by John Gregory Dunne, which was adapted into a screenplay by Dunne and Joan Didion, True Confessions is an imperfect but intriguing film. This is one of Robert Duvall’s best performances and he brings a manic edge to the role that keeps the audience off-balance. In the role of Jack Amsterdam, Charles Durning is the epitome of casual corruption and Burgess Meredith does a good job as an aging priest. On the other hand, Robert De Niro seems strangely uncomfortable in the role of Des and you never quite believe that he and Duvall are actually brothers. Director Ulu Grosbard does a good job of creating a proper noir atmosphere but, at the same time, he denies the audience the dramatic climax to which the film appears to be building up to.

That said, for whatever flaws True Confessions may have, it’s an always watchable and thought-provoking film.

Film Review: Nineteen Eighty-Four (dir by Michael Radford)

Posted on August 15, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Yesterday, as I was flipping through the channels, I came across a documentary that was being shown on This TV. The documentary was called Nineteen Eighty-Four and it told the story of a low-level British bureaucrat named Winston Smith (who bore a strong resemblance to a youngish John Hurt) who, after having a secret affair with a free-spirited woman, was charged with committing “thought crimes” against the state. As a result, he was tortured by a man named O’Brien (who looked a lot like Richard Burton) until Winston finally came to love the government above all else…

What’s that?

Okay, you caught me.

This movie was not a documentary. Instead, it was an adaptation of George Orwell’s famous novel about a dystopian future Britain (quite cleverly renamed Airstrip One in both the book and the film) where the citizens spend their time giving thanks to Big Brother, a leader who may or may not actually be a fictional creation of the ruling party. It’s a world where everyone knows that “Big Brother is watching you” and every day is scheduled around the “two-minute hates” that are directed towards Big Brother’s enemy, Emmanuel Goldstein (who, much like Big Brother, may or may not actually exist). It’s a world dominated by three separate superstates that are in a state of perpetual war, though we’re also given reason to suspect that the war is just as fictional as Big Brother and Goldstein might be. It’s a world where order is kept by the Thought Police and history is regularly changed for the benefit of the ruling party. It’s a world where people can become unpersons and cease to exist and where all good citizens understand that one plus one equals three if the government says that it does.

So, no, it’s not a documentary.

It just feels like one.

As I watched Nineteen Eight-Four, it was impossible for me not to compare Orwell’s vision of the future (which is faithfully visualized in the film) with our present world. Even though the book was written in 1948 and this film was shot and released in 1984, it was hard not to feel as if Nineteen Eighty-Four could have just as easily been made yesterday. Beyond the obvious NSA-as-Big-Brother comparisons that everyone makes, it was hard not to compare the brainwashed citizens waiting to hear from Big Brother with the people today who slavishly repeat whatever talking points they hear on MSNBC or Fox News. How different, I wondered, was Big Brother railing against Goldstein from our President continually telling us that we’re at war with the “forces of cynicism” and that anyone who disagrees with him is not just expressing an opinion but instead is being unpatriotic? When O’Brien explained how the Party stayed in power by keeping the people perpetually angry at unseen enemies, he might as well have been talking about our own elected officials. And, when the Thought Police finally arrested Winston and Julia, it brought to mind the images of the militarized police force of Ferguson, Missouri.

And that, I think, is why Nineteen Eighty-Four remains so powerful as both a book and a film. We live in a world where we are told more and more often that, regardless of what it does, the government is in charge and must be obeyed. We live in a world where we are currently told that good citizens must obey the law simply because it is the law. We’re told not to question why a police force needs to resemble an invading army. We’re told not to question why a member of the police force might happen to shoot an unarmed black teenager multiple times. We’re told not to question the official history. Instead, we’re just supposed to live in a state of blind obedience and accept, on faith alone, that those in charge are always right. We’re supposed to “respect authority” and not think about the specifics.

Thought Police or the Ferguson PD?

In short, we’re living in the world of Nineteen Eight-Four whether we realize it or not.

As for the film itself, it’s a powerful and surprisingly faithful adaptation of Orwell’s novel. John Hurt is perfectly cast as Winston Smith and Suzanna Hamilton is sympathetic as Julia. The two of them have a very real chemistry in this film and it makes the inevitable final scenes all the more disturbing and tragic. This was also Richard Burton’s final film. After years of alcoholism, Burton died shortly after filming ended and he looks ill throughout Nineteen Eighty-Four. But his obvious ill-health actually works to the role’s advantage. As played by Burton, O’Brien becomes the perfect embodiment of the morally corrupt ruling Party. The scenes where O’Brien tortures Hurt as difficult to watch, as they should be. But both Hurt and Burton give such committed performances that you can’t look away even when you want to. Finally, Nineteen Eighty-Four was an early job for the great cinematographer Roger Deakins and the film has a memorably bleak look to it. The drabness of Air Strip One perfectly mirrors the empty life of its citizens and it serves as a perfect contrast to the lushness of Winston’s fantasies.

Nineteen Eighty-Four is not an easy film to watch but it’s one that everyone should track down and see. Watch it and ask yourself how different 1984 is from 2014.