What's an Oscar Flashback (tm)? Read here:
Next on my Netflix queue was Gorillas in the Mist, for which Sigourney Weaver was nominated for the Best Actress Oscar; Stuart Baird was nominated for the Best Film Editing Oscar; Maurice Jarre was nominated for the Best Score Oscar; Andy Nelson, Brian Saunders, and Peter Handford were nominated for the Best Sound Oscar; and Anna Hamilton Phelan and Tab Murphy were nominated for the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar (film year, 1988; awarding year, 1989). The other nominees in these categories were:
Best Actress
The Accused - Jodie Foster (Winner)
Dangerous Liaisons - Glenn Close
Working Girl - Melanie Griffith
A Cry in the Dark - Meryl Streep
Best Film Editing
Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Winner)
Die Hard
Mississippi Burning
Rain Man
Best Score
The Milagro Beanfield War (Winner)
The Accidental Tourist
Dangerous Liaisons
Rain Man
Best Sound
Bird (Winner)
Die Hard
Who Framed Roger Rabbit
Mississippi Burning
Best Adapted Screenplay
Dangerous Liaisons (Winner)
The Accidental Tourist
Little Dorrit
The Unbearable Lightness of Being
This film also represents the fourth of nine Oscar-nominated dramas topping my Netflix queue, just in case you were keeping track.
I watched Gorillas in the Mist instantly (I do love my Roku). I can't remember why I cued this film up. Again, I think it was one of those film titles from the 80s that have always stuck with me but which I did not pay much attention to as a child (I would have been 10 or 11 when this movie was released). As you can see from the above nominee list, there were other important films that likely drew my attention much more quickly at that age, such as Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Nevertheless, I do like Sigourney Weaver in just about everything else I have ever seen her in, and the plot likely intrigued me enough to want to watch it, so here it is, next up for some Reel Thoughts.
The film is based on the autobiography of naturalist Dian Fossey, played by Weaver in the film. According to what I've read since watching the film (and I was keenly interested for several reasons), Fossey was mysteriously murdered in her home in Uganda just prior to the film's release, and the film itself follows Fossey's life story, beginning with her choice to petition anthropologist Louis Leakey for a position on a research project to study gorillas in the wilds of Africa. Though her work is slow-going at first, the film depicts how Fossey becomes fascinated and, arguably, obsessed with the habits and lifestyle of the gorillas, and she is able to develop a means of communication with them, even as she forms a deeply personal attachment to them. This attachment costs her a potential love-match with a National Geographic photographer (Bryan Brown) and brings her into direct conflict with poachers and the Ugandan government that supports them. The film further shows how she becomes a militant animal-rights activist, leading to some ethically compromised choices of her own.
What I liked best about this film is that it's far from manipulative or coercive in its attempts to provide a balanced account of a woman's life that ended mysteriously and amid controversy over an issue that doesn't necessarily have the widespread support one would expect. As I've indicated, I spent some time reading (through quick online research) some accounts of Fossey and her life after watching this film, and the film, surprisingly, received mixed acclaim. Much of the criticism of the film centered on the idea that the depiction of Fossey as a potentially homicidal devotee to her gorillas was inaccurate and biased, and that Fossey was a victim of political assassination in life and death as a crazy woman, attempting to force her western ideals on a less-than-advanced culture dependent upon the revenues of poaching and looking to indict Fossey in the worldwide court of public opinion. Still others felt the film undersold her devotion to these animals, from a school of thought believing that the "crazy woman" moniker wasn't developed enough, while others felt the conservationist messages were not strong enough because the film was too busy focusing on a murder mystery rather than the work of a heroic woman. I actually felt that the movie was just balanced enough to incorporate all of those views and to let the viewer decide how to accept the message(s).
In my opinion, the conservationist message rang loud and clear, and the endeavor to present a balanced portrait of a woman whose work and life choices could be interpreted in several ways, allowing time to each of the possible theories, was the most fair way to depict the life of an otherwise controversial, complex. and passionate woman. Sigourney Weaver's performance was the key to the whole picture coming together; her sensitive portrayal of this person never strayed into the deliberately outlandish. Everything from her interactions with the live (and, apparently, costumed) gorillas--quite the scene stealers themselves-- to her more impassioned outbursts, to her joy, and yes, even to the extreme devotion Fossey had for these animals was given a mesmerizing treatment by Weaver. It was her performance that kept the film from falling too far on one particular side or position of the controversy underpinning Fossey's life and her performance that kept this viewer engaged.
Because of the type of film that it is, there was some erratic pacing, and the film seemed to lose its pacing consistency about the time that the Fossey character was becoming more active in her efforts to hold her research assistants and the rest of the world at large at bay from invading her and her gorillas' territory. The film is slow and deliberate, which suits its subject, until it decides to tell the tale of Fossey's murder and the events leading up to it, which happens to be a second act switch. It's noticeable because it's hard to switch gears, but I'm not sure how director Michael Apted or the rest of the filmmakers could have improved upon that and still have maintained the balanced approach to which they obviously seemed to be aiming. In my mind, this late course-change is but a minor complaint.
Truthfully, I sort of loved this movie, and I loved it because it did deliberately straddle the line and left any conclusions to be drawn about Fossey's choices and the events of her life up to the viewer to make. Also, Weaver's performance really is the hallmark of Gorillas in the Mist and, alone, makes the film recommendable, but add to her performance the breathtaking cinematography capturing the lush African mountainsides and a moving score, and the ingredients for a very good film are all nicely combined into a delicious mixture. All in all, then, I think the film merits an 8.5 on the patented ratings scale between very good/minor flaws and perfectly entertaining (for the pacing issue). As to the test, though I loved the film, I can't see myself watching it repeatedly. I think its most powerful impact would be felt on the first viewing alone; also, as much as I loved the message and the fair autobiographical depiction, it's not the type of fare I pull out for a giggle.
As a side note (see above), 1988 was quite the year for films. This film faced some stiff competition in its categories, including films I adore, such as Roger Rabbit, Die Hard, and Rain Man. I think that says something by itself.