"Tom Jones" ** 1\2 (out of ****)
Best Picture Oscar (1964)
Did you ever watch a movie that everyone seems to love but you scratch your head and wonder why? That happens to me more often then I'd like to admit but it rarely bothers me as much as it does in the case of "Tom Jones" (1963).
Before watching "Tom Jones" I thought it was going to be one of those stiff historical British costume dramas. It is actually anything but that, which I suppose we should be thankful for. "Tom Jones" is actually a very broad comedic farce. Under different circumstances I might have enjoyed it but for some reason that style seems all wrong for this movie. Though in the film's defense it is largely consistent. It starts off as a comedy and ends as one.
The opening moments are actually kind of charming. It resembles a silent film as we learn exactly how Tom Jones came to be the man he is. The master of the house, Squire Allworthy (George Devine) finds a baby in his house when he is about to go to sleep. He immediately calls for his servants questioning who put the baby in his bed. It is thought one of his servants is the mother of the child. To protect her image, being an unwed mother, Allworthy sends her away but vows to to raise the child as his own but doesn't give him his name.
I'd hate to get serious about this movie and I promise this will be the only time I do, but, why would the mother agree to be separated from her child and why would Allworthy agree to take the child in? What does he care if the mother and son both leave?
Despite these questions the sequence is told with a lot of energy. Director Tony Richardson keeps the film moving fast. It is told with a great playful innocence.
So why am I saying the film has charming moments, told with energy, playfully innocent and I'm not recommending it? "Tom Jones" seems to have a do anything mentality. In a Marx Brothers' movie I don't mind but here it seems distracting. The plot doesn't go anywhere. It has one simple idea and streches it out for more than two hours. And when it does end nothing is truly resolved between the two main characters. It could have ended 30 minutes before and outside of a few revelations, everything would have remained the same between the characters.
Tom Jones is played by Albert Finney. He is a good hearted young man who shows great love for Squire Allworthy but little attention to his studies and too much to the ladies. His behavior upsets Allworthy's heir, his nephew, Mr. Blifil (David Warner) who finds Tom vulgar. He doesn't understand why his uncle tolerates Tom. Mr. Blifil will go to great lengths to get Tom in trouble with his uncle, while all the time playing kiss-up to his uncle in his best gentleman disguise.
For as much as Tom loves the ladies, there is one he loves more than anyone else, the lovely Sophie Western (Susannah York). Her father, Squire Western (Hugh Griffith) takes a liking to Tom as the two go hunting. He is however unaware of the feelings Tom has for his daughter. Plus, it is no secret he is not the legitimate son of Squire Allworthy and the difference in their class would be too much to overcome. But as hunting buddy it is fine to mix company with him. As for Sophie she claims not to mind their differences. She and every other women in the film believes Tom is the most handsome man they have ever layed eyes upon.
Without revealing too much Tom is eventually sent away and told by Squire Allworthy never to return after being framed by Mr. Blifil. The rest of the film deals with Tom trying to get into contact with Sophie.
The film was based on a novel written by Henry Fielding and adapted by John Osborne. It was nominated for a total of 10 Oscars and won 4 including: "Best Picture", "Best Director" (Richardson) and "Best Adapted Screenplay" (Osborne). Finney was nominated for his performance as were three supporting actresses, the first time that happened, and they all lost.
I am truly amazed by how much attention this film received when first released. I find it to be such an undeserving "Best Picture" Oscar winner. Along with "Cimarron" (1931) and "Titanic" and perhaps "Slumdog Millionaire" (if it wins) "Tom Jones" has to be one of the most disappointing Oscar winners of all-time.
"Tom Jones" almost wants to be too likable. It is too eager to please. That is part of the "do anything" mentality I spoke of. For no apparent reason, well into a hour of the film, Tom Jones breaks the fourth wall and addresses us. For what? The scene could have gone on without such a break from the film's "reality". Tom gets into a fight in a bar with a soldier and suddenly the barmaids shouts "He's dead"! Only for us to realize he is not, just badly hurt as a narrator reminds us that the hero cannot die in the middle of his own story. Why tells us he died in the first place? It reminds of a device used in the film "Funny Games" where a character kills a murderer only for the murderer to grab a remote control and rewind the film in order to change "reality". I don't like it being used in either film.
This is one of those movies which I think may have worked better in it original novel form instead of a movie. As a movie I think it should have been played a bit more straight. It could have kept some of the comedy but showed more restraint. Though I suppose if it had done that readers would complain that it doesn't follow the book. Book lovers everywhere need to learn, one of these days, that movies and novels are two different things. For a movie to be good it doesn't have to follow a book to the letter. Somethings don't work on film as well as they do on paper.
And as for the film's conclusion as I said nothing between the two would-be (?) lovers; Tom and Sophie, is really resolved.
SPOILER ALERT:
We find out that Tom is really Squire Allworthy's nephew. Tom's mother was not one of his servants but Allworthy's sisters! With this new information now a marriage can be planned. So was Sophie merely after Tom's money? She said she loved him anyway. What difference does he being Allworthy's nephew make to their love for each other? If she loved him before and after nothing has changed. Why couldn't the movie end sooner?
END SPOILER
Still, I guess, it is hard to really dislike the film. I can somewhat, kind of, sort of, understand what appeal the film may have with its broad, farce tone and the appealing nature of the two leads. But cinematically I think it is inappropriate for this particular film. More restraint should have been shown. The running time should have been cut.
I don't know how many of my readers have seen this or for that matter how well this film is remembered today but if you haven't seen it, I don't think you are missing much. Unless you want to watch every Oscar winner, which I why I originally saw this, you can skip it. Not a terrible movie just undeserving of a "Best Picture" Oscar.
Posts
