On T List of Movie Reviews
(For optimum viewing, adjust the zoom level of your browser to 125%.)
Tom Jones (1963)
Rate:
4
Viewed:
7/25
7/25:
You will always find Tom Jones dead last in terms of popularity when it comes to Best Picture winners
of the 60's.
Why is that? It's simply not good and shouldn't have been considered in the first place. Had
The Great Escape been given its rightful claim to the award, that would
satisfy everybody, even today, by living up to the prestigious image of Best Picture. Why...the year before was
Lawrence of Arabia. The size and scope of both are about the same.
Back to Tom Jones, a lot of reviewers have lambasted Tony Richardson for his inept direction, but I don't
agree that he's the number one problem. Rather, it's the lousy screenplay by John Osborne of
Look Back in Anger fame. For proof, he didn't do anything notable
afterwards and was shortly forgotten.
I couldn't make sense of the how's, why's, and who did who's. In short, it's a jumbled mess. I remember the blur
at the beginning after the four-minute ill-advised silent opening. Everything was moving so fast, thus leaving me
behind, and I had no way of catching up. If the movie was supposed to be a sex comedy, well...I didn't laugh
once, so what a shock that John Osborne won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay.
Part of it is Tony Richardson's fault because he should've known better. It's called "telling a story
coherently" on screen. Top directors have that ability. While watching Tom Jones, I started to realize
that Tony Richardson did a decent, but not outstanding, job with the British New Wave stuff and that, after
making the transition to mainstream films, he was constantly over his head (check out
The Charge of the Light Brigade to see what I mean).
Surprisingly, Wikipedia mentions, "Despite its success, director Tony Richardson said that he was dissatisfied
with the final product. In his autobiography, Richardson wrote that he 'felt the movie to be incomplete and
botched in much of its execution. I am not knocking that kind of success—everyone should have
it—but whenever someone gushes to me about Tom Jones, I always cringe a little inside.'"
Regardless, the best part is the cinematography. It's very well-shot for an ugly period picture, but
that's England of the 18th century. The acting is fine from start to finish. This has to be Albert Finney at
his most handsome, but he would age badly the next two decades. To be honest with you, he isn't believable as
the lothario and is therefore miscast. It's a part that calls for a powerfully seductive actor in his youth.
David Hemmings, perhaps? As a matter of fact, Albert Finney hated his time during the filming and said, "I
just felt I was being used. I wasn't involved...I felt bored most of the time."
Once again, Susannah York shows why she's a far better actress than Julie Christie. Had she replaced her in
every film during the 60's such as Darling,
Doctor Zhivago, and
Far from the Madding Crowd, they could've been much better
instead of overrated. As Blifil, David Warner looks really young as it's the first film of his career.
All in all, Tom Jones is the most forgotten Best Picture winner of the 60's, hence the endless automatic
redirects to the eponymous Welsh singer.