I did not like this movie. In fact, I really don’t have much desire to write about it because I’ve already lost 2 hours of my life that I’m never going to get back by watching it, and I don’t want to spend a bunch of time writing about it. Tom Jones just wasn’t a good movie, and I am perplexed at how it might have won Best Picture. If you were to ask me specifically what I didn’t like about it, I would simply say, “Everything.”

I take that back. Albert Finney’s performance as the roguish womanizing title character is terrific. He’s lots of fun, and his antics are the only thing that makes this film remotely interesting. However, this is a film that I would not rush to see again.

This is the winner for 1963, and around that time film makers were experimenting with more Avant garde styles of film making. Tom Jones has much of that from the editing to the camera angles to the story telling and acting to the sound design. Sometimes it works, but most of the time it doesn’t. I did enjoy the moments where Tom breaks the fourth wall and talks directly to the audience. However most of the time, to me, it simply looks like sloppy film making. Suffice it to say that I am not a huge fan of the style.

I found the editing especially bothersome. There were a lot of jump cuts that would have prevented this film from getting a passing grade in film school if it wasn’t so obvious that they were intentional. Going hand in hand with the editing is the cinematography, which I found to be equally distressing with its constant movement and odd angles. To this point in cinematic history, the most effective editors and cinematographers were the ones who were able to effectively use their art form to progress the story and not bring attention to themselves. Audiences enjoyed the work of these artists on an almost subconscious level. Like an offensive lineman in football, the editors and cinematographers were doing their jobs most effectively if you didn’t notice they were there. That started to change in the 1960’s when more modern film makers seemed to want to make their presence known so that they audience knew that someone had made the film they were watching, rather than just let the audience enjoy the experience of watching the film and experiencing the story. Film makers started to see themselves as auteurs and Tom Jones is a perfect example of the film maker as auteur.

If the film were merely shot in a style that I didn’t care for, I could probably still find some enjoyment in it if the story was at least decent. Unfortunately it is not. The story is little more than a romp and we spend the majority of the film following in the adventures of Tom Jones, born an illegitimate child and cared for by Squire Allworthy, much to the dismay of high society. He grows up not accepting the pious nature of the era, and has adopted the lifestyle of a rogue and a scoundrel. This leads him to fall out of favor with many of his masculine contemporaries, but he certainly has a way with the ladies. He falls in love with Sophie Western, but is forced to leave his estate after the death of his stepmother. He spends the rest of the film trying to find her, but the problem is that he can’t keep his hands off of any other woman that he comes across. It’s kind of hard to root for Tom to end up with Sophie when she is so pure and angelic and Tom is a womanizing bastard.

As the story goes along, Tom experiences a series of adventures and misadventures that seem to get him closer to Sophie, but then something will happen to show her that he’s never going to be serious about her. These misadventures escalate to the point where Tom is wrongly accused of a crime he didn’t commit and is sentenced to hang. The rescue scene involves the mother of all jump cuts and a chase that is so preposterous it needs to be seen to be believed.

Other than that, I don’t have a ton to say about this film other than I just didn’t like it. It’s forgettable, it’s dated, and it’s not entertaining. Other than Albert Finney’s performance, there is little to recommend it, and I would recommend that you not waste your time by watching it.

Did the Academy get it right?

Obviously not. There are at least three films that came out year that were more deserving than Tom Jones. How the West Was Won is an epic western starring James Stewart and John Wayne. Cleopatra is another epic the type of which the Academy usually favors, however the behind the scenes issues that went on with that film were well known, and it was probably not politically viable to name Cleopatra as Best Picture. Lilies of the Field starring Sidney Poitier is probably the film that should have won, although Poitier would become the first African American to win Best Actor for his performance in this film. It wasn’t a particularly strong year for the nominees, and the film that really should have won in 1963 had to have its release date pushed back to 1964. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb was scheduled to be released in December of 1963. However it was pushed back a few months to 1964 due to the assassination of President Kennedy. Peter Sellers plays three different roles in the film, including that of President Merkin Muffley, and while he isn’t a total bumbling fool, the character certainly doesn’t add any dignity to the office of the presidency. With the country in mourning over the death of a popular president, it was decided that a little bit of time was needed before something that satirical should be released. I firmly believe that Dr. Strangelove would have been the winner for 1963 had it been released on its original release date.