The Oscars are tonight and every movie buff knows that it's the only award show that really matters. Careers and reputations are made and anybody in the biz that says they don't want to win one is lying through their teeth. The stakes are high, you can cut the pretentiousness with a knife, and the choices that get made in that stuffy auditorium year after year have always been the source of endless debate and discussion. A lot of people will tell you that "Apocalypse Now" should have beat "Kramer vs. Kramer" in '79 and "Pulp Fiction" should have beat "Forrest Gump" in '94. I'm going to leave these arguments alone and just say that those are ALL great movies and so is "Titanic" which deservedly won in '97 as well. I'm only zeroing in on the films that have no business being called the best of anything. Below you will read about those 'winners' that leave the average Joe shaking his head in disbelief. Or at least they would if he had any recollection of them in the first place("The Last Emperor", anyone?) thus proving my point exactly. So enjoy, but remember that this is the type of blog that is never going to be complete. Like I said, the Oscars are tonight.
1968's winner- "Oliver!"
Also nominated- "Funny Girl", "The Lion in Winter", "Rachel, Rachel" and "Romeo and Juliet"
The problem with writing an article like this is that you inevitably end up downgrading a film that doesn't deserve it. I get no pleasure out of punishing "Oliver!". It's a spirited musical(if a tad too long) produced at the tail end of the genre's heyday that every kid should have a look at by age ten. Judging by this field, it would seem like the Academy got it right. But look closer and you'll find that the best films of the year weren't even nominated. "2001: A Space Odyssey" is the most frequently cited example of Stanley Kubrick's genius, influencing everyone from Spielberg and Lucas to Ridley Scott and Chris Nolan. If you erased it from history, we might still be singing and dancing in the streets instead of exploring the vast universe of infinite possibilities the medium of film offers. "Planet of the Apes" and "Rosemary's Baby" are both holding up pretty damn well, while "Once Upon a Time in the West" is winning new admirers to this day. I'm reviewing the situation, and finding that "Oliver!" stole this one.
1973's winner- "The Sting"
Also nominated- "American Graffiti", "Cries and Whispers", "The Exorcist" and "A Touch of Class"
"The Sting" was an enjoyably old-fashioned caper starring Robert Redford and Paul Newman and there wasn't anybody in America that didn't want to see these two handsome matinee idols share the screen again after "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid". The venerable duo, along with director George Roy Hill, were basically riding the coattails of their hugely popular Western and forty years later, "The Sting" just doesn't feel like an essential piece of work. "The Exorcist" however, is still regularly called the scariest movie of all time, but the Academy has always shied away from controversy and Linda Blair's crucifix and potty mouth certainly generated plenty of it. Then there's the little matter of "Badlands" and "Last Tango in Paris". Yep, we definitely got conned.
1980's winner- "Ordinary People"
Also nominated- "Coal Miner's Daughter", "The Elephant Man", "Raging Bull" and "Tess"
This well-acted family drama marked the directorial debut of Robert Redford. He got impressive performances from his entire cast with Mary Tyler Moore receiving widespread acclaim for breaking out of her likable sitcom persona to play the cold matriarch of a family dealing with trauma. She was rewarded with a Best Actress nomination and Timothy Hutton became the youngest recipient of the Best Supporting Actor Oscar at age 20. The problem is that I'm pretty sure I'm the only person I know that has seen or even heard of this movie. It's faded from the public's memory. That doesn't automatically make it unworthy of the top prize, but let's talk about some of 1980's other offerings. "Coal Miner's Daughter" contains an outstanding performance from Sissy Spacek and "Raging Bull" is heavily praised to this day as one of Martin Scorsese's best films thanks to Robert De Niro's electrifying portrayal of 1940s middleweight champ Jake LaMotta. But we're not limiting this discussion to films that were nominated. "Empire Strikes Back" is widely considered the best "Star Wars" movie and "The Shining" was another Stanley Kubrick masterpiece. When compared to these undisputed classics, Redford's film seems very, well, ordinary.
1985's winner- "Out of Africa"
Also nominated- "The Color Purple", "Kiss of the Spider Woman", Prizzi's Honor" and "Witness"
I know it really seems like I hate Robert Redford, but that's honestly not the case. The blonde icon has just been a part of a lot of undeserved Best Picture winners. Meryl Streep continued her mastery of accents in this lush period romance, but good luck finding me somebody willing to sit through it's 2 hour and 40 minute running time today. This is what most people are referring to when they say they don't give a damn about awards. "Witness" is definitely the most watchable film in this bunch, but the undisputed best movie of 1985 wasn't even nominated. You know I'm talking about "Back to the Future". The Michael J. Fox time travel classic has kept on delighting viewers in the 28 years since it's release while "Out of Africa" doesn't even get the chance to bore a new generation because it's probably been that long since anyone has watched it.
1990's winner- "Dances with Wolves"
Also nominated- "Awakenings", "Ghost", "The Godfather Part III", and "Goodfellas"
I'm not here to pick on Kevin Costner's sweeping frontier epic or the man himself for that matter. "Dances with Wolves" is a very good movie that I could watch every five years or so. But I could watch "Goodfellas" every damn day for five years straight and that's only a slight exaggeration. Would you rather watch Costner's Civil War soldier sitting in a cabin writing in his diary for 40 minutes or Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci beating made man Billy Batts to near death? There's no need to get into any other 1990 movies because it's common knowledge that Scorsese's wiseguys rule and this may have been the biggest robbery since the Lufthansa heist. This is why Best Picture just can't be accurately determined the year the movies in question are released because the passage of time is the only real test of a film's worth. Hollywood has always had a thing for A-list leading men who step behind the camera and Costner's popularity at the time played no small part in the decision, but if we could vote for the Oscars twenty years after the fact, nobody outside of Kevin's immediate family is handing him the statue.
1998's winner- "Shakespeare In Love"
Also nominated- "Elizabeth", "Life Is Beautiful", "Saving Private Ryan" and "The Thin Red Line"
This is a big one. A romantic comedy starring Gwyneth Paltrow beat out Steven Spielberg's searing tribute to real life heroism. How on Earth did this happen?! Tinseltown was clearly in the process of turning the young blonde starlet into a household name, but this was just downright offensive. "Ryan" was a huge critical and commercial success and I would have bet everything I own on it picking up the most prestigious award in the motion picture industry. Spielberg did win Best Director which indicates that his WWII drama came VERY close to winning and it's been alleged many times that Miramax boss Harvey Weinstein ran an aggressive campaign and essentially bought the Academy Award for Best Picture. These loud claims caused the Oscar telecast to be moved up one month from late March to the end of February to shorten the amount of shameless politicking that takes place. Perhaps a jealous pocket of voters were simply tired of patting the backs of Spielberg and Tom Hanks. They certainly didn't need any more accolades, but it doesn't take a film scholar to notice an error as egregious as "Shakespeare" coming out on top.
2000's winner- "Gladiator"
Also nominated- "Chocolat", "Couching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", "Erin Brockovich" and "Traffic"
Was I not entertained? Of course not. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Ridley Scott's swords and sandals epic as much as the next guy but is it REALLY the best film of 2000? Anybody that thinks so probably missed Steven Soderbergh's "Traffic", a realistic examination into the nation's largely fruitless and never-ending 'War On Drugs'. It's a war that can never really be won which is a stance that was probably too controversial for the conservative Academy. Soderbergh assembled an impressive ensemble cast and skillfully weaved multiple storylines to earn Best Director, yet his absorbing drama got slayed by Maximus at the end of the night. Like I pointed out earlier, Picture and Director almost always go hand in hand but the deck was stacked even further by the fact that "Gladiator" was a big box office hit that planted Russell Crowe firmly on the A-list. Sometimes it just turns into a popularity contest.
2002's winner- "Chicago"
Also nominated- "Gangs of New York", The Hours", "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" and "The Pianist"
Catherine Zeta-Jones and Rene Zellweger sure threw themselves into scenes like the one pictured above, but there is NO WAY IN HELL Rob Marshall's musical was the best film of 2002. The Academy surely got carried away with their enthusiasm for this lively adaptation of the Broadway hit believing it would mark the full fledged comeback of the venerable song and dance genre after nearly a quarter century(thank God that didn't happen, "Hairspray" and "High School Musical" notwithstanding). This isn't the '60s and "Chicago" isn't "West Side Story" or "The Sound of Music". It's not even "Grease". Roman Polanski won Best Director for his infinitely superior Holocaust drama "The Pianist" indicating another very close race. It was only one of at least a dozen movies more deserving than the one that got Queen Latifah inexplicably nominated as well in the Best Supporting Actress category. What were they trying to pull here?!
2005's winner- "Crash"
Also nominated- "Brokeback Mountain", "Capote", "Good Night, and Good Luck" and "Munich"
Paul Haggis' heavy-handed parable on racism may be the worst movie to ever win Best Picture. Matt Dillon did some nice work as a bigoted member of the LAPD, but one good scene does not a great movie make. "Brokeback" is obviously better, but homophobia likely kept the cast and crew of Ang Lee's 'gay cowboy movie' in their seats at the Kodak Theater that night. Lee did win Best Director which means this was another horse race. We either need a recount or an investigation into how many times Chris 'Ludacris' Bridges was allowed to vote. "Munich" was another solid dose of serious Spielberg, but I explained how we feel about him and his overcrowded mantle a little earlier. "Syriana" was a topical, socially relevant film that wasn't even nominated. Neither was Terrence Malick's epic "The New World". Thandie Newton wasn't the only one that got degraded in 2005.
2008's winner- "Slumdog Millionaire"
Also nominated- "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button", "Frost/Nixon", "Milk" and "The Reader"
I may have spoke too soon when I damned "Crash" as the least impressive film ever celebrated on Hollywood's biggest night. The Oscars really started losing credibility over the past decade. At this rate, any future discussions about the awards won't be about the times they got it wrong, it will be about the rare instances when they got it right. This is another example of the Academy going against the grain. The nomination alone was a stretch, but Danny Boyle's film winning is absolutely ridiculous. The other four nominees were all better. "The Wrestler" was much better. It wasn't even nominated. Neither was "The Dark Knight". Many felt it should have been. Rewarding Chris Nolan's massively successful, genre-defying sequel would have been more appropriate than acknowledging a passing fad. Bollywood my ass. Nobody will remember this movie in ten years.
No comments:
Post a Comment