Academy Award Recheck
I just went to the an Oscar's link and found that I could find all the nominees and Academy Award winners ever. This brought up an idea to me- did the Academy usually get it right? This is of course opinionated, but it seems that some movies have been more important than others. For instance, it would be hard to argue that in 1994 the Academy was correct in giving the best
picture nod to Forest Gump over Pulp Fiction. Besides being a much better movie, Pulp Fictionn changed the whole tone of movie making for the rest of the decade. Forest Gump made more money, but was a lesser movie in every other regard (although you could argue for Shawshank Redemption since this seems to be every boring person I know's favorite movie).
The above mistake was made by erring to the commercial over the artsy, but sometimes the opposite problem happens. In 1996 The English Patient won. I remember liking it, but my only memories are of deserts and Ralph Fiennes' face. On retrospect, shouldn't Fargo have been the big winner that night? Who can forget the police first discovering the body, Frances McDormand's accent, William Macy chipping away at his car, the
chipper...
An interesting battle at the time was Titanic versus LA Confidential in 1997. The art house crowd could not fathom rewarding the idiotic Titanic and pushed hard for the crime noir. Since I hated Titanic (when the boat had already started sinking and their were still 2 hours to go, I turned it off), I definitely aligned myself against it. But I think the Academy was right in this one. Titanic might not have been a great piece of art, but it certainly hit a chord. In that case, one of the best selling movies definitely trumps a good, but not great or original, art house hit.
1993 is a year I'd be curious what others think. The nominees were The Fugitive, In The Name of the Father, The Piano, The Remains of the Day, and Schindler's List. Also that year, Altman's Short Cuts came out. Now I am hugely biased, since Short Cuts is my favorite movie, but I would lean towards that being the best movie of the year. Besides it being well done, think of how many movies have followed that used the whole ensemble multiple plots interacting style. Already this year I've heard Short Cuts brought up twice when discussing the new movies Me and You and Everyone We Know and Happy Endings.
Meanwhile, was Schindler's List really that great? It is always hard to be critical when dealing with a holocaust movie, but I don't remember the movie itself standing out. Maybe I should see it again, but my memory was that Spielberg was being rewarded for finally getting serious.
picture nod to Forest Gump over Pulp Fiction. Besides being a much better movie, Pulp Fictionn changed the whole tone of movie making for the rest of the decade. Forest Gump made more money, but was a lesser movie in every other regard (although you could argue for Shawshank Redemption since this seems to be every boring person I know's favorite movie).The above mistake was made by erring to the commercial over the artsy, but sometimes the opposite problem happens. In 1996 The English Patient won. I remember liking it, but my only memories are of deserts and Ralph Fiennes' face. On retrospect, shouldn't Fargo have been the big winner that night? Who can forget the police first discovering the body, Frances McDormand's accent, William Macy chipping away at his car, the
chipper...An interesting battle at the time was Titanic versus LA Confidential in 1997. The art house crowd could not fathom rewarding the idiotic Titanic and pushed hard for the crime noir. Since I hated Titanic (when the boat had already started sinking and their were still 2 hours to go, I turned it off), I definitely aligned myself against it. But I think the Academy was right in this one. Titanic might not have been a great piece of art, but it certainly hit a chord. In that case, one of the best selling movies definitely trumps a good, but not great or original, art house hit.
1993 is a year I'd be curious what others think. The nominees were The Fugitive, In The Name of the Father, The Piano, The Remains of the Day, and Schindler's List. Also that year, Altman's Short Cuts came out. Now I am hugely biased, since Short Cuts is my favorite movie, but I would lean towards that being the best movie of the year. Besides it being well done, think of how many movies have followed that used the whole ensemble multiple plots interacting style. Already this year I've heard Short Cuts brought up twice when discussing the new movies Me and You and Everyone We Know and Happy Endings.
Meanwhile, was Schindler's List really that great? It is always hard to be critical when dealing with a holocaust movie, but I don't remember the movie itself standing out. Maybe I should see it again, but my memory was that Spielberg was being rewarded for finally getting serious. - Anyway, I'd be curious what others think. And by the way, giving the stupid Million Dollar Baby this year's Oscar will be later hugely regretted. But I better stop before this blog reaches monstrous proportions.
posted by chuckdaddy2000 at 9:00 am
14 Comments:
I could take issue with several of your comments - and I will momentarily - but first I'd like to weigh in on the philosophical question you seem to be asking: does the Academy favor commercially successful films over the preferences of beret-wearing, mocha latte-drinking, Sundance-worshipping movie elitists? Art is subjective and quantifying the "best" art is nearly impossible. Like it or not, popular choice should be a consideration because it's the closest thing we got to a quantified measurement - even if it means offending your arthouse bretheren. But then, Shawshank's my fav movie so my opinion may not count...
Now then, my comments specific to your recheck:
-I agree on Pulp Fiction over Forrest Gump, but remember that PF was a galactic box office moneymaker too.
-Fargo schmargo. It was entertaining. It was shocking. It was funny. NFW it was the best movie of the year. Raising Arizona remains the best Coen bros movie because it's an original story.
-I seem to remember that 1997 was also the year "As Good As it Gets" came out. IMO that movie kicked Titanic and LA Confidential's ass
-Shortcuts was great, but was it really revolutionary? What about David Lynch? Wasn't he weaving together ostensibly random subplots before Shortcuts came out?
-Schindler's List is not Spielberg's first attempt at getting serious, unless you consider The Color Purple a comedy.
-MDB stupid? That passes muster only if you'd say the same about Lost in Translation. Because we all know that movie was a fucking snoozer.
Great observation that Shawshank Redemption is the favorite move of boring people. That has been my experience as well. I wonder if it is because they identify with the circumstances of the main character - imprisoned as they are in their boring lives, forgotten, and oppressed by their sheer lack of imagination etc... Next super-boring person you meet, ask them their favorite movie, and I guarantee they'll say Shawshank.
First of all, Sundance is very commercial and no self respecting hipster would drink a mocha-latte. I agree with Charlie that "the Academy" tends to favor commerically popular movies aka mostly movies I don't want to see. I disagree that popular choice should be a consideration when looking at a film critically. A lot of wonderful films never gain the recognition they deserve b/c of lack of marketing exposure and appeal to mass market. I am not someone who identifies with the taste of middle America. I'm not being snobby or elitist, I just don't. Americans want movies that make them feel good, not make them think or challenge popular opinons. Look at Hotel Rwanda. I guess if you are someone who likes MDB and cried at the end of Titanic you should regard the Oscars as truly rewarding the best in cinema. I for one do not, so I don't. How many people do you think have seen Citizen Kane--widely regarded as the most ground breaking film ever?
Of course "the Academy" has done some good by giving exposure to some great foreign films, most recently Maria Full of Grace. However why the hell did they include the Weeping Camel? Okay back to work.
Thank you Hipster for your heated response and (touche!) pointing out that Color Purple was Spielberg's first serious(ly lame) movie. I'm not sure how far we can argue though, since we seem to have very different taste. Shawshank Redemption was a good movie, but favorite? And I thought As Good At It Gets was schlocky and lame(A gay! A mom tending a disabled child! A prejudiced obsessive compulsive. Cuba Gooding! They're all so different. But they have one thing in common. The human experience!!!) Me's has a sneaking suspicion you might also be a big Jerry Maguire/ Good Will Hunting fan.
And Meatballs 2 Rawked, I think our movie opionions might be pretty similar. And I'm also still angry that MDB beat out Hotel Rwanda (which wasn't even nominated!). But I'm going to have to take the middle route on the role of popularity in choosing a movie. Popularity should not be the main criteria, but I agree with Hipster that it should be a consideration. To be the best movie of the year, a movie should have had some acceptance and hopefully some impact on the culture at large (I want to use the word zeitgeist here, but am not exactly sure what it means).
The question, I have, is how much popularity is necessary? Pulp Fiction was more than popular enough that it should not be overthrown by Gump just because Gump was the big hit of the year. But did Hotel Rwanda have enough fans to be considered? It obviously wasn't a blockbuster, but nor was it hidden away in solely Indie theaters. I feel like it should get a pass just because it should have been the tragic drama of the year that got everyone talking and it should have been the one harsh movie Middle America saw. But since it wasn't and barely even talked about, I might have to concede failure here...
Oh please...if Shawshank had subtitles, starred a couple French actors (no offense to you personally, Frogger) and made shit at the box office you'd be comparing it to the the Bicycle Thief. Yes, Shawshank hits a sensationalistic pitch from time to time. It's even (gasp!) inspiring. Does this somehow detract from its artistic integrity? Why do movies have to leave viewers wallowing in shit to have credibility with the indie elite?
I hated Jerry McGuire. I like GWH, but it's pretty standard stuff. As Good As It Gets? The end is indeed syrupy but it's still way better than LA Confidential and Titanic.
Shawshank covered in post above :)
On Hotel Rwanda...ever notice that no one ever says Don Cheatle's shit?
There a feel good indie films out there or at least ones that don't make you feel like shit. It's just not life wrapped up in a pretty, inspirational bow.
Actually, I didn't know that petrovich. Thanks pointing it out.
I did not know that either Petrovich. Thank the lord that you are out there to make sure we know what we're talking about. I must say, however, that I think Hipster has some interesting opinions and make some excellent points. I am intrigued that a Hipster such as yourself would have such mainstream, yet thought provoking taste in movies. I too adore As Good as it Gets, but I must admit that the understated beauty and complexity of a film like Titanic was just too much for me. Speaking as a homo, or should I say Tri (as in "I'll try anything"), sexual Vietnamese man I must say that I felt that the gay charachter was a pivotal, underrated role and well acted by the great Greg Kinnear, and I therefore I feel that Jack only took away from the heart of the story.
Anyway Hipster, I just want to say that I wish I could meet you and that the history between our two countries was not such a barrier to what could be a beautiful relationship. I feel as if we are the real-life Jerry Maguire and let me that you had me at "I could take issue." Please visit my blog at the address below.
N!
Wow! Things are heating up on my blog!
But I do have to say I take offence to the attack on Frogger and I's movie character. I don't even like French movies. And about people having to wallow in shit for me to respect the movie? Well... I guess you have me there. It just always seems so much more interesting if it's depressing. Why go to a movie to be inspired when you have the option to leave questioning your life's meaningless? It's so much more fun!
I'm not saying that Shawshank is a bad movie necessarily, just that for some reason it is always mentioned by boring people as their all time favorite movie. It's just one of those weird mysterious societal trends.
Been about 24 hours since I last commented and as I've thoroughly enjoyed this discussion I hope it hasn't died. Lemme try some quick CPR...
michael: technically Citizen Kane's about 40 years older than Raising AZ, but I get and agree with your point. Btw, how many MG of paxil does it take for Lost in Translation to become "fucking riveting"? Just kidding. But I did get a look around the theater back when I saw 'Lost.' Reminded me of Ben Stein's students during the economics lecture in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.
frogger: my personal research indicates that 100% of people who say "societal" when they could just as easily say "social" are more boring than shawshank fans. It's like, ohmygod, sooo weird and mysterious!!!
nguyen: you sound hot. call me collect sometime at 503.679.9996.
Thank you hipster for resucitation (spelling?)
Lost In Translation was a strange movie. In many ways it had a lot of flaws: odd pacing, at times slow, felt like it didn't know where it was going... But I loved it, and would be tempted to put it as the best movie of 2003, although the third Lord of The Rings deserved it as well. I just think the relationship between Murray and Johansen was origimnl/fascinating and the whole dreamy feel of the movie fit perfectly. And of course there was one of the best moments in film, the kareoke room scene.
First off, I wanted congratulate hipster and nguyen on their love connection. It is great to see 2 people united in their taste for stupid-ass movies.
And Petrodaddy, you're going to have to get your years straightened out. You're combining 2003 (LIT and ROK) and 2004 (HR and Eternal...) all into the same year. I think the ROK winning it was sort of a thanks to the whole trilogy, which deserevd at least one Oscar, although I agree with you that LIT was probably more deserving.
Post a Comment
<< Home