I've been thinking about where I went so wrong with my Oscar predictions this year. This year the Academy Awards brought us some highs and lows, but ultimately there were more surprises/disappointments than I remember in recent shows. The biggest awards of the night (Best Picture and Best Director) went to Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and his dark comedy, Birdman. It was an upset of sorts because, up until a couple of weeks ago, Richard Linklater's Boyhood was the frontrunner for Oscar gold. I couldn't mask my frustration realizing that once again, this damn show had roped me in again only to piss me off for what feels like the hundredth time. Let me explain, I do not think that Birdman is a bad movie by any stretch of the imagination. Quite the contrary, I think it is a very good one. It's expertly shot by one of the best cinematographers in the business, Emmanuel Lubezki. It has fantastic performances from an all-star cast doing some of the best work of their careers (Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, etc.). It's a smart and funny examination of the artistic process and one man's descent into a psychosis of attempted creativity.
But I do not think it deserved the "Best Picture" Oscar over Boyhood.
I could submit a litany of reasons of why I feel Linklater's film is more deserving (stronger emotional core, experimental filmmaking at a higher level, no overacting by Emma Stone), but it would simply be one man's opinion. But I promise you, in ten years when folks look back on this year's Oscar winners they will wonder why a movie like Boyhood lost to Birdman. This is not a new phenomenon. There are plenty of films that won "Best Picture" that we now look at in surprise and wonder . . . . how the hell did that win?
But, for every person, like me, that thinks Boyhood should have won there could be one who is satisfied with Birdman's triumph. Ultimately, they are two completely different movies. To say one is better than the other is subjective to be sure. But through the test of time public opinion tends to lean one way or the other and I feel pretty confident that history is on Linklater's side. Who today would proclaiming that John Ford's 1941 film How Green Was My Valley is superior to Orson Welles' masterpiece, Citizen Kane? Well, Ford's picture is the one that ended up taking home the Oscar that year, while nearly 60 years later, Kane is voted the greatest American movie of all time by the American Film Institute (AFI).
Honestly, I think Birdman won because it is a movie about the entertainment business and the eccentric individuals trying to stage a play on Broadway. It has been observed that the Academy tends to sway towards movies that are identifiable to their voters. One could surmise that Birdman fits squarely into that category.
It got me thinking about all the "Best Picture" winners in the past that might have not deserved their win. So, here it is, my list of the worst "Best Picture" winners in Oscar history. Now, when I say "worst" I don't necessarily mean these movies are bad. I just don't feel like they should have won over what I feel are more deserving films in the same category.
1964
My Fair Lady
Directed by George Cukor
Starring Audrey Hepburn, Rex Harrison and Stanley Halloway
The Winner Was:
This now looks like a somewhat controversial win. The film version of the hit Broadway musical by Frederick Lowe and Alan Jay Lerner was highly anticipated. It was based on the classic stage play, Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw about an arrogant phonetics professor named Henry Higgins (Rex Harrison) who wagers that he can teach a poor, cockney flower girl how to speak proper English and make her into a high society lady. This was a time when movie musicals ruled the box office and often the awards circuit. Audrey Hepburn was a huge star and the face of the new fashion-conscious modern woman. Here she plays Eliza Doolittle, the flower girl, and because her signing voice was not up to the challenge a professional singer was chosen to perform the musical numbers. Her songs are dubbed. Many think this is what cost Hepburn the "Best Actress" Oscar which instead went to Julie Andrews for her role as the title character in Disney's, Mary Poppins. By the way, Andrews played Eliza Doolittle in the stage version of My Fair Lady but she was passed over for Hepburn because the latter was a bigger star and Andrews, at the time, was only famous on Broadway. She obviously did sing her own songs in Poppins which is a superior movie musical with a better message at its core. My Fair Lady always seemed to me to be overtly sexist. Here we have an uptight asshole in Higgins, a life long bachelor who is nothing short of a tyrant at times to this girl until he molds her into his vision of the perfect woman. I mean, c'mon, his love ballad to her is called "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face". Would this fly today? Meanwhile Mary Poppins was also nominated for "Best Picture". along with the historical drama, Beckett, starring Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole. But the real winner should have been Stanley Kubrick's masterful film, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
What Should Have Won:
Widely considered to be one of the greatest dark comedies of all time, Dr. Strangelove was a satirical look at the Cold War in the 60's at a time when you didn't really make fun of such things. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a very recent memory and atomic paranoia was at an all-time high. Kubrick's movie is still hysterical today, containing one of the very best comedic performances in cinema history as Peter Sellers took on three very distinct roles. It's bleak, funny, smart and is the first movie to make nuclear apocalypse funny. Dr. Strangelove- groundbreaking in so many ways.
1979
Kramer vs. Kramer
Directed by Robert Benton
Starring Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep, Justin Henry and Jane Alexander
The Winner Was:
As the 70's ended and a new decade approached the days of men and women staying in unhappy marriages ended and divorce became more and more mainstream. Robert Benton's film is about a work-obsessed New York advertising executive named Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman), who is forced to reinvent his life when his wife, Joanna (Meryl Streep), abruptly leaves him and their five-year-old son, Billy. Joanna has decided she doesn't want to be married to Ted anymore and, because of her mental state, she feels that she isn't fit to be a mother to Billy. Ted is forced to be an actual parent to his son for the first time and much of the movie is about his struggle to become the dad his boy needs him to be. Later, Joanna returns demanding custody of Billy and the later portion of the movie concerns the contentious court proceedings as man and wife fight for the right to raise their son. Kramer vs. Kramer seems pretty pedestrian today when you think how common divorce is, but when it was made it was still pretty scandalous for a woman to leave her husband and son in this way. So, in a way, it was kind of unique for its era. But Kramer vs. Kramer is not Apocalypse Now . . . .
What Should Have Won:
Frances Ford Coppola, along with screenwriter John Milius, had been developing his dark, modern-day adaptation of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness for years. Actually, George Lucas was supposed to direct it, but Star Wars happened and that pretty much changed everything. Coppola's battle to get Apocalypse Now in the can have been well documented (watch the brilliant documentary Hearts of Darkness), but all that pain was worth it as this movie remains, along with Terrance Malick's The Thin Red Line, the most cerebral film about war ever made. A true decent into madness, Coppolla's tale of Captain Willard's (Martin Sheen) mission to assassinate the rogue Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) is brilliant on almost every level. It nearly killed its director and leading man during production and is still considered a masterpiece of filmmaking about war. Who thinks Kramer vs. Kramer is a masterpiece?
1980
Ordinary People
Directed by Robert Redford
Starring Donald Sutherland, Mary Tyler Moore, Judd Hirsh and Timothy Hutton
The Winner Was:
Robert Redford was one of the biggest, most recognizable actors of his generation when he directed his first movie, the dysfunctional family drama, Ordinary People. A moving study of what happens to a family when the older son of two brothers dies, tragically, in a sailing accident, the movie mostly concerns itself with how a family that can't communicate effectively deals with grief. Timothy Hutton won an Oscar as well for his role as the depressed and suicidal younger son, Conrad. Ordinary People is a very good film about a family dealing with loss. That same year Martin Scorsese also had a movie nominated for "Best Picture" . . . .
What Should Have Won:
Raging Bull may be the best biopic ever made. The life of boxer Jake La Motta is brought to the screen in all its ugliness by beautiful black and white photography. Robert De Niro had wanted to make this movie for years and finally convinced Scorsese to make it. Now it is often cited as the legendary filmmakers best work and usually finds itself at the top of most lists that rank movies of the 80's. De Niro did win the Oscar for "Best Actor" as he masterfully depicted La Motta's violent, hot tempered nature as he destroys pretty much every relationship he has in his life. A visceral film that depicts how one man's demons destroy him and how once he hits bottom he finds some semblance of a soul. Raging Bull is Scorsese at the peak of his abilities and De Niro's career-defining performance. Maybe Redford bought the Oscar, I don't know.
1994
Forrest Gump
Directed by Robert Zemeckis
Starring Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, Gary Sinise, Mykelti Williamson and Sally Field
The Winner Was:
Forrest Gump was a cultural phenomenon that in some ways has not aged well. Tom Hanks won his second "Best Actor" award in a row for playing the slow-minded Alabama man who lives through some of our country's most memorable historical milestones. From teaching Elvis how to dance, meeting JFK, to surviving the Vietnam War, Forrest's life story is both inspirational and moving. He loves only one woman his entire life and becomes a millionaire by investing in Apple Computers well before anyone knew about them. Call me a cynic but I've always felt there was an underlying, subversive message at the heart of Forrest Gump. It's a movie where the hero is a simple man who just "goes with the flow" of time. Everyone around him, though, is punished for making choices in their lives that don't subscribe to what normal, everyday society supports. Some examples would include Forrest's lifelong love, Jenny (Robin Wright) who becomes a hippy, has multiple lovers and gets involved with drugs. She turns her life around when she has Forrest's son, only to pay for her earlier life by succumbing to a disease that is never fully explained but many think might be HIV. Lieutenant Dan (Gary Sinese) loses both of his legs in Vietnam and returns home to become a drunk, disillusioned vet who rails against God. But once he "makes his peace with God," he is redeemed and given metal legs and a wife. Only Forrest, who just goes through life without making any waves, is rewarded with everything he could want. Call me crazy, I just can't get past the subliminal messaging of this beloved "Best Picture" winner. Looking back though, there were actually two movies that now many agree are clearly better . . . .
What Should Have Won:
Quentin Tarantino broke through in 2004 with his unique brand of movie making in Pulp Fiction. Released on moviegoers like a shot of adrenaline, Pulp Fiction was fresh and original. Here we have three crime stories that interweaved in a non-linear narrative filled with dark humor, surprising violence and unforgettable characters. John Travolta re-booted his career and a talented character actor named Samuel L. Jackson become a household name. Pulp Fiction single-handedly ignited a new wave of independent filmmaking that would explode in the 90's and suddenly studio's were turning their attention towards smaller pictures and taking chances that they never would have before. The significance of Pulp Fiction's impact on the movie business in the 90's cannot be quantified and it stands the test of time as a wholly original film bursting with style and technique. Frank Durabont also gave us The Shawshank Redemption in 2004, which I also think is superior to Forrest Gump in almost every way. It is the highest rated movie on IMDB and was Matt's and my pick for best movie of the 1990's. It was not a success at the box office but found its audience on TV and through DVD rentals. It was also nominated for "Best Picture" but was lost in Gump's wake. Now, who thinks Shawshank deserves to be ignored today?
1996
The English Patient
Directed by Anthony Minghella
Starring Ralph Fiennes, Juliette Binoche, Willem Dafoe and Kristin Scott Thomas
The Winner Was:
Anthony Minghella's epic adaptation of Michael Ondaatje's novel of the same name is a sweeping historical romance. Taking place during World War II it tells the tale of a young nurse (Juliette Binoche) who tends to the badly burned body of a mysterious plan crash victim (Ralph Fiennes). The man recounts his past through flashback and we learn about his love affair with another man's wife and the tragic consequences of their passion. Sounds like a movie tailor made for Oscar, right? You wouldn't be wrong, but The English Patient is neither engaging or unique in any significant way. Sure, it is well made, but the story is pretty pedestrian and looking back one has to wonder why the Academy thought it was so great. I remember this being one of the first times I realized that the Oscars often had little to do with what was actually the best film, but more to do with marketing and popularity. It was pretty aggravating, especially with a Coen Brothers masterpiece nominated as well . . . . .
What Should Have Won:
Fargo was Joel and Ethan Coen announcing to the world that they were two of the most original and talented filmmakers around. Sure, they had made several excellent movies (Blood Simple, Raising Arizona and Millers Crossing) already, but Fargo was the picture that exploded them into mainstream success. A dark and twistingly funny story about a down-on-his-luck car salesman (William H. Macy) who hires two criminals (Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare) to kidnap his wife so he can collect the ransom from his wealthy father-in-law. Of course, everything goes horribly wrong when one of the kidnappers kills a police officer and an unlucky family who happen to catch them in the act of transporting their captive. Enter one of the most unlikeliest heroes in Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand), a local cop whose homespun ingenuity helps her slowly unravel the case. Fargo blended comedy and crime in a perfect marriage that had audiences both laughing at the funny Minnesota accents and cringing at the moments of shocking violence. McDormand would go n to win "Best Actress", deservedly so and the Coens would go on to become one of the most celebrated voices in American cinema and The English Patient is not even discussed in the same breath as their quirky, brilliant look at the stupid actions of desperate men and the underestimation of one very pregnant and very smart woman.
1998
Shakespeare in Love
Directed by John Madden
Starring Gwyneth Paltrow, Joseph Fiennes, Geoffrey Rush, Colin Firth, Ben Affleck and Judi Dench
The Winner Was:
This one is often cited as one of the clearest examples of when the Academy got it wrong, and today people scratch their heads and wonder how did John Madden's little film about the inspiration of William Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet win the "Best Picture" Oscar in 1998. The answer: Harvey Weinstein. Miramax launched one of the most aggressive marketing campaigns for Shakespeare in Love that had ever been seen, and through the sheer force of money and influence, they did it. Shakespeare in Love is not a bad movie at all. Smart and cleverly written, it's fun to watch and Paltrow is very good in what would be a career-defining role for her, but c'mon, this not a "Best Picture" winner. Today, almost everyone looks at the other movies in this category and thinks . . . . really?
What Should Have Won:
Steven Spielberg's WWII epic, Saving Private Ryan is now considered one of the greatest war movies of all time. The opening scenes where the Allied troops land on the beach at Normandy, France is still cited as one of the most shocking and accurate depictions of war violence ever shot. Despite the large scope of its battle scenes, Saving Private Ryan is really a very intimate movie that explores the value of one life in a war where lives are lost by the hundreds every day. There are not many movie buffs out there who would now say Shakespeare In Love deserved its win. In fact, I would also submit that another WWII film, The Thin Red Line, is also more deserving, as it was nominated too this year.
2000
Gladiator
Directed by Ridley Scott
Starring Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, Connie Nielsen, Oliver Reed, Derek Jacobi, Djimon Hounsou and Richard Harris
The Winner Was:
Ridley Scott brought back the "Sword & Sandals" epic in a big way with Gladiator, a nod to old school movies like Spartacus and Ben-Hur. Russell Crowe won his first Oscar for "Best Actor" for what I consider to be his least demanding role. Looking back now there isn't really much about Gladiator that deserves to be celebrated. The story is pretty typical and while the battle scenes are well done, it doesn't excel in this area like Mel Gibson's, Braveheart or Michael Mann's, Last of the Mohicans. Also, it pains me to say this since I am a fan, but Joaquin Phoenix's breakthrough performance as the evil, usurping emperor, Commodus, is laughable at times. It's a true master class in overacting. Thankfully, he has proven that this role was just a fluke.
What Should Have Won:
Ang Lee delivered the most successful foreign film ever made and blended a kung-fu, historical epic and romance movie into one. That movie was called Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and even today it stands up. It's fight scenes play out more like elaborate dance choreography and the performances are all stellar, blending the usual overdone emoting that tends to grace kung-fu films with more subdued and internalized feelings. Its a beautifully shot and moving epic that elevated a niche genre like the martial arts film into both art house and box office success.
2001
A Beautiful Mind
Directed by Ron Howard
Starring Russell Crowe, Ed Harris, Jennifer Connelly, Paul Bettany and Christopher Plummer
The Winner Was:
Oh, where do I begin with this one? Ron Howard's biopic of mathematician, John Nash (Russell Crowe) was billed as the story of one man's struggle with schizophrenia and how the enduring love of his wife helped him overcome his mental illness. Howard's film is moving and well made. The problem is how far it goes stretching the truth. First, Nash and his wife Alicia (Jennifer Connelly)divorced in real life and were separated for many years. So, the touching love story we see in the movie could be seen as contrived. Second, Nash also had a number of homosexual relationships that the producers decided to ignore. Why? Were they afraid of muddying the appeal of their main character if mainstream audiences couldn't connect with a man who was attracted to both men and women? They say they didn't want his homosexuality to be connected to his schizophrenia in any way, but you be the judge. Regardless of the reasons we are left with a whitewashed story of a man who truly led an interesting life. Another example of Hollywood's fear of challenging the audience too much.
What Should Have Won:
Most would probably think that Peter Jackson's epic Lord of the Rings Trilogy got enough accolades when 2003's, Return of the King swept the Academy Awards like a typhoon, winning a ton of Oscars, including "Best Picture". But, I submit that if you are only going to give the gold statue to one installment of Jackson's masterful fantasy films, then the wrong one won. The Fellowship of the Ring is the crown jewel in what is already three great movies. It feels more personal and intimate than the later pictures, and it deals with what is an exorbitant amount of exposition in a flawless way. There are fewer characters and Jackson really gets to take his time really developing them. Sure, things get much bigger and the battles grow in enormous, ass-kicking size in The Two Towers and Return of the King, but this first installment feels more like a perfect marriage of drama and fantasy in one gorgeous package.
2005
Crash
Directed by Paul Haggis
Starring Matt Dillon, Michael Pena, Sandra Bullock, Don Cheadle, Terrance Howard and Thandie Newton
The Winner Was:
I just don't get it and I can't tell you how many people I've encountered who agree with me. Crash isn't even a good movie, much less a "Best Picture" winner. It is the perfect example of the "Oscar Bait" film. Crash has a lot to say about society, and maybe its message is a good and important one. But its clunky to me and its agenda is right in your face with little flair or creative ingenuity. I don't have much else to say about it other than . . . . why?
What Should Have Won:
Ang Lee was robbed again of a "Best Picture" win when his unconventional western love story was passed over for Crash. Brokeback Mountain is a beautiful movie in so many ways and I cannot wrap my head around how it didn't win. Jake Gyllenhaal and the late Heath Ledger delivered touching and believable performances of two men who hide their romantic relationship from their wives, family and society in general for decades. I can make a solid argument that Ang Lee is quietly become one of our greatest working filmmakers The trifecta of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Brokeback Mountain and Life of Pi alone make him worthy of consideration.
So, that's it. My choices for the worst "Best Picture" winners of all time and the films that should have won. Thought of any that I missed? Or maybe you disagree with me? Feel free to comment . . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment