LA Times: 10 worst best picture winners
atyl
Still smarting over that big "Crash?" It's not the first time the
academy has embarrassed itself with a choice that's going to age badly.
By Stephen Farber
Special to The Times
March 19, 2006
Is "Crash" the worst movie ever to win the Oscar for best picture?
Probably not, though it definitely reeks. Academy members had a chance
to make history by honoring "Brokeback Mountain," a trailblazing gay
love story that also happened to be the best movie of 2005. Instead,
they voted for arguably the worst of the five films nominated - a
ham-fisted exposé of racial tensions in Los Angeles that pulled its
punches by ending on an incongruous note of communion and redemption.
Disappointing as this decision was, however, it wasn't the first time
the academy got it all wrong. Indeed, in the 78 years that Oscars have
been awarded, there are only a dozen or so times when the statuette was
awarded to an undisputed classic such as "It Happened One Night," "Gone
With the Wind," "Casablanca," "All About Eve," "On the Waterfront,"
"The Bridge on the River Kwai," "Lawrence of Arabia," "The Godfather"
and "The Godfather Part II."
In other cases, the academy honored a good movie that wasn't quite the
best of the year - the Oscar did not go to 1941's "Citizen Kane,"
frequently cited as the greatest movie in history, but "How Green Was
My Valley" - or hugely popular films that may have been kitschy but
were still enormously entertaining, such as "The Sound of Music,"
"Titanic" or "Gladiator."
But in a surprising number of cases, the Oscar has gone to films that
were mediocre or just plain bad.
To provide a little context for readers who are still perplexed or
angry over this year's upset, I've come up with an admittedly
subjective list of the 10 worst movies to be voted best picture. It
wasn't an easy list to compile - not because there were so few
possibilities but because there were so many.
These first two really take the booby prize:
"The Greatest Show on Earth" (1952) was criticized even at the time for
its cornucopia of clichés. Perhaps this circus-themed soap opera can
be enjoyed as a guilty pleasure, full of unintended howlers, but is
that what the Oscar was meant to signify? The Oscar that year might
have gone to "High Noon," "Moulin Rouge" (the good version, directed by
John Huston), or to "Singin' in the Rain," which wasn't even nominated
but is now widely regarded as the greatest movie musical ever made.
"Around the World in 80 Days" (1956) also sits at the bottom of the
barrel. Producer Mike Todd was the Harvey Weinstein of his day, a
cunning showman who knew how to court Oscar voters. He also managed to
attract a legion of stars to do cameos, a novelty at the time, but the
movie is nothing more than a 167-minute travelogue, with inane and
insulting comic relief provided by Mexican actor Cantinflas.
Grandiosity is a regrettable hallmark of several of the other worst
movies to be named best picture:
"The Great Ziegfeld" (1936) first epitomized this trend. It's a
three-hour biopic with a few eye-popping production numbers and a
couple of hours of padding.
"Ben-Hur" (1959) won a mind-boggling 11 Oscars. The chariot race is
worth the price of admission, but the rest of this 212-minute epic is
drenched in syrupy religiosity reminiscent of a Hallmark Christmas
card. The movie was the weakest of the five nominees that year;
"Anatomy of a Murder," "The Diary of Anne Frank," "The Nun's Story" and
"Room at the Top" are all more watchable today. And two movies that are
more enduring than any of them - "Some Like It Hot" and "North by
Northwest" - weren't even nominated.
"The English Patient" (1996) is well photographed and well edited, but
it's also emotionally desiccated and downright ponderous (as "Seinfeld"
fans well know). Director Anthony Minghella crafted a far more
involving movie three years later, "The Talented Mr. Ripley," which won
exactly zero Oscars.
"Forrest Gump" (1994). Robert Zemeckis made a terrific piece of
entertainment in "Back to the Future," but he won his Oscar for this
bloated, soft-headed trip though a few decades of American history.
That year, the academy might have honored the electrifying "Pulp
Fiction" but chose to play it safe. Quentin Tarantino and co-writer
Roger Avary did win for best screenplay, but that was merely a
consolation prize, like "Brokeback Mountain's" directing and screenplay
Oscars this year.
"You Can't Take It With You" (1938). Some argue that the academy is a
sucker for swollen, overlong epics. But in several instances, the Oscar
went to small, quirky movies that were just as stupefying. This one is
a case in point. Seen today, the antics of the world's wackiest family
seem about as engaging as the sound of fingernails raking a blackboard.
Consider all the classic comedies of the '30s and early '40s that
didn't win Oscars - such as "My Man Godfrey," "Ninotchka" and "His
Girl Friday" - and then try to justify this one's victory.
"Rocky" (1976) ladles on the whimsy as well. This is one of the most
ridiculous of all Oscar choices, first because of the movies it beat:
"Taxi Driver" and "Network." It's also hard to forgive the picture for
spawning all those dreadful sequels, with yet another installment,
"Rocky Balboa," still to come.
"American Beauty" (1999) is a precious satire of suburbia (now there's
a fresh topic) that mustered the courage to criticize real estate
agents and gun nuts. Overlooked that year: "The Insider" and "The Cider
House Rules," the latter of which took on a genuinely controversial
subject - abortion. On the plus side, the Oscar victory gave writer
Alan Ball the clout to create HBO's "Six Feet Under," a far more
incisive look at American mores.
Finally, there is space for one more movie on the list, and that
belongs to:
"Crash" (2005). This jeremiad bemoaning our society's intolerance is
filtered through a fanciful plot built on a heap of outlandish
coincidences. Can you really imagine audiences in another decade or two
giving this movie, which somehow combines grandiosity and whimsical
eccentricity, any more respect than they give "Rocky" or "The Greatest
Show on Earth" today? Like all of these prize-winning embarrassments,
"Crash" is destined to be remembered as just one more footnote in the
annals of Oscar blunders.
atyl
because it should stir up some controversy. (I love stirring up
controversy.) History will decide Crash's standing as a Best Picture
winner. But knee-jerk columns written only weeks after the Oscars are
pointless, because there are many who love the film and hail the win.
I'm sure Academy members are fine with their choice. They're the ones
who marked their ballots, and so they were fully aware of the choices
they were making and what they wanted their choices to represent.
But there are other reasons to be critical of the list. There have
been much worse choices than Braveheart and Forrest Gump, and having
The English Patient there is blatantly wrong.
Hal Henry
>
> But there are other reasons to be critical of the list. There have
> been much worse choices than Braveheart and Forrest Gump, and having
> The English Patient there is blatantly wrong.
>
I guess I don't really care about awards. Unless it's to give one to
"Forrest Gump" for being the most dishonest movie ever made.
hh
jessica_smith_nyc
others. I think this subject was covered in the "English Patient"
Seinfeld Episode when Elaine didn't like the movie and was shunned by
her workmates and boss.
Your Pal Brian
> Is "Crash" the worst movie ever to win the Oscar for best picture?
> Probably not, though it definitely reeks. Academy members had a chance
> to make history by honoring "Brokeback Mountain," a trailblazing gay
> love story that also happened to be the best movie of 2005.
Jeez. The Brokeback Mountaineers have already made Oscar history by being
the worst sore losers I've ever seen outside the Gore camp. (If camp is
the word I'm looking for.) Who knew gay guys could be so dramatic?
Brian
John Harkness
<uwalu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I guess it's all subjective. Some movies are loved by some and hated by
>others. I think this subject was covered in the "English Patient"
>Seinfeld Episode when Elaine didn't like the movie and was shunned by
>her workmates and boss.
>
History's on Elaine's side there.
And the LA Times forgot Cimarron.
And Dances with Wolves is way worse than Rocky.
John Harkness
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>I guess I don't really care about awards. Unless it's to give one to
>"Forrest Gump" for being the most dishonest movie ever made.
Why is _Forrest Gump_ more dishonest than, say _Pocahontas_?
(There are lots of contenders for that title)
Martin Koolhoven
M
Martin Koolhoven
They remind me of the feminists who nagged about Yentl not being
nominated for best director and best picture.
--
Martin Koolhoven
http://www.knetterdefilm.nl
http://www.hetschnitzelparadijs.nl
W. Lydecker
cojones?
Joe McC
"Your Pal Brian" <brian...@iFreedom.com> wrote in message
news:441E6290...@iFreedom.com...
Who knew gay guys could be so dramatic?
Just about everyone, mayhap?
....or am I thinking of *melo*dramatic?
Joe
Feuillade
beat out the far better "Double Indemnity."
Tom Moran
moviePig
In this context, I find it interesting to realize that, although *I*
picked BB MTN from among the five (good, imo) nominees, neither it nor
the winning CRASH seems likely to be watched much in coming decades. I
think that, while CAPOTE will long be watched by future actors.... the
most likely general replay candidate is GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.
(Maybe partly because it resembles a unearthed artifact already...)
--
/---------------------------\
| YOUR taste at work... |
| |
| http://www.moviepig.com |
\---------------------------/
John Harkness
wrote:
>
>In this context, I find it interesting to realize that, although *I*
>picked BB MTN from among the five (good, imo) nominees, neither it nor
>the winning CRASH seems likely to be watched much in coming decades. I
>think that, while CAPOTE will long be watched by future actors.... the
>most likely general replay candidate is GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.
>(Maybe partly because it resembles a unearthed artifact already...)
Oddly, I wrote nice things about it from Venice, but have no desire at
all to see it again.
Capote and Munich were the class of the field -- and their loss will
look increasingly inexplicable with time.
John Harkness
moviePig
John Harkness wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:42:18 -0500, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>In this context, I find it interesting to realize that, although *I*
>>picked BB MTN from among the five (good, imo) nominees, neither it nor
>>the winning CRASH seems likely to be watched much in coming decades. I
>>think that, while CAPOTE will long be watched by future actors.... the
>>most likely general replay candidate is GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.
>>(Maybe partly because it resembles a unearthed artifact already...)
>
>
> Oddly, I wrote nice things about it from Venice, but have no desire at
> all to see it again.
Unlike you, I very seldom watch movies twice... but forced to, of the
five, I might *today* pick CAPOTE. (As it happens, the '05 Spielberg I
*am* re-watching this week is WOTW ...and I'm looking forward to it. So
much for art.)
> Capote and Munich were the class of the field -- and their loss will
> look increasingly inexplicable with time.
...but not, of course, from the bank to which CRASH walked all the way.
Meanwhile, I'll bet against you about history even having much of a
verdict here. Too many good movies, thus too little perceived travesty.
See you in 20 years.
Paul B. Thompson
I gave up long ago expecting any intelligence or integrity from the Academy.
Winners are chosen for their box office records, or politically correct
message--not cinematic excellence.
Oh well. As the old saying goes, "What do you expect from a pig but a
grunt?"
PBT
"Martin Koolhoven" <MYN...@xs4all.nlSPAMSHIT> wrote in message
news:1hci9pt.134nd3c17cgkeeN%MYN...@xs4all.nlSPAMSHIT...
Glitter Ninja
>Capote and Munich were the class of the field -- and their loss will
>look increasingly inexplicable with time.
I was shocked that so many people dismissed "Munich" out of hand, as
though it was the least of the 5 nominees.
Stacia
John Harkness
If you thought it was the least of the five, why were you surprised
that people dismissed it?
Or do you expect the "least" of the nominees to win?
Just curious.
John Harkness
Glitter Ninja
>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:22:50 +0000 (UTC), sta...@xmission.com (Glitter
>Ninja) wrote:
>>John Harkness <jhar...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>
>>>Capote and Munich were the class of the field -- and their loss will
>>>look increasingly inexplicable with time.
>>
>> I was shocked that so many people dismissed "Munich" out of hand, as
>>though it was the least of the 5 nominees.
>If you thought it was the least of the five, why were you surprised
>that people dismissed it?
You misread me. I said I was shocked that people thought the movie
was the least of the 5 nominees. I personally don't know if it was or
not since I haven't seen all 5 of the movies yet, but it was odd that
the moment the movie was nominated, it seemed like no one even
considered it as a possible winner.
Stacia
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
Read in haste, retract at leisure. You have misread our Stacia by missing
the "as though". Our Stacia would have made herself clearer if she had used
the subjective ("as though it *were*"), but that's just the school marm in
me peeping out.
If I had to guess, I would guess that the subject matter of _Munich_, and
its treatment, made a lot of the voters nervous.
--
Frank in Seattle
____
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."
moviePig
Frank R.A.J. Maloney wrote:
Imo, MUNICH's daunting hurdle was easily its too-related predecessor,
Spielberg/SCHINDLER. I was even a little surprised it got nominated.
David Oberman
> I was shocked that so many people dismissed "Munich" out of hand, as
>though it was the least of the 5 nominees.
I didn't see it. Did it offer new insights, new perspectives into the
Olympics tragedy? was it just a damned good show?
David Oberman
>Read in haste, retract at leisure. You have misread our Stacia by missing
>the "as though". Our Stacia would have made herself clearer if she had used
>the subjective ("as though it *were*"), but that's just the school marm in
>me peeping out.
"subjunctive"
De nada!
Steven L.
> If I had to guess, I would guess that the subject matter of _Munich_, and
> its treatment, made a lot of the voters nervous.
From what insiders were saying, "Brokeback Mountain" made a lot of the
bigwigs nervous too.
Ironically, in a year when supposedly "groundbreaking" (read:
ideologically left-wing) movies were being nominated for all the big
Oscar categories, the winner of "Best Picture" was the one movie out of
all of them that some conservative columnists actually liked: "Crash."
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
You are so right. Thanks for the correction.
Steven L.
> Ten Films That Give Oscar a Bad Name
> Still smarting over that big "Crash?" It's not the first time the
> academy has embarrassed itself with a choice that's going to age badly.
> By Stephen Farber
> Special to The Times
>
> March 19, 2006
>
> movies to be named best picture:
> "Ben-Hur" (1959) won a mind-boggling 11 Oscars. The chariot race is
> worth the price of admission, but the rest of this 212-minute epic is
> drenched in syrupy religiosity reminiscent of a Hallmark Christmas
> card.
"Ben-Hur" was based on the Lew Wallace novel of the same name. It was a
well done and reverent allusion to Christ. Sorry, Mr. Farber: I think
"Ben-Hur" deserved the Oscars it got. "Ben-Hur" still qualifies as a
classic, even today.
> Is "Crash" the worst movie ever to win the Oscar for best picture?
> Probably not, though it definitely reeks. Academy members had a chance
> to make history by honoring "Brokeback Mountain," a trailblazing gay
> love story that also happened to be the best movie of 2005.
Decades from now, nobody is going to remember "Brokeback Mountain"
either. Why? Because Hollywood isn't really "trailblazing" to do a
movie in 2006 that is sympathetic to gays. Hollywood seems to have this
fantasy that the entire country is Neanderthal and fascist except
themselves, so anything that smacks of soft-centered liberalism and
"acceptance" and "tolerance" must be "trailblazing." In reality, most
Americans have a matter-of-fact acceptance of gay relationships today.
"Brokeback Mountain" *would* have been trailblazing in 1965, when
Westerns on TV glorified mythical macho heroes like Wyatt Earp and
before gay rights became a major political issue. But not now. I
notice that Mr. Farber didn't say one thing about why "Brokeback
Mountain" qualified as a great movie--he only said it was a "gay love
story." IOW, Hollywood needed to make a political statement by honoring
a "gay love story," right Mr. Farber?
OTOH, let's look at what happened in 1977. "Annie Hall" beat "Star
Wars." Today, far more people worldwide remember "Star Wars," and its
vast influence on movie making. It has influenced two or three
generations of moviemakers and moviegoers since 1977. Nobody cares
about "Annie Hall" anymore except Woody Allen fans--it had far less
influence on the future of cinema than "Star Wars" did.
Bottom line: Mr. Harper, and gays everywhere: For "Brokeback Mountain"
to not win an Oscar, says absolutely NOTHING about the state of gay
rights in America today. Because Hollywood can't simultaneously
congratulate itself for being "out of step" with the rest of the country
and then claim that failing to award an Oscar to "Brokeback Mountain"
symbolizes something about the rest of the country.
Therefore, get over it!
David Oberman
>> "subjunctive"
>> De nada!
>
>You are so right. Thanks for the correction.
No, no, no -- I was only kidding.
You're okay in my book, Frank!
David Oberman
>"Ben-Hur" was based on the Lew Wallace novel of the same name. It was a
>well done and reverent allusion to Christ. Sorry, Mr. Farber: I think
>"Ben-Hur" deserved the Oscars it got. "Ben-Hur" still qualifies as a
>classic, even today.
I thought you had better taste than that.
Are you by chance a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts &
Sciences?
>Decades from now, nobody is going to remember "Brokeback Mountain"
>either. Why?
Because a massive solar flareup is going to wipe out civilization as
we now know it? I don't know ... just a guess.
John Harkness
It's not about the Olympics tragedy -- it's about the aftermath.
In essence, it's an inquiry into the emoitional/moral price of
vengeance in the guise of an action picture.
John Harkness
moviePig
Steven L. wrote:
> ...
>
> Bottom line: Mr. Harper, and gays everywhere: For "Brokeback Mountain"
> to not win an Oscar, says absolutely NOTHING about the state of gay
Bottom line: Of the five nominees, only BB MTN felt edgy and
voyeuristic, even "kinky"... like, say, 1955's MAN WITH THE GOLDEN ARM
(...PG-13 subject matter now). The sort of discomfiture that it,
alone, provoked may or may not have lost an Oscar, but surely says
something about the state of gay *attitudes* in America today.
Garondo...@hotmail.com
Glitter Ninja wrote:
> John Harkness <jhar...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> >On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:22:50 +0000 (UTC), sta...@xmission.com (Glitter
> >Ninja) wrote:
>
> >>John Harkness <jhar...@sympatico.ca> writes:
> >>
> >>>Capote and Munich were the class of the field -- and their loss will
> >>>look increasingly inexplicable with time.
> >>
> >> I was shocked that so many people dismissed "Munich" out of hand, as
> >>though it was the least of the 5 nominees.
>
> >If you thought it was the least of the five, why were you surprised
> >that people dismissed it?
>
> You misread me. I said I was shocked that people thought the movie
> was the least of the 5 nominees. I personally don't know if it was or
> not since I haven't seen all 5 of the movies yet, but it was odd that
> the moment the movie was nominated, it seemed like no one even
> considered it as a possible winner.
They really botched the release of the film and I think that hurt the
film's buzz. I think Munich, Capote, and BB will hold up best over the
coming years.
..
Garondo Marondo!
le...@my-deja.com
of the films he listed among the "worst" Best Picture winners:
BEN-HUR
YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU
ROCKY
BEN-HUR may not be the best spectacle ever made, but it does hold up
and is one that many people my age (baby boomers) go back to now and
again over the years. I've seen it a few times on the big screen
myself. It used to get revived a lot, which is more than you can say
for some of the other films on his list. Plus, of the other 1959 Best
Pic nominees cited, BEN-HUR is more likely to have been seen by the
average film buff than any of the others. I myself have never even seen
NUN'S STORY, ANNE FRANK or ROOM AT THE TOP (I've taped all of them off
TV, of course, but have never gotten around to actually watching them).
YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU is a delightful movie based on a charming
play that gets revived a lot and performed in schools and such. While
it may not be Capra's best movie, it certainly holds up well. I think
Farber was really reaching with this one.
ROCKY -- Farber's really being disingenous with this one. He was around
back in 1976 and knows full well the impact this film had at the time.
It was a feel-good movie from an unknown who gambled all on it and was
quite a departure from the cynical, downbeat counterculture films that
moviegoers were getting tired of after years of the stuff. No matter
how critically acclaimed TAXI DRIVER and NETWORK were (and ALL THE
PRESIDENT'S MEN and BOUND FOR GLORY), ROCKY was the bigger
crowd-pleaser at the time and the Academy just went with the flow. And
it was a genuinely interesting, entertaining movie with authentic
touches that actually made you feel good about people. And people were
rooting for Stallone. You have to remember--no one had any inkling of
just how tiresome he would get in a couple of short years. He was still
a fresh figure in the public's eyes with ROCKY.
I have no problem with any of the others on his list being cited as
"worst" Best Picture winners. In fact, I'm sure there's a few more from
the 1980s and 90s that could well be included.
le...@my-deja.com
Howard Brazee
Without having seen the movies, I have no basis to be shocked at its
evaluation. Maybe it *is* the least of the 5. How can I be
shocked about their choice if I don't know if it is shock worthy?
Howard Brazee
<sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>> "Ben-Hur" (1959) won a mind-boggling 11 Oscars. The chariot race is
>> worth the price of admission, but the rest of this 212-minute epic is
>> drenched in syrupy religiosity reminiscent of a Hallmark Christmas
>> card.
>
>"Ben-Hur" was based on the Lew Wallace novel of the same name. It was a
>well done and reverent allusion to Christ. Sorry, Mr. Farber: I think
>"Ben-Hur" deserved the Oscars it got. "Ben-Hur" still qualifies as a
>classic, even today.
But the chariot scene was cribbed straight from the first _Ben-Hur_
movie, except with great sound.
moviePig
le...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Regarding Mr. Farber's article, I would argue against including three
> of the films he listed among the "worst" Best Picture winners:
> BEN-HUR
> YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU
> ROCKY
>
> BEN-HUR may not be the best spectacle ever made, but it does hold up
> and is one that many people my age (baby boomers) go back to now and
> again over the years. ...
I gotta go with Farber on BEN-HUR. The only favorable remarks I have
for it are 1) I never had to sit through the whole thing a second time,
and 2) the chariot race, which iirc had an actual body count (of 2?).
Contrast it with THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, another religious schlock epic
from two years earlier, which, art or no, is infinitely re-watchable.
> ...
>
> ROCKY -- Farber's really being disingenous with this one. He was around
> back in 1976 and knows full well the impact this film had at the time.
> It was a feel-good movie from an unknown who gambled all on it and was
> quite a departure from the cynical, downbeat counterculture films that
> moviegoers were getting tired of after years of the stuff. No matter
> how critically acclaimed TAXI DRIVER and NETWORK were (and ALL THE
> PRESIDENT'S MEN and BOUND FOR GLORY), ROCKY was the bigger
> crowd-pleaser at the time and the Academy just went with the flow. And
> it was a genuinely interesting, entertaining movie with authentic
> touches that actually made you feel good about people. And people were
> rooting for Stallone. You have to remember--no one had any inkling of
> just how tiresome he would get in a couple of short years. He was still
> a fresh figure in the public's eyes with ROCKY.
Here, I agree with you... and even seem to recall that ROCKY's brazen
overdosing of Horatio Alger with steroids felt downright adventurous for
a movie theme at the time. That's sort-of art... if you squint...
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> None of the mentioned films was as horrible as Braveheart.
>
American Beauty is. And The Greatest Show on Earth, while perhaps
not *the* worst Oscar winner is the biggest travesty because of what
it won against -- and what wasn't even nominated.
But it is perplexing that Braveheart, A Beautiful Mind, and Cimarron
aren't on the list.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Algorithms from the NSA are considered a sort of alien technology:
They come from a superior race with no explanations.
-Bruce Schneier
Okierazorbacker
year?
Apples and oranges.
Bill Anderson
http://paintrock.net/movie/best_pics.htm
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
moviePig
Okierazorbacker wrote:
Doesn't make it the "best". (Nor does any isolated aspect, afaik.) But
does argue for it's being the "riskiest" re public sentiment,
particularly with respect to gays.
Your Pal Brian
> Sorry, Mr. Farber: I think
> "Ben-Hur" deserved the Oscars it got. "Ben-Hur" still qualifies as a
> classic, even today.
I have a hunch he's bashing it because Heston's in it. (How do I know? Oh,
just 26 years experience, all the percentage there is, and this hunk of
concrete in my stomach. (Are you sure you don't have any bicarbonate of
soda?)) Not that there aren't other reasons to bash it, but Heston is his.
> OTOH, let's look at what happened in 1977. "Annie Hall" beat "Star
> Wars." Today, far more people worldwide remember "Star Wars," and its
> vast influence on movie making. It has influenced two or three
> generations of moviemakers and moviegoers since 1977. Nobody cares
> about "Annie Hall" anymore except Woody Allen fans--it had far less
> influence on the future of cinema than "Star Wars" did.
Annie Hall is usually credited with creating the modern romantic comedy.
Both films recalibrated their respective genres. Both are important. (Annie
Hall's better though.)
Brian
Steven L.
> Does anyone here get the impression HOLLYWOOD has a shortage of
> cojones?
No, they have a shortage of self-esteem. Hollywood depends on making
popular blockbuster movies like the Spider-Man series and so on. But
then they honor movies at the Academy Awards like "Crash" that don't
gross a fraction as much money.
IMHO, if you're so ashamed of the product you're producing that is your
bread and butter that you don't feel it rates awards, then don't produce
it anymore. The fact that the Academy Awards frequently show that
Hollywood is proudest of movies that don't make a lot of money, suggests
that in their heart of hearts, Hollywood is ashamed of how they make
most of their money.
dgates
<brian...@iFreedom.com> wrote:
>atyl wrote:
>
>> Is "Crash" the worst movie ever to win the Oscar for best picture?
>> Probably not, though it definitely reeks. Academy members had a chance
>> to make history by honoring "Brokeback Mountain," a trailblazing gay
>> love story that also happened to be the best movie of 2005.
>
>Jeez. The Brokeback Mountaineers have already made Oscar history by being
>the worst sore losers I've ever seen outside the Gore camp. (If camp is
>the word I'm looking for.)
I've thought that too. Why does "Crash" have to be "terrible" and its
winning an "atrocity" in order for the BBM fans to love their movie?
>Who knew gay guys could be so dramatic?
Well, similarly, why can't we bash only the BBM fans who have to bash
Crash without bashing all gay guys?
I think anyone who wastes a lot of time thinking about how the Academy
didn't honor a certain movie is, well, wasting a lot of time. And it
bums me out to hear that a certain movie (say, "Rocky") has to get
ripped just so someone can say they loved "Network?"
Martin Koolhoven
> IMHO, if you're so ashamed of the product you're producing that is your
> bread and butter that you don't feel it rates awards, then don't produce
> it anymore. The fact that the Academy Awards frequently show that
> Hollywood is proudest of movies that don't make a lot of money, suggests
> that in their heart of hearts, Hollywood is ashamed of how they make
> most of their money.
Most of the films that won best Picture did well at the box office.
--
Martin Koolhoven
http://www.knetterdefilm.nl
http://www.hetschnitzelparadijs.nl
Martin Koolhoven
> In the Year of the Dog, the Great and Powerful Martin Koolhoven
> declared:
> > None of the mentioned films was as horrible as Braveheart.
> >
>
> American Beauty is.
Hell no. Great film.
Glitter Ninja
>Without having seen the movies, I have no basis to be shocked at its
>evaluation. Maybe it *is* the least of the 5. How can I be
>shocked about their choice if I don't know if it is shock worthy?
It is shocking to me, when I never see any reasoning behind why
certain movies are considered shoe-ins and why others are never
considered. I guess that's my major beef with the situation. While I
don't watch the Oscars and have some problems with the role the Academy
Awards play, every year I always manage to read or watch several blurbs
about the Best Picture nominees, and every year there's a film nominated
that isn't even mentioned as a contender. And very rarely do these
shows ever explain why they feel this way.
So I agree that for a personal evaluation of the movies I'd have to
see them all and decide for myself. No question. I just want to know
how the entertainment media formed its consensus, and with what
reasoning.
Stacia
dgates
Koolhoven) wrote:
>Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In the Year of the Dog, the Great and Powerful Martin Koolhoven
>> declared:
>> > None of the mentioned films was as horrible as Braveheart.
>> >
>>
>> American Beauty is.
>
>Hell no. Great film.
I think that there are movies that *feel* great while you're watching
them (Godfather and American Beauty come to mind), but leave you
afterwards saying "So, what exactly was that movie saying?"
David Oberman
>I think that there are movies that *feel* great while you're watching
>them (Godfather and American Beauty come to mind), but leave you
>afterwards saying "So, what exactly was that movie saying?"
Or, in the case of "Gosford Park": "So, what exactly were the actors
saying?"
David Oberman
> So I agree that for a personal evaluation of the movies I'd have to
>see them all and decide for myself. No question. I just want to know
>how the entertainment media formed its consensus, and with what
>reasoning.
Political sympathies stirred generally by hearsay (as in O'Reilly's
case).
Okierazorbacker
personally couldn't stand "Gigi"--much prefer Caron in the
similarly-titled but very different "Lili." My wife loves "The Sound
of Music," but it seems pretty mediocre to me; I can name better Julie
Andrews films ("Mary Poppins," "Victor/Victoria," for example), and I'm
no fan at all of mobster movies so the "Godfather" films are overrated
in my minority opinion. "Ordinary People" was slow, for me, and had a
resolution that seemed obvious from the start. And I never did care
for "The Silence Of the Lambs"--Hopkins just seemed goofy to me rather
than scary (for a truly scary psycho, see "Seven"). "Unforgiven" was a
generational makegood for all the great Western films Eastwood had made
in the past that were pooh-poohed by then-cognosenti. And "Chicago"
never did much for me either, but I generally don't care much for
musicals.
hellas is for gyros
> These first two really take the booby prize:
>
> "The Greatest Show on Earth" (1952) was criticized even at the time for
> its cornucopia of clichés. Perhaps this circus-themed soap opera can
> be enjoyed as a guilty pleasure, full of unintended howlers, but is
> that what the Oscar was meant to signify? The Oscar that year might
> have gone to "High Noon," "Moulin Rouge" (the good version, directed by
> John Huston), or to "Singin' in the Rain," which wasn't even nominated
> but is now widely regarded as the greatest movie musical ever made.
it's glorious looking though.
>
> "Ben-Hur" (1959) won a mind-boggling 11 Oscars. The chariot race is
> worth the price of admission, but the rest of this 212-minute epic is
> drenched in syrupy religiosity reminiscent of a Hallmark Christmas
> card. The movie was the weakest of the five nominees that year;
> "Anatomy of a Murder," "The Diary of Anne Frank," "The Nun's Story" and
> "Room at the Top" are all more watchable today. And two movies that are
> more enduring than any of them - "Some Like It Hot" and "North by
> Northwest" - weren't even nominated.
BULLSHIT. benhur is a genuine classic. granted, there's a loooooong
dull stretch
between the chariot race and the ending, but it's a sturdy,
magnificent, and glorious historical epic. and who remembers diary of
anne frank? or 'nun's story'? 'room at the top'? 'some like it hot'
hasn't dated all that well. and N by NW was far from hitch's best and
it too is filled with cliches.
>
> "Forrest Gump" (1994). Robert Zemeckis made a terrific piece of
> entertainment in "Back to the Future," but he won his Oscar for this
> bloated, soft-headed trip though a few decades of American history.
> That year, the academy might have honored the electrifying "Pulp
> Fiction" but chose to play it safe. Quentin Tarantino and co-writer
> Roger Avary did win for best screenplay, but that was merely a
> consolation prize, like "Brokeback Mountain's" directing and screenplay
> Oscars this year.
i didn't like forrest gump but pulp fiction was downright atrocious and
anti-human.
>
> "Rocky" (1976) ladles on the whimsy as well. This is one of the most
> ridiculous of all Oscar choices, first because of the movies it beat:
> "Taxi Driver" and "Network." It's also hard to forgive the picture for
> spawning all those dreadful sequels, with yet another installment,
> "Rocky Balboa," still to come.
rocky is a classic, a feel-good updating of brando-ism of on the
waterfront. i still love it though its sequels sucked. and even without
best pic prize, there would have been sequels.
taxi driver is a great movie. but network is just plain bad. its
cynical fusion of the screwball comedy and hardnosed satire doesn't
work; screwball satire? the movie is guilty of all the things it's
pretending to expose. in this sense, it's like 'player' by altman,
another phony and ultimately toothless satire. it sensationalizes in
the name of anti-sensationalism. or, maybe that's its clever
point--like in natural born killers. WE are all so caught up in the
lies and deceit that even the truthteller cannot tell the truth
straight.
a very contemptuous movie about everyone from top dog of industry to
everyman in the street. the movie says the top guys lie even when they
tell the truth, and we suckers are so easily manipulated and in need of
distractions that we can't distinguish truth from lies, the truth for
us being hatever makes us feel good at the moment.
if you're gonna be paranoid stuff, give it to me straight--like 'all
presidents men', 'parallex view', or 'conversation'.
best lumet films are long day journey, dog day, and prince of city.
>
> "American Beauty" (1999) is a precious satire of suburbia (now there's
> a fresh topic) that mustered the courage to criticize real estate
> agents and gun nuts. Overlooked that year: "The Insider" and "The Cider
> House Rules," the latter of which took on a genuinely controversial
> subject - abortion. On the plus side, the Oscar victory gave writer
> Alan Ball the clout to create HBO's "Six Feet Under," a far more
> incisive look at American mores.
amer beaut sucked. so did cider house. didn't see insider.
six feet under is total crap.
one thing for sure, this movie criitc is the worst idiot to land a job
at a newspaper.
for chrissakes, where's 'bravefart' or 'chicago'? didn't see either
but heard they are really bad.
or, how about out of africa? ugh. or ordinary people? or stink.
blehh. and on and on.
hellas is for gyros
Howard Brazee
<dobe...@IGNOREsocal.rr.com> wrote:
>Or, in the case of "Gosford Park": "So, what exactly were the actors
>saying?"
Ahh, you must be referring to a Robert Altman movie.
Howard Brazee
Ninja) wrote:
> So I agree that for a personal evaluation of the movies I'd have to
>see them all and decide for myself. No question. I just want to know
>how the entertainment media formed its consensus, and with what
>reasoning.
My guess is that they watch them.
Your Pal Brian
> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In the Year of the Dog, the Great and Powerful Martin Koolhoven
> > declared:
> > > None of the mentioned films was as horrible as Braveheart.
> > >
> >
> > American Beauty is.
>
> Hell no. Great film.
Hell. No great film.
(Fixed your punctuation. No need to thank me.)
Brian
John Harkness
wrote:
Well, some of us do.
John Harkness
Glitter Ninja
What, are you saying that some 20 year old bubbleheaded blonde on E!
yammering about her faves at the Oscars hasn't watched all the nominees?
Can't be! Take that back!
Stacia
John Harkness
Ninja) wrote:
>John Harkness <jhar...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:01:01 GMT, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
>>wrote:
>
>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:15:27 +0000 (UTC), sta...@xmission.com (Glitter
>>>Ninja) wrote:
>>>
>>>>I just want to know how the entertainment media formed its consensus,
>>>>and with what reasoning.
>>>
>>>My guess is that they watch them.
>
>>Well, some of us do.
>
> What, are you saying that some 20 year old bubbleheaded blonde on E!
>yammering about her faves at the Oscars hasn't watched all the nominees?
>Can't be! Take that back!
>
>Stacia
I'm just saying that I can't speak for everyone.
John Harkness
David Oberman
>> > American Beauty is.
>>
>> Hell no. Great film.
>
>Hell. No great film.
>(Fixed your punctuation. No need to thank me.)
"God is nowhere," said the Atheist.
But the child heard, "God is now here."
Your Pal Brian
I heard that when Sir Blob won an Oscar he thanked his parents,
Ayn Rand and God.
Brian
Doubting Timus
And I hear "God is a configuration of a stolen short story, like
American Beauty."
Fil Arkonus
news:441E6290...@iFreedom.com...
> atyl wrote:
>
>> Is "Crash" the worst movie ever to win the Oscar for best picture?
>> Probably not, though it definitely reeks. Academy members had a chance
>> to make history by honoring "Brokeback Mountain," a trailblazing gay
>> love story that also happened to be the best movie of 2005.
>
> Jeez. The Brokeback Mountaineers have already made Oscar history by being
> the worst sore losers I've ever seen outside the Gore camp. (If camp is
Personally I wasn't that keen on either film. Time will tell if it was a
mistake to choose one over the other, or to choose either of them at all.
What I can say though is if you look at the imdb voting there is a 0.3 point
difference in favour of crash between it and Brokeback while there is a 0.7
point gap between Rocky and Taxi Driver in favour of Taxi Driver. So that
would suggest the Oscar voters got it right this time around.
The other thing I note is that Crash has gotten that rating while only
drawing 38.5% of votes as "10". Suggesting a pretty genuine vote
(compartively anyway, as we'll see). Meanwhile Brokeback actually has 53% of
votes as "10s". That's more then half! Which seems to have VOTE FIXING
written all over it. Lol.
So I think perhaps your right. The Brokeback Mountaineers do seem to be the
worst sore losers in Oscar history. I don't see how they have a case. Maybe
10 years down the road they will be running a clear 0.7% ahead of Crash and
then they can claim to have been robbed. Until then, I think they should
stop damaging the reputation of their favorite film by going on about it.
I think a lot of it is that they are gutted anti-racism was more trendy then
anti-homophobia for yet another year and will likely to continue to be the
hot topic for years to come. It's not like films with gay protagonists can't
be sucsessful or anything, I mean Philadelphia did pretty well didn't it?
Just perhaps Brokeback wasn't quite as good as certain people would like to
think. Ohhh contraversial.
Hollywood isn't ahead of the curve on social matters, it just likes to pat
itself on the back and make a big song and dance about it and ask for
recognition for making an already well known and supported social comment.
Personally I'm more interested in seeing really good films.
--
Fil
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or
numbered.
My life is my own."
G.M. Watson
> "Your Pal Brian" <brian...@iFreedom.com> wrote in message
> news:441E6290...@iFreedom.com...
>> atyl wrote:
>>
>>> Is "Crash" the worst movie ever to win the Oscar for best picture?
>>> Probably not, though it definitely reeks. Academy members had a chance
>>> to make history by honoring "Brokeback Mountain," a trailblazing gay
>>> love story that also happened to be the best movie of 2005.
>>
>> Jeez. The Brokeback Mountaineers have already made Oscar history by being
>> the worst sore losers I've ever seen outside the Gore camp. (If camp is
>> the word I'm looking for.) Who knew gay guys could be so dramatic?
>
If you ever do actually meet and speak with a gay man-- or more than one--
you'll find that some of them can be very dramatic indeed. But then, so can
a surprising number of straight men.
How's life in rural Nebraska these days?
Your Pal Brian
> > "Your Pal Brian" <brian...@iFreedom.com> wrote in message
> > news:441E6290...@iFreedom.com...
>
> >> Who knew gay guys could be so dramatic?
> >
> If you ever do actually meet and speak with a gay man-- or more than one--
> you'll find that some of them can be very dramatic indeed. But then, so can
> a surprising number of straight men.
> How's life in rural Nebraska these days?
(Blackadder enters, putting on a large black cape.)
E: Saddle Prince George's horse.
B: Oh sir, you're not going to become a highwayman, are you?
E: No, I'm auditioning for the part of Arnold the Bat in Sheridon's new comedy.
B: Oh, that's all right then.
E: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
B: Yeah, it's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron.
E: Never mind, never mind, just saddle the Prince's horse.
B: That'll be difficult, he wrapped it round that gas lamp in the Strand last
night.
E: Well saddle my horse then.
B: What d'you think you've been eating for the last two months?
E: Well go out into the street and hire me a horse.
B: Hire you a horse? For ninepence? On Jewish New Year in the rain? A bare
fortnight after the dreaded horse plague of old London Town? With the
blacksmith's strike in its fifteenth week and the Dorset horse fetishists fair
tomorrow?
E: Right, well get this on then. (hands Baldrick a bridle and bit) It looks as
though you could do with the exercise.
http://www.suslik.org/Humour/FilmOrTV/BlackAdder/ba3-5.html
***
Only two of those lines are apropos, but it was too good to cut.
The funny bit is that I used to live in Chelsea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea,_Manhattan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_boy
And anyway, rural Nebraskans are the salt of the earth! (Aren't they?)
Brian
Steven L.
And it's good films, not political messages, that the Oscars should
honor. Listening to these bitter comments about "Crash," you get the
distinct feeling that they wanted "Brokeback Mountain" to win the Oscar
not because it was a great movie, but just because it was a movie about
gays (cf. above phrase "a trailblazing gay love story"). I keep asking,
if the movie was about a married hetero cowboy and married hetero
cowgirl cheating on their spouses by having an affair with each other,
would that have deserved an Oscar? Or is it just the film's "gayness"
that some critics wanted to honor?
Your Pal Brian
> And it's good films, not political messages, that the Oscars should
> honor. Listening to these bitter comments about "Crash," you get the
> distinct feeling that they wanted "Brokeback Mountain" to win the Oscar
> not because it was a great movie, but just because it was a movie about
> gays (cf. above phrase "a trailblazing gay love story"). I keep asking,
> if the movie was about a married hetero cowboy and married hetero
> cowgirl cheating on their spouses by having an affair with each other,
> would that have deserved an Oscar? Or is it just the film's "gayness"
> that some critics wanted to honor?
A very good question.
What's doubly galling about this fracas is that films like The New World and the
Batman flick and others - films that were genuinely good *on cinematic terms* -
have been shunted aside to make room for Red State baiting.
Ah well. The best thing about Ang Lee pictures is how quickly they're forgotten.
Brian
David Oberman
>Ah well. The best thing about Ang Lee pictures is how quickly they're forgotten.
I hope you will admit, Brian, that you'd rather watch a Howard hawks
movie than an Ang Lee movie.
One might even say that Ang Lee makes one appreciate Howard Hawks,
right?
(the way one might say that Jack Conway makes one appreciate Jack
Cardiff)
____
"Nick, look out!"
-- Jarrod Barkley to brother Nick (The Big Valley)
moviePig
Not so bad, if you think of Oscars as journalism awards... and leave
the pantheon pronouncements to the American Film Institute et al...
(...who I, too, hope will eventually give THE NEW WORLD its due...)
--
/---------------------------\
| YOUR taste at work... |
| |
| http://www.moviepig.com |
\---------------------------/
Your Pal Brian
> Your Pal Brian <brian...@iFreedom.com> wrote:
>
> >Ah well. The best thing about Ang Lee pictures is how quickly they're forgotten.
>
> I hope you will admit, Brian, that you'd rather watch a Howard hawks
> movie than an Ang Lee movie.
Oh jeez. He's got me.
> One might even say that Ang Lee makes one appreciate Howard Hawks,
> right?
Gulp. Shudder.
I... guess.
Let's make it Sgt. York, though, as I can pretend that's a John Huston movie.
Brian
larry legallo
<sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>And it's good films, not political messages, that the Oscars should
>honor. Listening to these bitter comments about "Crash," you get the
>distinct feeling that they wanted "Brokeback Mountain" to win the Oscar
>not because it was a great movie, but just because it was a movie about
>gays (cf. above phrase "a trailblazing gay love story"). I keep asking,
>if the movie was about a married hetero cowboy and married hetero
>cowgirl cheating on their spouses by having an affair with each other,
>would that have deserved an Oscar?
Sure, why not? Compare it to another Larry McMurtry inflected film,
Terms of Endearment, a film that spanned the same time period and
dealt with similar themes of love, separation, domestic conflict and
adultery, death, regret, etc. within a basic melodramatic framework.
Sure, its tone was significantly lighter and more comic, and the
performances a bit more caricatured, but those aren't exactly
traditional Oscar-winning qualities.
So yes, it is possible for a well-written, well-acted, well-directed,
well-shot, well-scored movie that tells an emotionally engaging story
of universal human drama , and which *doesn't* contain any big
controversial overtones, to win the Best Picture Oscar. See Ordinary
People, Kramer vs. Kramer, Mrs. Miniver, Marty, and several others,
for more examples.
>Or is it just the film's "gayness" that some critics wanted to honor?
I hope I've explained why this isn't true, but that's kind of a silly
question anyway. Would Crash have garnered the same praise if it were
an interweaved narrative exploring the daily travails of a dozen white
people in Los Angeles?
dgates
wrote:
>
>So yes, it is possible for a well-written, well-acted, well-directed,
>well-shot, well-scored movie that tells an emotionally engaging story
>of universal human drama , and which *doesn't* contain any big
>controversial overtones, to win the Best Picture Oscar. See Ordinary
>People, Kramer vs. Kramer, Mrs. Miniver, Marty, and several others,
>for more examples.
I heard someone make the case that "Ordinary People" and "Kramer Vs.
Kramer" are both kind of backlashes to the feminist movement --
showing how these "strong, independent women" can turn out, and maybe
something about how we need some sensitive men instead.