Worst Oscar Decisions

Akash
Professor
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:34 am

Post by Akash »

Jennifer Connelly is the only fucking bearable thing in the awfulness that is A Beautiful Mind. She's charming and memorable in a role that is underwritten, and for maintaining such grace in a sea of crap, she almost deserved her Oscar. I probably would have voted for her myself, especially since neither Gwyneth Paltrow nor Angelica Huston were nominated for their wonderful performances in The Royal Tenenbaums.

Anyway, I just pretend Connelly's Oscar was for Requiem for a Dream. I find that the Oscars are easier to stomach in the Land of Make Believe.




Edited By Akash on 1203649994
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

And wasn't John Nash's wife Latino?

Well, that I understand.
"How's the despair?"
Steph2
Assistant
Posts: 545
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:11 am

Post by Steph2 »

And wasn't John Nash's wife Latino? Jennifer Connelly hardly qualifies (sorry, I really can't stand that bitch).
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

To debate the merits of what to keep in or what to leave out is slippery. I can understand why they chose not to. It could implicate sexuality with mental illness which opens a can of worms that the producers might have found unpleasant. What I will say is that what is on-screen is gimmicky, bland, and myopic enough to not beg for deeper territory when what is there is so unsubstantial.
"How's the despair?"
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

Sabin wrote:Crash isn't about racism as much as being racist but A Beautiful Mind asks us to care about some jackass who threatens everyone around him by not taking his meds. Take a long nap in a deep well, jackass.

Don't forget his completely white-washed background of bisexuality. Further evidence of our culture's propensity for erasing anything and everything bi/gay from the history books for palatable consumption by heterosexual audiences.




Edited By flipp525 on 1203611960
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

i've written extensively about SiL elsewhere but it's one of the rare films that would have deserved to win for Screenplay and Picture. Somebody had a wonderful idea (Norman). Somebody else made it better (Stoppard). Nobody ruined it. It doesn't look that beautiful. The acting is adequate but watching it again, you can see the editor desperately piecing together the performances into presence over performance. Oh, and the score is totally lovely.

SPR maybe the stronger piece of filmmaking but for all its technical virtuoso, it's ideologically muddled, and fundamentally generic though lifted to the appearance of art. It's a Vietnam movie set during WWII and we applaud Spielberg for that. I'll say it would have been a fine winner but Shakespeare in Love is just so dazzingly witty and enjoyable.

They both completely pale next to The Thin Red Line, quite possibly the oddest nominee of the decade. Why did voters like this? There's nothing for them in it. It aspires to a filmic palate that is ridiculously unfriendly. It took me at least a year to warm to Malick's masterpiece. They caught on faster to something they're not supposed to like in a year of Waking Ned Devine? Or The Truman Show?

For the record...a perfect lineup would have seen Rushmore, Out of Sight, and Gods and Monsters alongside Malick. Shakespeare in Love can stay.

The victory of Crash over Brokeback is certainly glaring but not nearly as much as A Beautiful Mind over really every other film. Crash isn't about racism as much as being racist but A Beautiful Mind asks us to care about some jackass who threatens everyone around him by not taking his meds. Take a long nap in a deep well, jackass.
"How's the despair?"
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Okri wrote:I definitely prefer Saving Private Ryan, for all it's flaws, to either Shakespeare in Love and The Thin Red Line. But I'm the guy that would've voted for Elizabeth, so you don't really need to pay heed to me.

A line-up of The Truman Show, The Butcher Boy, Out of Sight, Festen and A Simple Plan would've been much cooler.
Glad to find another Butcher Boy fan -- for me, the unfathomably overlooked great movie of the 90s.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

I definitely prefer Saving Private Ryan, for all it's flaws, to either Shakespeare in Love and The Thin Red Line. But I'm the guy that would've voted for Elizabeth, so you don't really need to pay heed to me.

A line-up of The Truman Show, The Butcher Boy, Out of Sight, Festen and A Simple Plan would've been much cooler.
Akash
Professor
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:34 am

Post by Akash »

Debating whether Shakespeare in Love deserved the Oscar over Saving Private Ryan is like a progressive debating whether the Democratic nominee (Hillary or Obama, doesn't matter) should win the Presidency over McCain. OF COURSE McCain is far worse (and like Ryan, he also depends on American valorization of war while pretending to be horrified by it) but either way...it's not like we're getting Kucinich for President, you know? What I mean is, the real leftist, anti-war film in that group (The Thin Red Line) was far superior to every other nominee.

Saving Private Ryan is so overrated, boring, and so nowhere near as enjoyable, well written, or well acted as Shakespeare in Love. I'm glad the Academy rejected it for the top prize, but I'd have rejected it even further and given Malick the Best Director Oscar -- his film was the only masterpiece that was nominated that year. (The only categories Ryan should have been nominated in were the technical ones, and I would have only given it Oscars for Sound and Sound Editing)

Malick losing to Speilberg doesn't quite sink to the bottom of the Oscar Shithole like Altman and Lynch losing to Howard, or Scorsese losing to Costner, or Kieslowski losing to Zemeckis...but it still smells pretty bad.

And to close this awkward comparison, I'm sure Dubya enjoyed Forrest Gump, Dances with Wolves and A Beautiful Mind.




Edited By Akash on 1203554172
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

My feeling was, if all of Saving Private Ryan had been up to the level of its best moments, I would have wanted it to win. And I'm not referring, as many do, merely to the Normandy Beach opening: I think roughly half the film is pretty terrific. But from the time the sniper appears, I think the story goes pretty far south; the bullet barrage near the end only diminishes the effectiveness of the opening by imitation; and the epilogue is nauseating treacle.

Shakespeare in Love is less "significant", but it gets further on sheer cleverness than just about any other movie I can think of. People always complain comedies don't have a shot at best picture -- but then when one this successful wins, they bitch and moan it wasn't deep enough.

Anyway, you're all of course limited to your own lifetimes of Oscar watching. But let me argue there were some pretty glum nights in the past that for me outpaced the Crash debacle. You can't imagine how deflating it was to see Jack Lemmon and Glenda Jackson win actor/actress back to back in '73 (for the two films I'd most hated that year). And the Gandhi sweep was a numbing nightmare matched only by the Reagan landslide the following year.
Steph2
Assistant
Posts: 545
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:11 am

Post by Steph2 »

flipp525 wrote:Oh god, not me. I loved that win. Shakespeare in Love was a delightful film with a fabulous script and wonderful performances from the leads all the way to the supporting characters (who, in fact, actually far outshined the leads of the film). Saving Private Ryan's incredible opening scene was followed by a fairly lackluster film.

Totally agree Flipp. SPR wasn't bad, but it was nowhere near the "great film" American mainstream critics made it out to be. It was one of the years I was pleasantly surprised by the Oscars; I thought it made perfect sense for them to split the top awards, basically saying that they appreciate Speilberg's technical mastery (Director) but thought that Shakespeare in Love was the overall better film (Picture). And they were right. It's sad that so many people look back on this as a huge mistake (mostly men). It was also a pretty exciting race and Shakespeare more than held its own, winning way more top awards than SPR (Screenplay, Actress, Supporting Actress). In fact, other than Best Director, all of SPR's wins were in the technical categories.

I had no problem with Benigni winning though. I would have voted for McKellan myself, but Benigni was a close second and not an undeserving winner. Benigni is another winner that year who has been ridiculed in retrospect (like Shakespeare beating SPR) and it just baffles me. It's not like we're talking about Russell Crowe winning for Gladiator here!
jack
Assistant
Posts: 897
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 4:39 pm
Location: Cape Breton, Nova Scotia

Post by jack »

flipp525 wrote:
jack wrote:I still hate the fact that Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan. That show was the first time that I watched the Oscar, and I watched to see Ryan win.

Oh god, not me. I loved that win. Shakespeare in Love was a delightful film with a fabulous script and wonderful performances from the leads all the way to the supporting characters (who, in fact, actually far outshined the leads of the film). Saving Private Ryan's incredible opening scene was followed by a fairly lackluster film. The Academy got it right that year. Worst decision that year was the awarding of Roberto Begnini's cartoonish Holocaust-comedy performance, further legitimizing his buffonery and eventual irrelevance.
Shakespeare in Love isn't my type of film, and I don't think I saw til after it won Best Picture. It's a film that didn't do anything for me. A Private Ryan win was what I was hoping for, and to me on that night it seemed inevitable after Spielberg's win. Shakespeare in Love winning was a dissapointment.

However, looking back on that year (1998) the rightful winner for Picture of the Year is Gods and Monsters. I still adore that film.
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

jack wrote:I still hate the fact that Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan. That show was the first time that I watched the Oscar, and I watched to see Ryan win.
Oh god, not me. I loved that win. Shakespeare in Love was a delightful film with a fabulous script and wonderful performances from the leads all the way to the supporting characters (who, in fact, actually far outshined the leads of the film). Saving Private Ryan's incredible opening scene was followed by a fairly lackluster film. The Academy got it right that year. Worst decision that year was the awarding of Roberto Begnini's cartoonish Holocaust-comedy performance, further legitimizing his buffonery and eventual irrelevance.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
jack
Assistant
Posts: 897
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 4:39 pm
Location: Cape Breton, Nova Scotia

Post by jack »

I still hate the fact that Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan. That show was the first time that I watched the Oscar, and I watched to see Ryan win.
Steph2
Assistant
Posts: 545
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:11 am

Post by Steph2 »

Worst Oscar decision...hmm, let's see...yup still Crash.
Post Reply

Return to “Other Oscar Discussions”