Best Picture and Director 1985

[Eric]

I also found the film’s epilogue a depressing reflection of the era’s Reaganite values – the father’s whole life has change because he punched somebody out. And how has it changed? – he has a ton of money, and his social-leper daughter now has lots of good-looking guys taking her out. The film might as well have stayed in the 50s; that where its ethos came from.

I know I have rolled my eyes whenever anyone suggested Zemeckis was trojan horsing illicit left-wing satire into into Forrest Gump, but I legitimately believe that Back to the Future is more or less doing that very thing from the inside out -- building a ludicrous test case wherein the 1950s and 1980s were in direct dialogue with each other, in many cases as broadly as possible ("Ronald Reagan? The ACTOR?!") and in other, more surprising ways, as when the movie zeros in on the hypocrisy of the silent generation's endorsement of the good old values of yesteryear (i.e. Marty's mom insisting "back in my day we NEVER parked in the car with boys!" and, in flashback, proving herself quite the, ahem, backseat driver). It's possible it might have read differently to some who were more politically aware than I was in 1987/88 (when I first saw it) and for whom the decade's retrenchment was a very real and very disappointing trend. But, real-time for me was that I was seduced by the direction and (per MD'A) the awesome use of "plant and payoff" as a kid and retroactively assigned political subtext with age.

I haven't read it yet, but the BFI monograph on the film looks like a must-read.

[Heksagon]

One of the weakest Best Picture lineups I can think of - and based on the comments here, I probably like The Color Purple and Out of Africa more than most people here do.

Out of Africa is pretty much the "ideal" Oscar winner that the Academy was looking for throughout the 80s (and the 90s) - Historical romance with impressive visuals, good score, star actors, shallow characters, and an extremely simple story.

The Color Purple is very different type of historical film. I haven't read the book, but obviously the source material is very rich, and while the film has several impressive scenes, I get the feeling that there is a lot of stuff that Steven Spielberg doesn't really know what to do with.

In the end, I decided to vote for The Color Purple and Akira Kurosawa.

Kurosawa is an obvious choice, even if I feel that Ran is overrated and not quite at the level of Kurosawa's masterpieces from the 50's. For once, Kurosawa had a big budget to work with, and immediately the characters and the philosophical aspects threaten to get drowned in the visuals.

[Mister Tee]

Interesting this crap year has generated the most posts in a decade.

On the whole heart/mind thing: First, I disagree with Magilla that this is mostly some post-60s phenomenon. There have always been films deemed more elitist/brainy – however we revere them today, Citizen Kane, The Maltese Falcon and Sunset Boulevard, just for example, were viewed as such (and, as a result, were less popular with audiences than inferior works). I’m not even sure quite how you define the dichotomy, or if it’s as clearly marked as some think. Many of the great films of the 70s were seen as cerebral, but a good number of my favorites of the era – Cabaret, Chinatown, Manhattan – affected me viscerally as well as intellectually. Even unto today: a great many dismissed Far from Heaven as pure intellectual exercise, but I was emotionally overwhelmed by it – so, which category does it fall in, for me? I’m afraid for many, the term “heart” is a euphemism for “I know nothing about what makes a work of art soar, so give me something uplifting and sentimental” …the King’s Speech crowd.

I’m quite surprised to see people as erudite as Eric and BJ offer praise for Back to the Future. I could see why the film was a big hit in its day – its overall structure had a visceral pull – but I thought it was a crude, shabby piece of work. Every important piece of exposition seemed to be triple-underlined – the ranter in the early scene who shouts about the lightning strike happening THIRTY YEARS AGO TODAY! (hmm; wonder if that’ll figure in the plot); the musician on the phone saying “Chuck, this is your cousin – MARVIN BERRY!” (after his name had already been on the posters… and, oh yeah, since Michael J. Fox had sung Johnny B. Goode, who the hell else was it supposed to be?); even something so minor and crude as the dump truck full of manure landing on Biff – not only is it labeled “MANURE”, a character has to stick his finger in it and smell, apparently to insure that even the lip-readers in the audience get the joke. I also found the film’s epilogue a depressing reflection of the era’s Reaganite values – the father’s whole life has change because he punched somebody out. And how has it changed? – he has a ton of money, and his social-leper daughter now has lots of good-looking guys taking her out. The film might as well have stayed in the 50s; that where its ethos came from.

[Big Magilla]

I've seen compelling defenses of The Color Purple, even if I agree with those who think it's not Spielberg's best (or that it's anything other than one of his worst). I have yet to read a single insightful reason why Out of Africa shouldn't be considered one of the worst, or at any rate least distinctive films to ever be nominated for the top prize, much less secure the win. Interesting that style-vs-substance gets called up in this thread, since Africa is maybe the pinnacle of filmmaking that eradicates all semblance of style, so as not to upset the apple cart of "good taste."

I don't think Out of Africa has much of either. A certain amount of style can be gleaned from the cinematography; from Redford washing Streep's hair and so on, but it's not significant. As for substance, what substance? It's about as mundane as most of the women's weepies of the Thirties. It's basically a film for people who like to watch movies for their exotic backdrops.

[Big Magilla]

My personal favorite movie of the year might be After Hours, which I find to be a wickedly funny little corker of a thriller, and a wonderful change of pace for Scorsese.

I haven't seen After Hours, but its write-up on IMDB makes it seem similar to Something Wild, Jonathan Demme's film released next year with Jeff Daniels and Melanie Griffith.

They're both black comedies, but they're as different as a film from Scorsese can be to a film from Demme.

After Hours was filmed entirely in Lower Manhattan. Something Wild has a broader canvas. They are similar in that the tension and anxiety of the lead characters increase as the films go along. Although they both feature improbable situations, After Hours seems like something that might happen to anyone whereas Something Wild seems like something more remote.

[Greg]

My personal favorite movie of the year might be After Hours, which I find to be a wickedly funny little corker of a thriller, and a wonderful change of pace for Scorsese.

I haven't seen After Hours, but its write-up on IMDB makes it seem similar to Something Wild, Jonathan Demme's film released next year with Jeff Daniels and Melanie Griffith.

[Eric]

I've seen compelling defenses of The Color Purple, even if I agree with those who think it's not Spielberg's best (or that it's anything other than one of his worst). I have yet to read a single insightful reason why Out of Africa shouldn't be considered one of the worst, or at any rate least distinctive films to ever be nominated for the top prize, much less secure the win. Interesting that style-vs-substance gets called up in this thread, since Africa is maybe the pinnacle of filmmaking that eradicates all semblance of style, so as not to upset the apple cart of "good taste." (Voted Prizzi's Honor and Kurosawa, though I like Chris Marker's documentary tenuously about the making of Ran -- A.K. -- better than Ran itself.)

01. Crime Wave (What After Hours is to many -- a twisted, inscrutable, unsettling dream -- John Paizs's deadpan comedy is to me.)
02. Day of the Dead
03. Pee-wee’s Big Adventure
04. Mala Noche
05. Back to the Future
06. My Beautiful Laundrette
07. Brazil
08. Phenomena
09. Re-Animator
10. After Hours

[Reza]

Voted for Out of Africa and Kurosawa.

My picks for 1985:

Best Picture
1. Ran
2. Brazill
3. Out of Africa
4. Prizzi's Honor
5. The Purple Rose of Cairo

The 6th Spot: Witness

Best Director
1. Akira Kurosawa, Ran
2. Terry Gilliam: Brazil
3. Woody Allen, The Purple Rose of Cairo
4. John Huston, Prizzi's Honor
5. Hector Babenco, Kiss of the Spider Woman

The 6th Spot: Sydney Pollack, Out of Africa

[Reza]

Question: do you vote in this polls with your heart (the movie that strikes you more on an emotional level) or your brains (the movie that is artistically better made)?

In the Golden Age (1930s-mid 1960s), these were often the same film. From the late 60s on, films that appealed to both became fewer and fewer although 1984 produced at least three Best Picture nominees that appealed both. 1985 is a year that gave us Best Picture nominees that were lacking on both counts, though I still maintain that The Color Purple, judged on its own terms and not in comparison to the novel it was based on, is a good movie. Not Spielberg's best, but far from his worst and infinitely superior to the horrid Oprah produced musical of a few years back.

To expound, however, I'll almost always take brains over heart. What I don't like are dumb, brainless films whether they're about romance, murder, or anything else. Another thing I don't like is style over substance, especially when style is all there is, which is a malady that has reached epidemic proportions in recent years.

Only God Forgives, case in point.

[Big Magilla]

Question: do you vote in this polls with your heart (the movie that strikes you more on an emotional level) or your brains (the movie that is artistically better made)?

In the Golden Age (1930s-mid 1960s), these were often the same film. From the late 60s on, films that appealed to both became fewer and fewer although 1984 produced at least three Best Picture nominees that appealed both. 1985 is a year that gave us Best Picture nominees that were lacking on both counts, though I still maintain that The Color Purple, judged on its own terms and not in comparison to the novel it was based on, is a good movie. Not Spielberg's best, but far from his worst and infinitely superior to the horrid Oprah produced musical of a few years back.

To expound, however, I'll almost always take brains over heart. What I don't like are dumb, brainless films whether they're about romance, murder, or anything else. Another thing I don't like is style over substance, especially when style is all there is, which is a malady that has reached epidemic proportions in recent years.

[The Original BJ]

Plus, I still have a lot to see (notably Shoah and Come and See...maybe I'll plan a themed movie weekend and knock off both!).

Wow, that’s a hell fun of a weekend you’re bound to have.

But seriously, the idea of having Lanzmann’s Shoah and the Oscars occupying the same universe, not to mention the same paragraph seems rather strange to me.

Putting the gallows humor aside, obviously, for my own emotional sanity, I won't see these films in too much proximity to one another. (I'm actually not sure how many hours of Shoah I'll be able to take in one sitting either -- there's only so much real-life tragedy one can experience at a time.)

And yes, certain pieces of filmmaking ascend to a higher moral universe than the crass one that awards competition honors -- but in the interest of using these Oscar threads to foment a broader discussion about other major films, I wanted to at least bring up that gap in my viewing. (I know I've learned about a lot of impressive movies -- some way off-Oscar -- from recommendations in these polls from others.)

[Big Magilla]

Question: do you vote in this polls with your heart (the movie that strikes you more on an emotional level) or your brains (the movie that is artistically better made)?

In the Golden Age (1930s-mid 1960s), these were often the same film. From the late 60s on, films that appealed to both became fewer and fewer although 1984 produced at least three Best Picture nominees that appealed both. 1985 is a year that gave us Best Picture nominees that were lacking on both counts, though I still maintain that The Color Purple, judged on its own terms and not in comparison to the novel it was based on, is a good movie. Not Spielberg's best, but far from his worst and infinitely superior to the horrid Oprah produced musical of a few years back.

[mlrg]

Question: do you vote in this polls with your heart (the movie that strikes you more on an emotional level) or your brains (the movie that is artistically better made)?

[Uri]

Plus, I still have a lot to see (notably Shoah and Come and See...maybe I'll plan a themed movie weekend and knock off both!).

Wow, that’s a hell fun of a weekend you’re bound to have.

But seriously, the idea of having Lanzmann’s Shoah and the Oscars occupying the same universe, not to mention the same paragraph seems rather strange to me.

[Uri]

So, it’s going to be Boohoohoo-weren’t-the-‘80s-a-bitch from now on? And until when? Until the indie glory of ’96 which brought back to the Oscars the glorious ‘70s for, what, a split second? No, Out of Africa is not Jeremiah Johnson and Prizi’s Honor is not Fat City. They are, however a very good film (the former) and a great one (the latter). They certainly don’t have that romanticized gritty, antiestablishment vibe of that previous decade about them. They look, well, polished. And settled. And not cool. As were the times they were made in. Yet these films were not a throwback to the pre counterculture shakeup of ’67-’77. They seem to represent more formalized, less emancipated (which in many cases, let’s face it, really meant sloppy) film making. But still, once one gets over the very timely slickness, they do represent certain social and political and cultural sensitivities which are the result of these past couple of decades. And really, as for this year’s list, apart from that ultimate piece of – let me use the most refined, academically oriented term – dreck which was The Color of Purple, any of the remaining four would be a glittering jewel if placed among most of the films which are being nominated nowadays. So yes, Witness is not profoundly groundbreaking, but it is intelligent enough and sensitive enough to be a rather satisfying romantic/anthropologic thriller. KotSW is somehow cliché ridden and a little heavy handedly exotic, but at the time (admittedly, I haven’t seen it since the ‘80s) it did strike some cords. And as I already said, I found OoA to be an intriguing, at times quite haunting meditation on the cultural and emotional nature of Colonialism (and gender issues, but this is really a no-no topic round here). And I really, really love PO, and everything about it, including Turner’s lethal Margaret Dumont. It’s the character who’s not on the joke, not the actress. It’s a great favorite of mine, so I think I’ll vote for it and for Huston. They seem to need my support.

!985 was a shity year. The height of the greedy Reagan\Thatcher era, Israel was in a deadlock politically, probably not the greatest cinematic year ever too. But you know what, as far as Oscar short lists are concerned, not a bad year. Take away the Spielberg’s travesty and throw in Woody’s Purple instead and I’m fine.