Best Picture and Director 1986

[Heksagon]

No real masterpieces this year, but there are three classic films here (Hannah and Her Sisters, Platoon and A Room with a View) and the two other films aren't that bad either, so it's a decent year by the standards of the 80s.

My votes go to Platoon. This film is probably not as good as Apocalypse: Now or Full Metal Jacket, but it's fair to say that the realism of Platoon has probably been the main influence for the way in which most people think of the Vietnam War (that is, at least for the people too young to remember the contemporary newsreels).

Nevertheless, Platoon has its defects. The story between the good sergeant and the bad sergeant is very heavy-handed, and the fact that I don't really like either Tom Berenger or Willem Dafoe doesn't help either (although they both do their best parts here). Also, the build-up to the climatic finale feels very... artificial. The best scenes of the film are early on (especially the scene where Charlie Sheen is alone in guard at night), and after that the film sometimes doesn't seem to know where it's going next.

I don't have much to add to what has already been said about the other films. Hannah is one of Allen's best films, although not at the level of the two films which I consider to be his masterpieces - Annie Hall and Manhattan. And A Room with a View was a major breakthrough for the British costume drama - and in spite of many imitators, it still feels fresh and original.

[The Original BJ]

Another not-great year, but I do genuinely like a number of the movies on this ballot, which makes it one of the better slates of the '80s, I think.

Of the movies that missed completely, I don't think Stand By is me is a great-great movie, but it's pretty lovely, and much better than a couple of the nominees.

The Mission is definitely the worst, a movie with only two elements of distinction in my book: beautiful cinematography and one of Ennio Morricone's finest pieces of film music. But there are a lot of problems after that. It's not JUST that the movie is boring -- which, definitely, it is boring, long and pompous with miscast stars and phony "historical" dialogue. But I think the movie's politics are fairly questionable too. The script seems to think it is most definitively on the side of the natives, under attack by colonialist Europeans. And yet...the heroes of the movie are all white characters, defending a mission which is portrayed as the most idyllic home any South American native could ask for. And so the movie ends up feeling uncomfortably colonialist anyway, despite the mustache-twirling villains it depicts ostensibly to prove otherwise. Roland Joffé's direction is part of the problem, too, because the the whole film is visualized in a sort of beatified glow that contains shot after shot of natives happily immersed in European culture (at least until the mission comes under siege), images which seem strangely optimistic given the actual history of European conquests in the Americas. One of the most puzzling Palme d'Or winners ever.

Children of a Lesser God is, of course, notable for its depiction of the relationship between deaf and hearing cultures, and it remains an important movie for that reason. But it's hardly an important FILM -- in fact, it's barely a film at all. Like Mister Tee, I find it hard to get excited about these rote play adaptations, helmed by unimaginative directors to mediocre effect. (It's the main reason I'm flabbergasted why so many expect August: Osage County to be the second coming, despite liking the source material quite a bit there.) I do agree that the actors are good, and both leads get pretty strong roles. But I don't think that Children of a Lesser God is all that strong as a play even -- narratively it strikes me as rather wan, the kind of story that proceeds along about exactly as you'd expect it to given the set-up. This is another one I'll quickly pass on.

Merchant-Ivory would go on to be the subjects of much backlash and ridicule for their genteel, literate efforts, and the awards they routinely scooped up for them. And it's true that some of their lesser films certainly fall on the dreary side. But I like all of their Best Picture nominees a lot. As has been said, A Room With a View makes for a very delightful viewing experience mainly because its light sense of humor just buoys the thing along -- Maggie Smith's skill at tossing off great quips is taken for granted at this point, but gives her scenes a real kick, and Daniel Day-Lewis has never been so amusing. It's also a beautifully romantic movie, with Denholm Elliott's last scene with Helena Bonham Carter just a lump-in-the-throat moment as he encourages her to follow what her heart tells her. Visually, the sets and costumes are perfection, but cinematically the movie isn't just a pretty period piece -- James Ivory absolutely was a filmmaker, and his knack for visually graceful images, combined with his literate sensibility and skill with actors, make him thoroughly deserving of this Director nomination. That said, his work wasn't so groundbreaking that I feel like I need to choose him (or his film), but I think A Room With a View's merits put it well above the standard "filmed classic" territory.

My vote for Best Picture comes down to Hannah and Her Sisters and Platoon, and I have to say that I don't have a terribly strong opinion in either direction. The films are both so different, choosing between them pretty much comes down to whatever my mood is on any given day. And seeing as how I have already rewarded Woody Allen, and will choose Oliver Stone up ahead, I don't have any strong urgency toward one over the other this year.

Hannah and Her Sisters is certainly one of Woody Allen's best films. What surprised me most about the movie was the way Mia Farrow's Hannah doesn't seem to be the focus of it at all -- certainly not in the way the title would imply. In actuality, there ISN'T much focus to the movie. Each of the sisters has her own mostly independent arc, and much of Woody's own character's appearances occur in flashback. And yet the way each of these characters and stories intersect, bounce off of one another, and thematically parallel each other (culminating in that great lunch scene) makes the film feel almost like a connection of great interlocking short stories rather than a traditionally structured screenplay. Woody Allen would utilize this structure elsewhere -- Deconstructing Harry has a similar short story-ish vibe -- but rarely did the parts cohere into such a wonderful whole as they do here. The film's observations about human nature, particularly Mickey's conclusion that life must be enjoyed, not understood, are sharp and poignant, and the acting across the board is wonderful. Although I have sometimes found the Bergman influence on Allen's work to be a problem (in Interiors definitely), here I think the director finds just the right combination of humor to go along with the gloom that the movie succeeds tremendously well.

Platoon is also a pretty impressive movie. The structure, on the surface, is a bit schematic -- with Charlie Sheen pitted against two very different ideologies, symbolized by Berenger and Dafoe. And yet, watching the movie, the story never feels overdetermined. A lot of this has to do with the way Oliver Stone executes the movie, fleshing out the protagonists in a way that makes the ideas they represent stem naturally from their personalities, rather than seem grafted upon them by the filmmaker. And as a cinematic experience, it's pretty gripping, full of well-staged and photographed action sequences, from a director who, obviously, had a pretty good feel for the environment he was capturing. I've tended to be quite a fan of Stone's work over the years, and think that he would grow to be an even more exciting filmmaker, so I'll hold off on giving him Best Director for now. (Admittedly, his work has not been especially impressive this past decade.) But Platoon seems a worthy cousin to the exciting 70's sensibilities of great Vietnam films like Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter, so I grant it my vote as Best Picture.

But I'd have picked Blue Velvet in both categories had it been an option, and I pick David Lynch all the way for Best Director. Blue Velvet, unfortunately, was too weird for voters to make it in the top category, or any others, but it really should have been nominated across the board, for its twisty and darkly funny script, its haunting score, its almost out-of-time art direction, its evocative cinematography, its thrillingly suspenseful editing, its moody and inventive sound design, etc. I think David Lynch is a great talent, though I tend to be more enamored of his work when he brings his surrealist sensibilities to engaging narratives, rather than when the craziness takes over. (I found Inland Empire to be mostly intolerable.) For me, Blue Velvet is his peak, a wild and shocking ride that also feels grounded in a strong, noir-ish story. And truly, no one else could have made this film but him, always a great qualification for a Best Director winner.

[Mister Tee]

Well, with the next year already up and running, I’m officially behind. So, let me try and blast through 1986.

It certainly felt like an improvement after the two years that preceded it: there were movies worth considering in best picture terms, and a fair number of others that at least qualified as enjoyable (something that couldn’t have been honestly said a year earlier). But I find Magilla’s suggestion, that it was a choice among terrific movies, hyperbolic. In fact, there was no film on the list about which I was as fully enthused as I’d been about Brazil in ’85.

Films that could have made the list – and should have, over some of the weaker contenders – were Down and Out in Beverly Hills or Peggy Sue Got Married. Not to say they were great, but they were better than…

The Mission. I say this with regret. I’d been a great fan of The Killing Fields, and hoped Roland Joffe was off to a stellar career. But I found The Mission just another beautifully photographed boring period piece. Let me emphasize that it was TRULY beautifully photographed – it wasn’t just pictures of pretty things; it was perfectly lit pictures of pretty things. But the story…honestly, at this point, I don’t even remember the story (something about priests and conquistadors, I think?). Obviously I found the film totally unmemorable.

When Children of a Lesser God started turning up on the pre-Oscar lists, I thought to myself, god, is this what the Oscars have come to? – routine film versions of plays, programmed as Oscar vehicles, get nominations by rote (and then trundle off to cable)? I know: for those of you younger, you’ve never know a time when such wasn’t the case. But this was a new, dreary reality for me. It’s not that I exactly hated the film. It was based on a pleasantly bland play that was over-rewarded by the Tonys, and it became the perfect screen equivalent, elevated only by the two lead performers – Matlin in a role almost sure to win attention, and Hurt in perhaps the most movie-star-ry part he ever had. I enjoyed it for two hours. I’m just amazed there were people who thought that was the best cinema had to offer, even in the 80s.

Merchant-Ivory had been putting films out since I was in grade school. Critics dependably touted them as worthy and intelligent, and occasionally one would break a bit past the art-house ghetto (notably The Bostonians in ’84). But audiences never much responded to them, because they were never much fun -- until A Room with a View. It was as if the team (along with their long-time screenwriter) had suddenly been educated in the use of humor; A Room with a View is about 1000 times funnier than any previous effort. It also featured wonderful performances from a cast of Brits, both veteran (Smith, Elliott) and on-the-rise (Day-Lewis, Bonham Carter). It was still a Brit-pic – its appeal greatest to those for whom Masterpiece Theatre was the height of artistic aspiration -- but, in a grisly summer for mainstream film, it became a huge success, and merited its spot on the best picture list. It will not, however, be getting my votes.

You see David Lynch running away with the best director category here, and you have to wonder: would he be similarly romping for best picture had his film been nominated? Let me say that, in my case, the answer would be no. I voted for him enthusiastically for best director, because no other film that year was as audacious, as original, as out-there as Blue Velvet, and Lynch’s directorial hand was omnipresent. But I can’t say I view the film as a complete artistic success. For me, the last half-hour teeters a bit – becomes weird and random, and somewhat ugly – before recovering for its perfect closing shot. I grant, compared to Wild at Heart or Inland Empire, the film’s a model of coherence and sensibility, but I found those final segments off-putting enough that I have to rank the film a bit below the year’s two best efforts.

Hannah and Her Sisters is a clear contender (along with Crimes and Misdemeanors and Husbands and Wives) for Woody Allen’s best post-Manhattan film. And there’s a great deal I love about the film: the casual, natural feel of the holiday celebrations; Woody’s comic search for meaning in the wake of his health scare; Dianne Wiest’s furious dissatisfaction with what life is dealing her; the sister’s lunch meet-up; the beyond-sweet ending (the closest to a feel-good finale Woody ever offered). But there are also parts of the film that nag at me. As I’ve expressed many times, I find Michael Caine’s entire performance a misfire; I also don’t care for Max von Sydow’s character. In both cases, it’s not so much the actor’s demeanor as the literal and flat quality of their dialogue. At this point in his career (extending years), Woody seemed too often determined to ape his idol Bergman by writing what he viewed as from-the-depths (often gloom-ridden) dialogue – but, from him, this dialogue too often sounded like bad translation from the Swedish; it certainly lacked the glorious spin of his comedic material. This misguided effort to imitate a mentor for me sacrificed some of Woody’s strongest gifts, and diminished his films. If all of Hannah were up to the level of its best moments – the ones that were most Woody-like -- I’d be choosing it here (probably declaring it one of the two or three best films of the 80s). I’ll still praise it for what it achieved…but I can’t ignore the parts that fall short.

So I end up going with Platoon. Truth be told, I haven’t seen the movie since 1986, so I’m going on faded impressions. But it struck me at the time as a pretty powerful war film – powerful despite a general restraint shown by its writer director (a quality of which he has not often since been accused). The war for Charlie Sheen’s soul (a phrase that sounds hilarious today) gave a structure beyond the grunt’s eye view subject matter, and the strong performances from Berenger and Dafoe made the battle quite memorable. Stone – thought of as a rabble-rouser, based on his screenplay for Midnight Express – brought a surprisingly contemplative tone to some scenes (aided by Samuel Barber’s strings). I can’t say I loved the film – I can’t even say I found it leagues beyond Hannah. But something has to get my vote, and this is where I end up.

[dws1982]

Not too shocked that his thread isn't getting much play. Not the most exciting year. I went with Platoon and David Lynch. I like Hannah and Her Sisters, although I think Woody Allen's two decade-ending films (Another Woman, Crimes and Misdemeanors) are even better.

[Reza]

Voted for Platoon and David Lynch.

My picks for 1986:

Best Picture
1. Blue Velvet
2. Platoon
3. Hannah and Her Sisters
4. A Room With a View
5. Stand By Me

The 6th Spot: Aliens

Best Director
1. David Lynch, Blue Velvet
2. Oliver Stone, Platoon
3. Woody Allen, Hannah and Her Sisters
4. James Ivory, A Room With a View
5. Rob Reiner, Stand By Me

The 6th Spot: James Cameron, Aliens

[Greg]

Voted for Platoon and Stone.

[Big Magilla]

36 votes but only 18 voters - 2 votes per voter.

[mlrg]

36 voters... 3 posters....

[mlrg]

bumping this for discussion

[mlrg]

Voted for Hannah and Her Sisters and Stone.

The Mission has one of the best scores ever.

[ksrymy]

Best Picture

1. Blue Velvet
2. Platoon
3. Hannah and Her Sisters
4. Aliens
5. A Room with a View

6. Down by Law

Best Director

1. David Lynch, Blue Velvet
2. David Cronenberg, The Fly
3. Oliver Stone, Platoon
4. Woody Allen, Hannah and Her Sisters
5. James Ivory, A Room with a View

6. James Cameron, Aliens

[Big Magilla]

If 1985 gave us a difficult time selecting a Best Picture winner because none of the choices were that great, 1986 gives us the opposite problem.

Four of this year's films, Oliver Stone's grunt-eye's view of the Vietnam war, Platoon; James Ivory's exhilarating film of E.M. Forster's A Room With a View; Woody Allen's modern day Thanksgiving classic, Hannah and Her Sisters and David Lynch's nightmarish mystery thriller, Blue Velvet force us to choose between films that if they weren't up against one another might easily be our pick. Add to them, Stephen Frears and Daniel Day-Lewis' breakthrough, the made for British TV My Beautiful Laundrette ; Rob Reiner's film of Stephen Kings' short story, Stand By Me; Neil Jordan's trenchant London gangster film, Mona Lisa; David Cronenberg's remake of The Fly and you have a wonderful year for film.

Then there are the three films most would consider the year's fifth best: Randa Haines' film of the Broadway hit, Children of a Lesser God; Roland Joffé and Chris Menges' 18th Century missionary drama, The Mission and James Cameron's science fiction masterpiece, Aliens, the rare sequel that improves upon the original.

At the time my choice for the fifth slot was Children of a Lesser God, and while there are still things I like about it, the acting in particular, it doesn't resonate in the memory the way The Mission does.

The odd thing about The Mission is that it's a mixed blessing to sit through. Robert De Niro's performance is off, but it's more than made up for by the exemplary performances of Jeremy Irons and Ray McAnally and Chris Menges' Oscar winning cinematography is magnificent, a fine example of style matching, not overwhelming substance. That said, the film still remains my fifth choice overall with the others coming in in the order in which I listed them with my picks for Best Director following suit.