Best Picture and Director 1989

1927/28 through 1997
Post Reply

Please make your selections for Best Picture and Director of 1989

Born on the Fourth of July
7
13%
Dead Poets Society
4
7%
Driving Miss Daisy
7
13%
Field of Dreams
2
4%
My Left Foot
8
14%
Woody Allen - Crimes and Misdemeanors
12
21%
Kenneth Branagh - Henry V
4
7%
Jim Sheridan - My Left Foot
3
5%
Oliver Stone - Born on the Fourth of July
8
14%
Peter Weir - Dead Poets Society
1
2%
 
Total votes: 56

Heksagon
Adjunct
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:39 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Best Picture and Director 1989

Post by Heksagon »

This is a difficult year, as I consider all five nominees to be something like "borderline good" films, or "good but limited" films.

Personally I like Dead Poets Society, although the reason for that may be that I was impressed by it when I saw it at a relatively young age when I didn't watch many prestige films. I have seen it several times since then, but the latest repeat view was more than ten years ago, so my taste may have changed since then.

It is true that the film's world-view is 19th Century, and for most adults it is (or should be) difficult to relate to the society that is portrayed in the film. All I can say to that is that you don't need to think as a film that is dependant on an actual society, but it may be a study of individuals conflicting against social norms in an asbtract enviroment. That is likely stretching it, but I do feel that the film is an impressive example in storytelling, even if the story itself is somewhat unbelievable.

My Left Foot is a good biopic, but still, just a biopic, and there isn't much extraordinary there. Field of Dreams is a decent film, but too light for Oscar considerations, in my opinion.

Born on the Fourth of July is a good film, but limited by several factors. First, rather than being a film about the social dimensions of the Vietnam War (like Coming Home and The Deer Hunter), it is more about an individual who finds enlightenment. Second, its philosophical outlook is very black-and-white. Third, the film doesn't really get anywhere, and towards the end, the story and the main character just don't carry it.

There is also Driving Miss Daisy which I just don't get. It has good acting and many of the individual scenes are good, but as a whole, it just doesn't impress me. It certainly doesn't qualify as a socially progressive film, and the relationship between the characters never feels particularly close.

After a lot of thinking, my vote for Best Picture goes to Born on the Fourth of July. My choice for Best Director is the obvious one, Woody Allen.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Best Picture and Director 1989

Post by The Original BJ »

1989 is, to me, the year that suggests the '80's were coming to an end -- 1990 wouldn't fulfill on that promise right away, but this seems to be the year when the American independent film movement really hit the mainstream, influencing Hollywood tremendously over the next decade.

I agree with the widely-held consensus that Do the Right Thing and Spike Lee were tremendously robbed for a film that was both hugely exciting stylistically and timely thematically. I would also give a shout-out to sex, lies, and videotape and The Little Mermaid, which isn't quite as good as Beauty and the Beast, but which I think paved the way for the latter's Best Picture nomination.

I also like Enemies, A Love Story, Drugstore Cowboy, and When Harry Met Sally. And obviously I need to check out Casualties of War, as it's been rated so highly by folks here.

I'll try not to be too much of a grouch about it, but I really don't care at all for Driving Miss Daisy. I find it to be an almost aggravatingly gentle movie that feels like it takes place in a vacuum, in a world where the oft-violent civil rights struggles of the era never threaten to seriously affect the characters' lives. dws makes a valid point -- that change happened at an individual level, and I think that's a worthy enough theme. But I find the way Daisy articulates this idea to be virtually toothless, and utterly self-congratulatory, as it pats its heroine on the back for slowly realizing that, gosh darn it, maybe she shouldn't be such a jerk toward that Negro! I admit that I may be criticizing Daisy for what it is NOT, rather than evaluating it for what it aims to accomplish, but I just find its aims to be naive at best, and wrong-headed at worst. And for a movie that covers this subject matter in this much scope, it sure does feel awfully lightweight and minor. A definite NO vote from me.

Which isn't to say that I think Dead Poets Society is necessarily any better. My biggest problem with the movie is that I think it completely fails at convincing us that Mr. Keating is actually a competent teacher. If I had a professor who paraded me around outside like some kind of preschooler and called it an English lesson, I would have gone straight to the principal's office wondering when this buffoon was going to teach me anything. And that first scene in the classroom -- where he encourages the kids to rip the essay out of their textbooks -- is totally anti-intellectual, suggesting that all you need to do is FEEL the poetry or some such nonsense, rather than actually learn articulate ways to analyze how poetry is succeeding or not. And so, I find myself completely on the side of the "evil" draconian characters -- it's nice that Keating is beloved by his students, but hey, a lot of my classmates liked the teachers who showed movies once a week and called it a "history lesson," and I don't think they qualified as great educators either. And if all of this was just simply annoying during the first portion of the movie, I actively started to dislike the thing when the Christ imagery (that crown of thorns!) started to appear, and it just began to devolve into total hokiness. By the time the boys were standing on the desks, I'd just about had it. As I said when discussing Witness, I run hot and cold on Peter Weir, but this definitely falls into the barely-directed portion of his work for me, it's just all so bland when it isn't miscalculated.

Field of Dreams isn't really the kind of movie I'd want to see up for Best Picture, but I do think it's an enjoyable enough piece of entertainment. As Mister Tee suggests, the narrative is relatively clever and well-structured, and I found myself drawn in to the particulars of the story even though I didn't necessarily find them hugely profound. And though it wears its heart on its sleeve, I do think a lot of the emotion is earned -- it's hard not to get worked up over that ending. It's not a movie I'd go to bat for (no pun intended) as bracing drama, but I don't find it to be as manipulative as some of the other movies on the ballot. And yes, its genuine sense of humor makes it quite a bit more fun, too.

My Left Foot is, in many ways, a fairly typical Jim Sheridan movie. It isn't tremendously bold, and structurally it hews to a fairly traditional audience-pleasing formula. And yet, there's an intelligence to it, and a down-and-dirty aesthetic that makes it mostly avoid any potential the material might have for dipping into the maudlin. (In America is another pretty good example of Jim Sheridan's ability to skirt cheap sentiment even when working with a very sincere story.) And above all, the movie is fantastically acted, by Day-Lewis in his sensational role, but also by Fricker and O'Connor and the rest of the actors on the margins, who make the film feel lived-in and genuine. But ultimately, I'm more excited by the movie as a great Best Actor vehicle than as the best of the year overall.

To me, Henry V is probably, after Polanski's Macbeth, the screen version of Shakespeare that feels most like cinema rather than an embalmed history lesson. Of course, Kenneth Branagh's tour de force is that grand tracking shot after the battle, which is all the more impressive for feeling like a great technical feat without ever seeming like a show-off exercise in style that's inappropriate to the material. But in general, Branagh's handling of the play is impressive throughout, mainly for the way the grit and energy of the battle sequences allow them to feel contemporary and exciting. And his own performance is very solid throughout. I don't have enough of a personal attachment to the film to pick Branagh as Best Director, but it's very easy to understand why he got this nomination.

I can see why so many are gravitating to Woody Allen in the Director category, and he would not be an unworthy choice. Crimes and Misdemeanors is one of the director's greatest achievements -- it would have been on my Best Picture ballot for sure -- and Woody's handling of both the humorous elements of his own storyline (with Alan Alda's filmmaker a hilariously obnoxious creation) and the more disturbing elements of Martin Landau's plot while making both narratives feel thematically cohesive is a real feat. It's one of the director's most deeply cynical films, and yet, it's quite a bit of fun to watch, and never feels as heavy-handed as some of his less successful dramatic efforts.

But I'm going to go with the toppled frontrunner in both categories. It's possible that my small personal connection to the material puts me over the edge -- my dad grew up several towns away from Ron Kovic, and the two knew each other, not tremendously well, but they had a lot of mutual friends. Several years ago, I had the opportunity to meet Kovic, and hear a lot of stories about his experiences growing up, in Vietnam, and even making Born on the Fourth of July. And I saw a man full of youthful joy -- the same joy and optimism that Tom Cruise captures so beautifully in the opening scenes of the movie, and which Kovic himself would go through much struggle to regain following his military service. I think Oliver Stone's film is an exceedingly powerful tribute to this man's life -- and essentially all of the optimistic young men who came back from war and grew increasingly disillusioned with the country they so loved, and who grew distant from the people they cared about deeply but whom they no longer understood. For me, this is probably Stone's most deeply felt film, where the emotional impact is just as strong as the political cynicism and the stylistic bravado. And, from a directing standpoint, it is a superbly crafted movie, that chronicles with wonderful visual cues the changes in America during this period. (Stone is also aided greatly by John Williams's haunting score.) I know that Stone can often be too aggressive for some -- in recent years, even I've felt that -- but I think Born on the Fourth July is a real triumph during a period when he had many of them, and I give it my votes for Picture and Director.
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Best Picture and Director 1989

Post by FilmFan720 »

In my estimation, 1989 gave us three of the greatest American films ever made: Do the Right Thing; sex, lies and videotape; and Crimes and Misdemeanors. So, of course, the Academy chose to pretty much avoid all three of them.

I voted for Woody here because it is the only vote I could toss at any of those three films. Allen is my favorite filmmaker, and I put Crimes easily in his Top 5 films of all times...it is his most successful blending of neurotic comic and serious philosopher, and his control over the tone and performance at all times is a phenomenal achievement. Plus, I think he gives his best performance in this film (although I would still rank the achievements of Lee and Soderbergh higher).

For picture, Born on the Fourth of July is easily my pick. We often don't give Oliver Stone enough credit for his ability to really focus in on character and intimate drama when he needs to (because he is so good at the sprawling, hyper-stylized filmmaking of JFK), and here he gets a lot of interesting work in the smaller scenes of a film that also manages to say a lot about a political era in big strokes.

My Top 5
1. Do the Right Thing
2. Crimes and Misdemeanors
3. sex, lies and videotape
4. Born on the Fourth of July
5. The Fabulous Baker Boys

1. Spike Lee, Do the Right Thing
2. Steven Soderbergh, sex, lies and videotape
3. Woody Allen, Crimes and Misdemeanors
4. Oliver Stone, Born on the Fourth of July
5. Shohei Imamura, Black Rain
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
MovieFan
Graduate
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:40 am

Re: Best Picture and Director 1989

Post by MovieFan »

Woody Allen and My Left Foot. Really looking forward to the 90s poll whenever they get started.
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 1989

Post by Precious Doll »

I would have voted for Do the RIght Thing & Spike Lee had the Academy had shown the good taste to nominate Lee and his film. And to think that the Academy went with Peter Weir at his absolute worst with DPS. Urgh.

I'll settle for Driving Miss Daisy & Woody Allen.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 1989

Post by Mister Tee »

For the second year running, my top choices under both best picture and best director failed to make the Academy’s slate.

My favorite film of 1989 was Enemies: A Love Story – Paul Mazursky’s most fully-formed film, and the best-realized attempt at transferring the sensibility of the post-war Jewish comic novelists to the screen. I was disappointed the critics’ groups didn’t do more to elevate this in the race, apart from the NY director win.

For my director choice, I’ll give Eric a boost and select dePalma for Casualties of War. The film wasn’t without its flaws – neither the Penn nor Fox performances really quite worked – but it had great overall power, and, visually, there were some stunning set pieces (like Fox half-falling into the tunnel, or the grenade being tossed below the latrine). The film was a box-office failure (hardly surprising: wartime atrocities aren’t exactly a multiplex pleaser), and it sadly seemed to either cost dePalma the freedom to work in different genres or depleted his own enthusiasm for it. I’m sorry about that; I’d like to have seen the films he might have made.

As I’ve said here before, I don’t rate Do the Right Thing quite as high as some, although I do think it’s for the most part a quite bracing, exciting piece of work. I just have never found the ending believable – for me, it comes from virtually nowhere: a character I hadn’t met over the film’s two hours performs (with callous indifference) an unimaginably cruel, vicious act. I’m certainly not saying such acts don’t occur; I’m saying one did not feel to me the appropriate climax for the film I’d been up till that moment watching.

Not much else off the Oscar list merits a lot of mention – though I enjoyed two thrillers – True Believer and Sea of Love – and got a kick out of Heathers.

To the nominees:

For me, voting for Dead Poets Society is like voting for Cream of Wheat. In what antediluvian world is a teacher getting kids to read poetry an act of rebellion? The film is so safely uncontroversial it gives off a reek of embalming fluid. I never understood what caused its outsized success, and I resented it taking nomination slots from far worthier films.

I saw Driving Miss Daisy onstage early during its run at Playwrights Horizons, and quite admired it – primarily as an actors’ vehicle (it was Freeman and Dana Ivey, there), but also for its minor but genuine dramatic achievements. Not every project has to change the world, and I was pleased to recommend the show to many. As time went on, though, I saw it accumulate honors that seemed out of its class – first the Pulitzer in 1988, then the best picture Oscar two years later – and I got the uneasy sense it was enacting some sort of literary Peter Principle. I think the fact that it rose to such seemingly-lofty heights is a primary reason why some look down their noses at what is, at least, a sweet, nicely crafted piece of work.

Field of Dreams has always been an easy putdown in hipster circles, but I quite enjoyed it (and so did most people I know, film snobs included). I know the film is viewed as wildly sentimental (and, god knows, that final “Hey, Dad” reduces me to jelly), but I’ve always found the movie surprisingly humorous – I don’t think either James Earl Jones or Amy Madigan have ever been as funny as they are in this. And I find the story fairly inventive. The film’s Oscar success – which I acknowledge is s atretch -- probably had something to do with it being a surprise/early-in-the-year hit (it actually opened in April, as I recall). I won’t be voting for it; I’m just saying I find its candidacy is far from the most dispiriting thing on this list.

Oliver Stone was still early on in his career when Born on the Fourth of July opened, but even then it felt like something of a retread – a Greatest Hits compilation. I already knew Stone’s view of Vietnam, and nothing in the rest of the story felt freshly experienced, either. And, of course, in Tom Cruise, he had a lead actor incapable of the unleashed performance the material needed (that it might have, with earlier-scheduled stars like Pacino). The film did start out as an Oscar-favorite, thanks to its initial box-office, but it petered out in both arenas; had Bruce Beresford managed the nomination for directing, I have little doubt he’d have won there.

My Left Foot is more interesting than the standard handicapped bio, chiefly because of the very impressive Day-Lewis performance – his willingness to play Christy Brown as a bit of a hellion/asshole was then very much out of step with standard style. The film as a whole had a patina of grubby reality that was also something of a tonic for the genre. Still and all, it was ultimately in the “isn’t it wonderful he could overcome such handicap” vein, so it’s not the sort of movie I’d hope to choose as the year’s best. But, given the choices the Academy has given me, I reluctantly put my check mark next to it.

Under director, though, I have two choices I like better. dws has already pinpointed the part of Crimes and Misdemeanors I find weakest – Landau’s far too blatantly articulated angst. I also have some difficulty with merging the two prime storylines; for me they cohere thematically far more easily than they do dramatically. But the details of those two storylines are so rich, raising such strong issues, that I still find this one of Woody’s top five or six films. I’d easily select the film as the year’s best original screenplay, and Allen would certainly be in my thinking for best director.

But I go with Kenneth Branagh, for the film that surprised me most all that year. Henry V had got very strong reviews, but I figured it was the kind of movie critics would rave about to prove their intellectual acumen, and only reluctantly went to see it (very late in the game) for Oscar completeness. At which point, I loved it! No, Henry V isn’t Hamlet or another of the great tragedies, but I think it’s the strongest of the history plays (especially in this version, with Branagh bootlegging in scenes from earlier Henry installments). And, more to the point, I thought Branagh dramatized it beautifully, with one soaring speech after another, and striking visuals -- culminating in the “Non nobis” tracking shot that had me saying “Bravo!” in my seat at its completion. Deep into the Oscar season of a year I didn’t much care about, I’d suddenly found a movie I loved. A quarter century later, that’s still enough to get my vote for best director.
User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2749
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 1989

Post by Eric »

The Alan Clarke one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyRL73HIvqg (Obligatory content warning.)
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Picture and Director 1989

Post by Big Magilla »

Elephant?
User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2749
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 1989

Post by Eric »

Hate to say it, but Daisy is the best of a very wrong slate.

01. Do the Right Thing
02. Casualties of War
03. Pièce touchée
04. Elephant
05. Tongues Untied
06. Santa Sangre
07. Chameleon Street
08. The Church
09. Crimes and Misdemeanors
10. Parenthood
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Best Picture and Director 1989

Post by Reza »

Voted for My Left Foot and Oliver Stone.

My picks for 1989:

Best Picture
1. The War of the Roses
2. sex, lies and videotape
3. My Left Foot
4. Born on the Fourth of July
5. Driving Miss Daisy

The 6th Spot: Crimes and Misdemeanors

Best Director
1. Danny De Vito, The War of the Roses
2. Oliver Stone, Born on the Fourth of July
3. Steven Soderberg, sex, lies and videotape
4. Jim Sheridan, My Left Foot
5. Bruce Beresford, Driving Miss Daisy

The 6th Spot: Woody Allen, Crimes and Misdemeanors
Last edited by Reza on Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3790
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 1989

Post by dws1982 »

Dead Poets Society was pretty shockingly acclaimed in its day. This wasn't the Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close of that lineup. It even went on the win the BAFTA for Best Film and, a year later, the Cesar for Best Foreign Film over Goodfellas and Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!. I don't quite get why. Weir does his usual competent but not quite inspired job. Robin Williams seems smugly pleased with himself throughout the entire thing, which is about which is about what you can expect when the entire ensemble (save the excellent Norman Lloyd) hands every single scene over to him. It's why, despite the fact that, in terms of screentime, it's a smallish performance for Best Actor, you can't imagine him being nominated in Support. They hand the movie over to him, and he devours it. The screenplay stacks the deck completely in his favor without any wiggle room. Nope, not a fan.

The opening sequence of Born On the Fourth of July is at least interesting as an over-the-top parody of Kovic's pre-awakening view of America. If I thought that the remaining two hours were meant to be an equally over-the-top parody of Kovic's post-awakening view of America, I might could give it some credit. Unfortunately, it's pretty clear that Stone is playing it straight. So that's gonna be a no-go as well.

Field of Dreams is pretty silly, but as someone with a weakness for sentimental baseball movies, I like it okay. Phil Alden Robinson is a mystery; a guy with no substantial filmography previous to this (other than writing All of Me), makes a big hit movie, and the most notable thing he's done since is an episode of Band of Brothers. (Not one of the best ones.) Strange.

Henry V isn't bad at all, and it's probably Branagh's best Shakespeare adaptation. But still, I don't think Henry V is one of Shakespeare's best, and even so, it's two superior adaptations--Olivier's, and the recent BBC Adaptation starring Tom Hiddleston. (Part of their event called The Hollow Crown, which consisted of adaptations of Richard II--definitely the best of the series--both parts of Henry IV and Henry V.) As a director, and as an actor, I just like Branagh better when he's not doing Shakespeare.

My Left Foot is one of the movies I feel like I should like more, but then again I always feel that way about Jim Sheridan's movies. I won't be considering it for any votes in these polls.

Driving Miss Daisy isn't a world-shaker, or anything close to it. It's pretty traditional stuff, but I never understood why some people were so mortally offended by it. I don't think it's trying to make some grand statement about race relations in the 20th century in the way something like The Help. To me its racial theme is basically that, despite the big protests and legislations and such, much "progress" (and I hate to use that word) was made at inter-personal level, in the way people gradually changed their attitudes towards people who they were, in many cases, forced to interact with. But the main thing in Daisy is the relationship between Hoke and Miss Daisy, and it feels completely believable and genuine. It gets my vote pretty easily in Picture. And honestly, it probably would in 1990 or 1988 as well.

For Director, I'm happy to vote for Woody Allen, especially since I've overlooked him in the past (and will in the future). There was a time when I would've called Crimes and Misdemeanors one of my top fifty or so films of all time. I don't know that I'd go that far now. I think that Landau's character, at times, falls into the trap that Mister Tee calls "speaking his subtext out loud", and--more problematically--the Angelica Huston character is way too shrill and one-dimensional. But still, I think this is Allen's best juxtaposition of his comic and dramatic sides, and they both cohere dramatically and thematically. Of Allen's late-80's run, I find myself drawn a bit more to his mournful dream-play Another Woman, but I think Crimes is a great movie, and easily merits my Director vote.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Picture and Director 1989

Post by Big Magilla »

OscarGuy wrote:Once again, I must point out that Argo was on a trajectory to win Best Picture BEFORE Ben Affleck was snubbed. I have to keep reminding people of this because the narrative should not be that the film won on a sympathy vote, which it did not.
Trajectory, perhaps, but the snub made it a virtual certainty the way I saw it though sympathy may not be the right word - revenge might be more fitting.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 1989

Post by OscarGuy »

Once again, I must point out that Argo was on a trajectory to win Best Picture BEFORE Ben Affleck was snubbed. I have to keep reminding people of this because the narrative should not be that the film won on a sympathy vote, which it did not.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
mlrg
Associate
Posts: 1747
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Best Picture and Director 1989

Post by mlrg »

voted for Dead Poets Society and Woody Allen
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Best Picture and Director 1989

Post by Big Magilla »

1989 was a good Oscar year for me. My most eagerly anticipated film was Born on the Fourth of July about a near contemporary of mine who was from the town I lived in at the time I was drafted in 1965. I was not disappointed in the result.

After seeing Born on the Fourth of July I was convinced it would easily take the Oscars for Best Picture, Director (Oliver Stone) and Actor (Tom Cruise) despite not having won any of the early precursors. That changed in literally just a few hours because later that same day I saw My Left Foot and thought it would be a close race between the two in those three categories with Jim Sheridan and Daniel Day-Lewis giving Stone and Cruise their strongest competition. I can't recall if I had seen Driving Miss Daisy, my third favorite film of the year, before or after that day, but I was convinced that film's only sure bet was Best Actress (Jessica Tandy) with Morgan Freeman, director Bruce Beresford and the film itself securing easy nominations, but not wins.

I still have no clear idea of how Driving Miss Daisy pulled out its surprise win, especially with director Beresford so blatantly snubbed. I thought it might have been sympathy for the snub much as Argo this year won a similar victory over more substantial completion.

I liked all five Best Picture nominees but I didn't really consider either Dead Poets Society or Field of Dreams best picture material over Glory; sex, lies, and videotape; The Fabulous Baker Boys; Crimes and Misdemeanors and Enemies, a Love Story but I was okay with them being nominated over four films that the critics were wild about, but which I admired more than liked, namely Do the Right Thing; Drugstore Cowboy; When Harry Met Sally... and Henry V.

It was such a strong year for directors that there was bound to be an odd man out, in this case two - Beresford and Field of Dreams' Phil Alden Robinson, but one can't complain when Woody Allen Crimes and Misdemeanors and Kenneth Branagh (Henry V were those who benefitted although Beresford really should have been there instead of Peter Weir (Dead Poets Society). My personal picks in addition to Stone, Sheridan and Beresford were Ed Zwick for Glory the only completely satisfying film he ever directed and Steven Soderberg for sex, lies, and videotape, the first in a long line of exceptional films.

My votes go to My Left Foot and Oliver Stone for Born on the Fourth fo July.
Post Reply

Return to “The Damien Bona Memorial Oscar History Thread”