Best Picture and Director 1994

[Sabin]

Reza wrote
I agree that with Gump's 13 nods out of the way Four Weddings would have benefited in a big way.

After all it won 4 Baftas - for Film, Grant, Scott-Thomas and Newell. It was also nominated for Original Screenplay, Score, Editing, Costumes, Simon Callow, John Hannah and Charlotte Coleman. That's a total of 11 nods.

But then the Brits tend to honour their own.

Pulp Fiction won for Tarantino's screenplay and Samuel L. Jackson's supporting performance.

Incidentally Gump was up for 8 Baftas winning only for the special effects

Well, the Brits certainly did a better job than we did that year.

[Reza]

I agree that with Gump's 13 nods out of the way Four Weddings would have benefited in a big way.

After all it won 4 Baftas - for Film, Grant, Scott-Thomas and Newell. It was also nominated for Original Screenplay, Score, Editing, Costumes, Simon Callow, John Hannah and Charlotte Coleman. That's a total of 11 nods.

But then the Brits tend to honour their own.

Pulp Fiction won for Tarantino's screenplay and Samuel L. Jackson's supporting performance.

Incidently Gump was up for 8 Baftas winning only for the special effects

[Sabin]

Reza wrote
You seem hell bent on making a case for a Shawshank win . I think it was too low key to win Best Picture.

Not really. I'm open to it. I just increasingly think it's hard to imagine Pulp Fiction winning. It's a fun race to think about.

Reza wrote
How about a left field win for the joyous boxoffice hit Four Weddings instead? Ok, I know, that's pushing it with its two nods. But with Zemeckis out of the race I still feel Newell would have taken his place and not Darabont.....leaving the field open for a Pulp Fiction win in both top categories. Remember this was the same conservative Academy that once chose Midnight Cowboy. And that was when the voting body was mainly very old school.

Now this would be a very lovely surprise. I think Four Weddings... would need a few things going for it:

- It lost the Golden Globe to The Lion King. Not the end of the world. Annie Hall lost to The Goodbye Girl but then it came back to win the DGA. But I think we all agree that not losing to The Lion King would at least boost its visibility. Still a bit shocking the the Hollywood Foreign Press went for The Lion King over Four Weddings and a Funeral.

- In Forrest Gump's absence, thirteen nominations open up. As we know, a movie doesn't need a Best Director nomination to win, but for a comedy it certainly goes a long way. Newell is absolutely possible. I think I agreed with you that he would be the more immediate beneficiary. He'd likely need to win that DGA which means it's on Working Title to run that campaign. The last few British films to at least pose a threat were headed by Miramax.

- Acting nominations would help because actors tend to bandy around and vote for things that they love. I'm struggling to think of a comedy that won Best Picture without any acting nominations. The problem is that Four Weddings and a Funeral is an "actor's film" in a field full of possibly bigger "actor's films." Pulp Fiction and Quiz Show are movies with big sprawling casts, and The Shawshank Redemption has those two meaty leads. Four Weddings and a Funeral has at least four performances deserving of nominations (Hugh Grant, Kristen Scott Thomas, Simon Callow, and John Hannah) but it didn't get those nominations in real life and it' unclear if it's the immediate beneficiary of Forrest Gump's absence. Also, SAG didn't give it any of these nominations. It's possible it would pick up a SAG Ensemble nomination had it been around at the time though...

- Perhaps Jon Gregory picks up a nomination for Best Film Editing. Four Weddings and a Funeral is a brisk, lovely thing. British films did pick up editing nominations back then. It would have to contend with ACE nominee True Lies (the T2 nominated team), Stu Linder of Quiz Show (Barry Levinson's editor; prev. nominee for Rain Man, prev. winner for Grand Prix), and what else exactly? Maybe Legends of the Fall? I think those films might be a little more likely if only because Four Weddings and a Funeral is one of those wonderful movies that is executed so perfectly it doesn't quite seem like anyone shot, directed, or edited it. But then the Academy already let a documentary in the mix, why not a romantic comedy?

- But let's say we wake up Oscar morning and Four Weddings and a Funeral has nominations for Best Picture, Director (Newell in place of Zemeckis), Actor (Grant in place of Hanks), Supporting Actor (Simon Callow in place of Gary Sinise), Supporting Actress (oh, let's just say Kristin Scott Thomas gets nominated over Rosemary Harris for Tom & Viv because nobody saw that thing anyway), Original Screenplay, and Film Editing (in place of Forrest Gump and instead of the others). Suddenly, Four Weddings and a Funeral is the OTHER little movie that could: an outsider indie that became a huge box office hit and, like Pulp Fiction (but without being a nightmare of depravity) picked up seven nominations.

So, yeah, if that happens, sure, it could win.

[Reza]

The more that I consider responses, I'm inclined to say I actually believe that The Shawshank Redemption would've somehow won. There's just no reason to believe that the Academy was capable of honoring something as contemporary as Pulp Fiction in 1994.

What we know about The Shawshank Redemption is this: it was a box office bomb that later became beloved on VHS. But when we saw "later became beloved" what that ignores is that it was one of the top rented films of 1995. That's not years down the line or some nebulous IMDB ranking thing. That's just one year later. Additionally, when it was re-released before the Oscars themselves, it certainly did better but just not enough to recoup its budget. What's interesting to me about its trajectory and appeal is that it's not radically dissimilar from Green Book: another retro movie from a different era with an un-commercial title that's seemingly for the older crowd but audiences seemed to love once dragged to actually see. Considering the climate of 1994 which was hugely reactionary, The Shawshank Redemption could've possibly worked as a word-of-mouth tonic to a year full of (as Bob Dole said) Natural Born Killers and True Romance "nightmares of depravity. I know he made this remark in 1995, but...

So, the question becomes in a year devoid of Forrest Gump, can Shawshank be coalesced around enough to position itself almost as an underdog and can enough voters see it? Considering that the Screen Actor's Guild nominated Morgan Freeman AND Tim Robbins for Best Actor, meaning that it's possible that Tim Robbins would've been the beneficiary of Tom Hanks' absence, not Hugh Grant. This means actors saw it. So, the question becomes whether or not The Shawshank Redemption could've gotten seen by enough Academy voters to turn into a majority of votes and whether or not they like it enough for its box office failure to be overlooked.

Increasingly, I think both of these prospects aren't unimaginable.

What's more, let's imagine how that race would go. We've seen this sort of thing before. Let's say Pulp Fiction largely sweeps the critics but then wins big at the Golden Globes. I don't think that's an unlikely scenario considering its six nominations. It takes home Best Picture-Drama, Director, and Screenplay. At that point, my guess is voters begin independently but all at once start looking around the room for something else. We are in a moment in time where Quentin Tarantino is already an extraordinarily obnoxious presence. Eventually, they arrive at The Shawshank Redemption. It's not hard to imagine that happening. William Goldman was ringing the bell for it pretty loudly. He couldn't have been the only one. Either way, the underdog status of The Shawshank Redemption against the hype machine of Pulp Fiction becomes a story.

In chatting it out, I'm largely convinced that whether or not Frank Darabont is nominated for Best Director (and I do think his nomination is probably likely), The Shawshank Redemption would've brought home Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay. I think Tim Robbins' might've picked up a Best Actor nomination, but even if he doesn't, it's possible that Morgan Freeman wins his first Oscar. After all, we're at a point in history where actors tend to win Oscars for movies at least loosely in competition for Best Picture. Certainly, Freeman would have been considered due by this point and at this point in history (2020) I would say his work in The Shawshank Redemption might be his most remembered work. I think Frank Darabont for Best Director might end up a possibility as well.

You seem hell bent on making a case for a Shawshank win . I think it was too low key to win Best Picture.

How about a left field win for the joyous boxoffice hit Four Weddings instead? Ok, I know, that's pushing it with its two nods. But with Zemeckis out of the race I still feel Newell would have taken his place and not Darabont.....leaving the field open for a Pulp Fiction win in both top categories. Remember this was the same conservative Academy that once chose Midnight Cowboy. And that was when the voting body was mainly very old school.

[Sabin]

mlrg wrote
Morgan Freeman came in fourth in the best actor category in my opinion. Paul Newman was the sentimental nominee and as I recall was the only major threat to Tom Hanks. John Travolta was the comeback nominee. Morgan Freeman had no chance whatsoever.

I think in a race with Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump, nobody really has a chance because the part was so goddamn ubiquitous as well as the fact that Tom Hanks just magically made everyone okay with the idea that he could be the first actor since Spencer Tracy to win twice in a row (Russell Crowe, not so much). But if Hanks isn't nominated and that void is filled by... Hugh Grant for Four Weddings and a Funeral, Tim Robbins in The Shawshank Redemption, Ralph Fiennes for Quiz Show, or who knows? Somebody else. I think that instantly transforms the race into something else and I don't think it's as easy as "Oh, this person came in second the time before, so he comes in first now."

That said in the race we did have, I'd imagine Morgan Freeman came in second or third. Just because John Travolta was the comeback nominee doesn't change the fact that his part in Pulp Fiction would've made him the most atypical Best Actor winner since... I couldn't tell you when. There's virtually nothing in his part that wins anyone an Oscar. Considering he wasn't nominated the following year for Get Shorty is further indication that the desire to welcome him back only extended so far.

It's hard to know how well Nigel Hawthorne did considering he was virtually unknown in an under-seen film, but it's a very showy part that I'm sure had its fans.

Paul Newman is excellent in Nobody's Fool and would've been my choice to win but again, it's a small film that only got one other nomination, didn't get much box office, and the part itself isn't very showy. A win would've been lovely but I've never been totally sold on the idea that the race came down to Paul Newman in Nobody's Fool against Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump.

Morgan Freeman, on the other hand, had just been nominated for Driving Miss Daisy, probably came close to winning. Was nominated a couple years beforehand for Street Smart. So, he's already due. The thing that Morgan Freeman is known for more than anything else is his voice, a talent that so carried a very well-liked film that he basically won ten years later for an identical service in a different film. Even though his performance is subtle and quiet, it's hard to imagine a world someone loves The Shawshank Redemption and yet doesn't see how integral Morgan Freeman is to the film's success. Even though it's a subtle performance, it's a very emotional film and Morgan Freeman's voice is instrumental in guiding the emotions of the film.

In a Hanks-less race, I suspect Morgan Freeman wins. I likely would've been pulling for Hugh Grant in Four Weddings and a Funeral were he nominated, not in the least because that man is hair goals personified.

[mlrg]

Morgan Freeman came in fourth in the best actor category in my opinion. Paul Newman was the sentimental nominee and as I recall was the only major threat to Tom Hanks. John Travolta was the comeback nominee. Morgan Freeman had no chance whatsoever.

[Sabin]

The more that I consider responses, I'm inclined to say I actually believe that The Shawshank Redemption would've somehow won. There's just no reason to believe that the Academy was capable of honoring something as contemporary as Pulp Fiction in 1994.

What we know about The Shawshank Redemption is this: it was a box office bomb that later became beloved on VHS. But when we saw "later became beloved" what that ignores is that it was one of the top rented films of 1995. That's not years down the line or some nebulous IMDB ranking thing. That's just one year later. Additionally, when it was re-released before the Oscars themselves, it certainly did better but just not enough to recoup its budget. What's interesting to me about its trajectory and appeal is that it's not radically dissimilar from Green Book: another retro movie from a different era with an un-commercial title that's seemingly for the older crowd but audiences seemed to love once dragged to actually see. Considering the climate of 1994 which was hugely reactionary, The Shawshank Redemption could've possibly worked as a word-of-mouth tonic to a year full of (as Bob Dole said) Natural Born Killers and True Romance "nightmares of depravity. I know he made this remark in 1995, but...

So, the question becomes in a year devoid of Forrest Gump, can Shawshank be coalesced around enough to position itself almost as an underdog and can enough voters see it? Considering that the Screen Actor's Guild nominated Morgan Freeman AND Tim Robbins for Best Actor, meaning that it's possible that Tim Robbins would've been the beneficiary of Tom Hanks' absence, not Hugh Grant. This means actors saw it. So, the question becomes whether or not The Shawshank Redemption could've gotten seen by enough Academy voters to turn into a majority of votes and whether or not they like it enough for its box office failure to be overlooked.

Increasingly, I think both of these prospects aren't unimaginable.

What's more, let's imagine how that race would go. We've seen this sort of thing before. Let's say Pulp Fiction largely sweeps the critics but then wins big at the Golden Globes. I don't think that's an unlikely scenario considering its six nominations. It takes home Best Picture-Drama, Director, and Screenplay. At that point, my guess is voters begin independently but all at once start looking around the room for something else. We are in a moment in time where Quentin Tarantino is already an extraordinarily obnoxious presence. Eventually, they arrive at The Shawshank Redemption. It's not hard to imagine that happening. William Goldman was ringing the bell for it pretty loudly. He couldn't have been the only one. Either way, the underdog status of The Shawshank Redemption against the hype machine of Pulp Fiction becomes a story.

In chatting it out, I'm largely convinced that whether or not Frank Darabont is nominated for Best Director (and I do think his nomination is probably likely), The Shawshank Redemption would've brought home Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay. I think Tim Robbins' might've picked up a Best Actor nomination, but even if he doesn't, it's possible that Morgan Freeman wins his first Oscar. After all, we're at a point in history where actors tend to win Oscars for movies at least loosely in competition for Best Picture. Certainly, Freeman would have been considered due by this point and at this point in history (2020) I would say his work in The Shawshank Redemption might be his most remembered work. I think Frank Darabont for Best Director might end up a possibility as well.

[Sabin]

Reza wrote
I don't see why you feel that way. Pulp Fiction seemed something quite electrifying at the time with a great cast all playing vivid characters. It actually should have won all those awards at the very least. Forrest Gump, which I've always loathed, was the Academy's safe and conservative choice. Correct me if I'm wrong but Tarantino's film has stood the test of time while Gump is all but forgotten.

This isn't about the quality of the films or whether or not they're revered today. The question is what are these older Academy voters going to choose for Best Picture in 1994 sandwiched between Schindler's List and Braveheart amidst a conservative revolution in the country. Yes, Pulp Fiction was a phenomenon but that doesn't change the fact that the Academy is historically reticent to honor contemporary films that some might consider hip. Yes, there are exceptions here and there like American Beauty or Silence of the Lambs, but they tend to like their violence in the past. I think it's possible that Pulp Fiction wins but I don't think anyone should act like it's a foregone conclusion considering the vast number of instances in the past where "The Pulp Fiction" loses the race. Fargo, The Piano, The Crying Game, etc.

Also, re: Forrest Gump, I think it's a mistake to label it as the "safe, conservative choice." Forrest Gump may be conservative (although I think its politics are a bit weirder than that) but it wasn't a boring, retro choice like Green Book or The King's Speech. It touched on a huge political zeitgeist in the country that wasn't just the Republican Revolution. It was a major piece of Boomer nostalgia. The soundtrack sold six million copies and went platinum twelve times. It utilized VFX technology that hadn't been seen before. Even if you hated Forrest Gump (which again is a totally different argument), this Oscar race wasn't between something new and exciting vs. old and boring. I think that would be a race between Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption.

That being said, yes, I think it's possible that Pulp Fiction could end up winning but I do wonder whether or not Quentin Tarantino's fellow directors honor him with a Best Director Oscar or he's just too new and abrasive a presence. The closest analogue I can think of would be Oliver Stone but he had the added benefit of making a personal film about Vietnam.

[Reza]

Pulp Fiction picking up three Oscars for Picture, Director, and Original Screenplay seems a wild scenario to fathom.

I don't see why you feel that way. Pulp Fiction seemed something quite electrifying at the time with a great cast all playing vivid characters. It actually should have won all those awards at the very least. Forrest Gump, which I've always loathed, was the Academy's safe and conservative choice. Correct me if I'm wrong but Tarantino's film has stood the test of time while Gump is all but forgotten.

[Sabin]

Reza wrote
You are right and I think Mike Newell would have instead replaced Zemeckis on the ballot with Tarantino winning.

I think you could be right. Darabont was a total unknown and Shawshank was a sleeper that was late in gathering momentum, but Mike Newell was an industry veteran who had been puttering around for a bit with various TV and Film projects. The Academy was very friendly towards British imports, even going so far as to nominate Peter Cattaneo (!!!) in 1997.

Pulp Fiction picking up three Oscars for Picture, Director, and Original Screenplay seems a wild scenario to fathom.

[Reza]

Frank Darabont could have replaced Zemeckis bu The Shawshank Redemption adoration only came a few years later.

You are right and I think Mike Newell would have instead replaced Zemeckis on the ballot with Tarantino winning.

[Sabin]

mlrg wrote
For best picture and director Pulp Fiction would have been the winner. But, add original screenplay, and it would have won 3 categories, which was highly unlikely at the time for a best picture winner. Film editing would be the other category to win (in fact, the editing plays an important role in Pulp Fiction) and you have your regular 4 oscars best picture winner.

Frank Darabont could have replaced Zemeckis bu The Shawshank Redemption adoration only came a few years later.

The DGA nominated Frank Darabont and Mike Newell. So, even if Shawshank adoration came a few years later, there were plenty of Hollywood insiders that liked it enough.

I don't necessarily disagree that Pulp Fiction could've been the winner. Clearly, Miramax was an ascendant power within Hollywood. Over the previous two years, they had very big contenders with The Crying Game and The Piano, and 1994 was their biggest year to date. Looking back, it was only a matter of time before Miramax scored their first Best Picture win. It's conceivable that Pulp Fiction could've managed that if voters couldn't decide on a clear favorite between Four Weddings and a Funeral, Quiz Show, and The Shawshank Redemption.

Would The Hollywood Foreign Press have gone for Pulp Fiction? I'm struggling to think of what they would've honored instead. Gump had 7 nominations. Pulp had 6. I think it's certainly possible.

Would the Directors Guild have chosen Quentin Tarantino?... I mean, maybe? If Quentin Tarantino is too fresh, who would replace him? Frank Darabont? He certainly wasn't a more known quantity but there are shades of Hooper besting Fincher.

What about the Producers Guild? Again, it's not inconceivable that Harvey Weinstein takes home his first award for Pulp Fiction.

If I had to guess, I'd say Speed picks up Best Film Editing, Sound, and Sound Effects Editing. The Mask wins Best Visual Effects.

Increasingly, I think it's possible that The Three Colors: Red is the one that gets a Best Picture nomination. Bullets over Broadway came out of nowhere to pick up those seven nominations but there was a real conversation around The Three Colors: Red's omission ineligibility for Best Foreign-Language Film. I think Miramax was putting more muscle behind it anyway.

[mlrg]

Interesting read Sabin.

In best actor the most likely nominee to replace Tom Hanks would have been Hugh Grant, who won the golden globe and was in a best picture nominee. An alternate would be Tim Robbins. I think Paul Newman came in second for the win.

I think Bullets over Broadway came in sixth and would have replaced Forrest Gump in best picture.

As for best supporting actor I can see a scenario where Quiz Show has two nominees and John Turturro gets nominated.

For best picture and director Pulp Fiction would have been the winner. But, add original screenplay, and it would have won 3 categories, which was highly unlikely at the time for a best picture winner. Film editing would be the other category to win (in fact, the editing plays an important role in Pulp Fiction) and you have your regular 4 oscars best picture winner.

Frank Darabont could have replaced Zemeckis bu The Shawshank Redemption adoration only came a few years later.

[Big Magilla]

I'm pretty sure most here will say Pulp Fiction and Tarantino.

I think we could play this game with genuine realism and suspense if we took out films that were given Oscar qualifying runs in Los Angeles or withheld from Oscar consideration because, although the films opened in New York and elsewhere in the U.S., but not in L.A. in time to qualify.

I think we could have some intense "it almost really happened" conversations with these twenty:

1942 with Casablanca and In Which We Serve
1943 without Casablanca. In Which We Serve and The Song of Bernadette
1944 with The Song of Bernadette, National Velvet and The Keys of the Kingdom
1946 without The Yearling and Duel in the Sun
1949 with Adam's Rib without Twelve O'Clock High
1950 with Twelve O'Clock High
1951 with Rashomon but without The African Queen
1952 with The African Queen but without Moulin Rouge and The Bad and the Beautiful
1955 without All That Heaven Allows, I'll Cry Tomorrow and Picnic
1956 with those three but without Written on the Wind
1957 with Written on the Wind but without Witness for the Prosecution
1958 with Witness for the Prosecution
1962 without Days of Wine and Roses and To Kill a Mockingbird
1963 with Days of Wine and Roses and To Kill a Mockingbird
1964 without Hush...Hush Sweet Charlotte
1965 with Hush...Hush Sweet Charlotte but without Inside Daisy Clover
1972 with Cries and Whispers
1973 without Cries and Whispers but with Day for Night
1974 without Day for Night and Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore but with Amarcord and Scenes from a Marriage
1975 with Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore but without Amarcord

[Sabin]

I played this game a little earlier with Gone with the Wind. Let's try again...

If Forrest Gump wasn't a 1994 release, what would've won for Best Picture?

Forrest Gump isn't remembered as an all-time Oscar champ. But it could've been. It picked up thirteen nominations. It's entirely possible that if Sally Field and/or Robin Wright had been nominated as well, it would've tied for most nominations ever -- or exceeded that tie. This would've been all the more impressive considering it didn't have a song or been up for a costume nomination. It only won six awards total, but it's not hard to imagine it winning more. Of the awards it missed, it's not hard to imagine it winning some combination of Best Original Score, Cinematography, Makeup, Sound, Sound Effects Editing as well, which would've pushed its total above seven. And it was doubtlessly a cultural event.

Let's say Forrest Gump doesn't exist, which isn't very hard to do. The fact that it does is pretty remarkable. What would've ended up winning Best Picture that year?

Let's assume that the one slot open for Best Picture doesn't get taken in by an eventual winner. What could it be really? Maybe The Lion King? It had four nominations, would've been the clear box office champ of the year, and won the Golden Globe for Best Comedy or Musical. But it didn't pick up Sound or Sound Effects Editing nominations. Maybe with Forrest Gump out of the way, it would, pushing its total from four instantly to seven. It's possible. Or maybe the controversy around Hoop Dreams propels it in, or Reds which picked up surprise nominations for Director, Writing, and Cinematography (which would have a very 70s feel to it). Bullets over Broadway clearly had its fans with seven nominations, including writing, directing, and three acting nominations. Perhaps a Best Picture nomination wasn't far off. Legends of the Fall had quite a few Golden Globe nominations but surprisingly only picked up three nominations. Either way, none of them feel like a winner.

Would it be Four Weddings and a Funeral? With two nominations, probably not, but we're looking an Oscar lineup that clears up thirteen nominations. It likely becomes easier for Mike Newell and Hugh Grant to sneak into this lineup. And it was a surprise hit. But still, probably not.

Would it be Quiz Show? I wasn't there at the time but its appeal has sort of faded into relative obscurity. It's impossible to fathom it today as a feature and not a limited series. Even its box office failure is overshadowed now by The Shawshank Redemption's lackluster box office. It picked up nominations for Picture, Director, Supporting Actor, and Adapted Screenplay. I'm not sure if it would've been beneficiary to Forrest Gump's absence. Maybe Ralph Fiennes could've snuck in? Or a John Turturro was well? Either way, it's a brainy film about Hollywood but I'm not sure that would be enough for a win.

The real reason I'm posting this is it occurred to me that in all likelihood the race would be between Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption. That became fascinating to me because these two movies couldn't have less in common... except, y'know, for the fact that both feature homophobic male rape fears.

The Pulp Fiction vs. Forrest Gump showdown is a little more fun to play up but as more time goes on, it's really a generational showdown of Gen X hipsters vs. Baby Boomer nostalgia. Neither look especially forward-thinking today by any stretch. But there is/was a novelty to Forrest Gump's VFX that makes it hard to frame it as offering 1994 audiences nothing new. That said, it was a fun showdown. But a Pulp Fiction vs. Shawshank Redemption showdown would've been very different. Pulp Fiction was a movie that no matter how copy-cat or regressive felt of the moment whereas The Shawshank Redemption was largely a movie that could've been made at any period of time, but it had ardent fans and a strong moral of personal determination that audiences could carry with. Pulp Fiction was just a zeitgeisty rollercoaster.

That said, Pulp Fiction was a hard R. But The Shawshank Redemption was a flop. It's not immediately clear that Forrest Gump's absence butterflies the fact that The Shawshank Redemption is a flop away. But I do think it's fair to say that without Forrest Gump, Shawshank at least picks up a Golden Globe for Best Drama, a well as an Oscar nomination for Best Director, which might push it to being a nominations leader (with .

What would win?