Best Picture and Director 1995

1927/28 through 1997

What are your picks for Best Picture and Director of 1995?

Apollo 13
5
7%
Babe
8
12%
Braveheart
1
1%
Il Postino
3
4%
Sense and Sensibility
17
25%
Mike Figgis - Leaving Las Vegas
16
24%
Mel Gibson - Braveheart
1
1%
Chris Noonan - Babe
0
No votes
Michael Radford - Il Postino
3
4%
Tim Robbins - Dead Man Walking
14
21%
 
Total votes: 68

Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 1995

Post by Sabin »

Lots to read on this thread.

The Oscars of my life. Also the year I fell in love with the movies. And Braveheart was the movie to spark it. I saw Braveheart on the late great Ciné-Capri theater in Phoenix with my father and flipped out. All I spoke of for the rest of the year was Mel Gibson's epic. Through my passion for this film, I fell in love with the Oscars. I wanted everybody to think this was the greatest film of all time and the clearest through-line was the Academy Awards. Growing up, I had more than a few savanty traits. In many ways, film was/is the last thing I had latched onto, and so just as my parents did with the Ninja Turtles and Nintendo and other wayward obsessions of years gone by I got a little check-in at the end of the year letting me know that if by some chance Braveheart doesn't get nominated for Best Picture that's okay. It's doubtful that they took the time to look into whether it was seen as any sort of contender. And then it got more nominations than any other film. So for me, it had to win. Again: they checked-in with me. At this point, I think they had actually told me that prrrrrobably it's not going to win, and if it doesn't, that's okay! This is how much I loved Braveheart, mind you. On one viewing, I should say. It's not like I saw it a few times. I saw it once. And then it won. Consensus on the 1995 Oscars is that the show was good, the winners for the most part weren't. That is not the experience I had. Not since has a movie won Best Picture as good as Braveheart-when-you're-14.

Today? It kinda sucks. I tried returning to it in 1997 and even then I had my doubts about it. I revisited it again two years ago, and I was struck by: 1) how much older Mel Gibson was than his lovely young wife, 2) how the second half of the film is largely tribal squabbling, 3) how strangely low-key the production design was, and 4) how irredeemably gross it is in its homophobia. I can't quite say I hate the film but it's somewhere between not very good and not good. There are some nice, low-key moments that work for me. The score is working overtime and is totally awesome. The battles are fine for being shot on hills in front of blue skies. There's one moment I kind of love and that's when people are speaking of the legend of William Wallace. But there's no need to even think about it in a world/year with Rob Roy and the fact that it's hanging from every frat house wall tells you all you need to know.

If it was likely a two-horse race between Apollo 13 and Braveheart, it's hard for me not to think about the race today in its proximity to the midterm elections of 1994 where the right bemoaned nightmares of depravity without seeing them. But this year there was no Pulp Fiction to Howard & Gibson's Gumpage. I guess the closest thing would have to be Babe, which easily gets my vote. I've never quite loved Sense & Sensibility. It's funny, moving, well-acted, and beautiful to look at, but outside of Emma Thompson's fantastic penultimate scene I never quite feel much watching it. No matter how idiotic it was for Roger Ebert to not recommend it, perhaps he had a point. I saw The Postman once and haven't feel the need to return to it. I wholly enjoyed it and never once felt like I was watching anything that special (that being said: me at 14, special = Braveheart). On the other hand, Babe for me is a very special film that extolls the virtues of being nice. I'm not sure I've seen a Disney film pull that message off with the effortless sincerity of this film. People were up in arms when it was nominated, but I wonder: has such an aberration happened since? A left field surprise that earned well-natured ridicule? The Full Monty perhaps? But there was talk of it winning! Imagine what would have happened then! For me, Babe isn't just the only possible choice of these nominees, it's the only one that would place on my list for the year.

But give it to Apollo 13 and avoid tragedy six years later! Ron Howard's film is compelling but watch it today and endure the headaches of a James Horner score that lassos scenes together with television music cues that would feel egregious in an age of CSI. Just as with Argo, it's hard to say that Ron Howard was robbed as this is more a triumph of production than anything else but everybody involved did a good job in telling a film that keeps you engrossed despite knowing the outcome. I like it okay. My God, though, these from a year with Before Sunrise, Nixon, Chungking Express, Exotica, Toy Story, Safe, Wild Reeds, Seven, Twelve Monkeys, and Heat just off the top of my head. Even something like The American President (whose failure, I really chalk up to the 1994 midterm elections) would be a welcome inclusion.

Or Dead Man Walking and Leaving Las Vegas. Before I speak of my thoughts on these two, I must say has there ever been a weirder slate of Directing nominees? Who are Michael Radford, Chris Noonan, and Mike Figgis besides their one film? I couldn't begin to tell you. Or that they somehow placed over Ang Lee who is pretty much always nominated. Actor/directors Mel Gibson and Tim Robbins over Ron Howard and Rob Reiner, both who had been directing since the early 80s, or Clint Eastwood for that matter! I realize it made sense at the time but future generations will have a point.

Anyway, Leaving Las Vegas and Dead Man Walking. Both of which were nominated for Best Director and not Best Picture, both of which were up for four Academy Awards, both of which are independent, both of which are two-man shows (one man and one woman), both of which were so serious it was the source of more than a few jokes at the Oscars. Going into the Oscars, Leaving Las Vegas was not a sure thing but it was a very likely nominee whereas Dead Man Walking was something of an afterthought if I remember correctly. The surface similarities of these two films sort of boost Dead Man Walking's standing and diminish Leaving Las Vegas'. I also think that calling them "depressing" is a bit pat. Leaving Las Vegas is often quite funny whereas Dead Man Walking is a movie of beautiful faith. Both of them for me fall into a middle territory of abundance of excellence from 1995. I wouldn't call either film great but they're both so very good. I'll probably pass on giving Tim Robbins his due here because while you certainly can't shortchange whatever work he did with Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn or his decision to not do horrible things to the film like play an obnoxiously intrusive John Williams score, he has a lot to work with here and his touch is invisible. In another year perhaps, but not this one.

Choosing between these two films is difficult, and then I wonder if I honestly must. Are either of these films as well directed as Babe? Was either of their challenges as daunting as directing Babe? In the case of Leaving Las Vegas, maybe. To do a film like that as cheaply as they did, shooting on Super-16mm (ah, an era long gone by!), stealing locations, bargaining with friends to just show up, and to end up with such an entertainingly depressing film? I think today, its stature has been diminished by Figgis' and Shue's unexceptional subsequent careers and the notion that Sera is a fictitious creation and the product of male fantasy. But the whole thing has the feel of a fantasy to me. What kind of writer/Hollywood-type is Ben Sanderson really? He's just as coded a failure as Sera and that works in the film's favor. It has a nice jazzy tone to it of two lovers finding something in a great, big fucked up world, and maybe I'm just a sucker for those. And, as I've said before, the whole shebang is often funny. Without checking my mental roledex to see if Leaving Las Vegas is the last film shot on Super 16mm to get a Best Picture or Director nomination, I sentimentally toss Mr. Figgis one more for the road.
"How's the despair?"
Heksagon
Adjunct
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:39 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Best Picture and Director 1995

Post by Heksagon »

I've slipped on these polls again...

Although I do feel that this year is a step back from the previous two years, I nevertheless disagree with the consensus here by saying that personally I think that this not a bad group of nominees.

My Best Picture vote goes to Sense and Sensibility, an excellent costume drama where the characters, the dialogue and the era come to life in a convincing way, and don't feel as artificial as they do in many similarly-themed films. My best director vote goes to Mike Figgis, for another film where unlikely elements connect well. Even Elisabeth Shue feels like a good actress in this film.

Of the other nominees, Babe and Apollo 13 are entertaining films, even if they are a bit light-weight and not the type of films I would want to see several times.

I don't understand the animosity towards Braveheart. Not a great film by any measure, but it's an enjoyable action epic if you don't take it too seriously, and I don't feel it's out of place amongst some other Oscar Winning Best Pictures.
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Best Picture and Director 1995

Post by FilmFan720 »

I'm voting here without ever having seen Il Postino, but I still feel fairly confident doing so.

I agree with everyone here that this was a fantastic year for movies (and a fantastic year for mainstream American cinema) with a very weak Oscar lineup. So many wonderful movies here that got completely overlooked, most of all Toy Story. I will also throw a good word in for two lovely romances, Before Sunrise and The American President.

Many of my thoughts on these films have been captured by others already...the inanity of Braveheart, the solid yet unexceptional summer fare of Apollo 13 and Babe, the loveliness of Sense and Sensibility and the achievements of the two lone directors. My vote goes to Sense and Sensibility and Tim Robbins.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 1995

Post by Mister Tee »

1995 was, as many have already said, a hugely disappointing Oscar year, not because of the films on offer, but because of the ones Academy voters chose to single out from the group. As I've noted here in the past, 1995 had a great many films worth seeing, maybe even more than 1993 -- I could list 30 or more that gave me pleasure over the course of the year. And I'm sympathetic that it can be hard to isolate the best of the best in such an extensive field. But Oscar voters made it worse by choosing at least one totally undistinguished film, citing several others that, if they make my list of 30, show up at the lower end of it, and diminishing the position of the one excellent film they chose by relegating it to directing only.

I'm pleased to see my preferred substitutions have already shown up in many people's posts. Se7en -- for me, still Fincher's best film -- is a knockout thriller with deeply unsettling subtext. Nixon is maybe Oliver Stone's most ambitious film, giving fresh perspective to history for which I thought none was possible. Heat was maybe lacking in ultimate depth, but was conceived and played on so grand a scale, and well-acted by such a talented cast, that it seems incredible it scored not a single nomination (how did it miss editing?). And To Die For is a wonderfully sardonic piece, with great performances by Kidman and Phoenix.

With all that and so much more (Toy Story, The Usual Suspects, Bridges of Madison County, etc.) on offer, the Academy not only chose to nominate the dreary Braveheart, they actually gave it their top prize. (The incredulous look on Meryl Streep's face when this announcement was made expressed my feeling exactly) I knew Braveheart was trouble from the opening scenes, when little William's little girlfriend, by extraordinary coincidence, grew up to be the village beauty -- this told me right away we weren't in long-ago Scotland; we were in backlot Hollywood. The movie went on for a barely-endurable three hours, with such loathsome scenes as the "let's kill the homo son for a laugh", only one -- to my mind -- memorable moment ("Hold…hold…hold.."),and an ending that offered the most generic sort of triumph (what the hell "Freedom!" was supposed to mean beyond slogan was never articulated). I'm not sure I'd quite go along with "This is the worst best picture ever": -- Greatest Show on Earth and Around the World in 80 Days offer formidable competition -- but it's certainly in the bottom 10%, and, as many have said since, not even the best Scottish history movie of 1995.

Eric is right that Il Postino represented the moment Harvey Weinstein changed from Harvey the Good to Harvey the Hack. A lot us had thought that, in promoting The Crying Game/The Piano/Pulp Fiction to best picture nods in successive years, Harvey had created an opening for somewhat more adventurous films -- critics' choices -- that had found it hard to get footing in the decade or so since the 70s. There was such a film in contention this year -- NY/LA winner Leaving Las Vegas -- and right up to the reading of the best picture list that year, it seemed a sure nominee. When, instead, Il Postino's name was read out, the sinking feeling set in: Harvey was going to get HIS films in, no matter what they were, and voters were going to play along. It's not that Il Postino is a terrible movie; it's just one of those easy-listening foreign films that book club ladies go to see to persuade themselves they have culture; the sort of unthreatening European effort for which the Academy had long been a sucker (A Man and a Woman, My Life as a Dog). And this, with a few notable exceptions, became the model for the films Harvey would most often push for Oscars from then on. Il Postino was acceptable as a nominee (and winner) for its pleasant score; that's the only place it deserved to be in contention.

I'm kind of in the middle on Babe. I remember when my wife and I saw the coming attraction, a few weeks before the film's release: it looked so clever and inventive it was a breath of late summer fresh air (and my animal-lover wife immediately demanded we see it upon opening). I just wish I had liked the movie as much as I had the trailer. It was unique, and sweet, but it was also just a touch twee, and, more to the point, decidedly minor. A friend of mine took his girlfriend's kid to see it, and he told me she kept saying throughout "This should be funnier" -- which is pretty much how I felt about it. Despite its interesting concept, it just didn't execute well enough -- wasn't enough of anything -- to justify the over-the-top reaction it got, from certain critics and, later, the Academy. It's not an irritating nominee, as the two previously cited were, but neither was it a feather in the Oscar cap.

To address the raging argument below, however: let's note there were many un-stupid people who were firmly in the film's camp -- including the ultimate cool kids' claque, the National Society of Film Critics, who gave it their best picture prize (between '94's Pulp Fiction and 96's Breaking the Waves). Even though I'm not voting for it here, I don't think labeling anyone who would an infant or moron stands up in the face of the film's critical reputation.

I know a lot of people, here and elsewhere, love Dead Man Walking, but I always thought it was a film of mostly negative virtues. Because Robbins is a pretty doctrinaire (and often smug) lefty, I'd feared a shrill anti-death penalty screed, which it wasn't. For me, however, it wasn't much of anything else, either. For two hours, I watched a guy have thoughtful enough conversations with a nun, then found out he had indeed committed the horrific crime of which he was convicted, and saw him executed…my reaction to which was supposed to have been what, exactly? Robbins seems to feel he made a powerful anti-capital punishment document, but that didn't come across to me (and I start off in that camp). I wondered why I'd watched the whole thing. The film's one shining light was the Penn performance -- the best he'd given to that date. Sarandon's, on the other hand, I found pretty empty: I sensed she and Robbins revered Sr. Prejean for her politics, but didn't truly relate to her religious convictions, so they mostly characterized her blankly -- Sarandon made a big deal of the fact she didn't wear-makeup, and also provided the acting equivalent. This film finishes nowhere near my top ten on the year.

It's lost to history now, but by end of summer 1995 there was pretty strong consensus that Apollo 13/Ron Howard would win the top Oscars. The film had been very well-reviewed and a top-grosser, plus Howard seemed a logical followup to Spielberg/Zemeckis as directors who'd made the industry a ton of money and were now seen as having made "serious" movies. The fact that people reached this conclusion so early in the year probably worked against the film, because it wasn't all that strong a movie (certainly nothing close to Schindler's List), and the idea of yet another mid-range Tom Hanks film winning struck everyone as dull in the extreme. I wonder, given the ultimate outcome, how many wish the consensus had just held? (It would not only have spared us Braveheart, it might have fended off A Beautiful Mind, as well) Because, while the Damien/BJ take on the film is pretty much correct -- the film is well-executed docudrama, no more no less -- haven’t we seen other best pictures in that vein? (Last February, for instance) I'd view Apollo 13 as just about the best movie a personality-less director like Ron Howard is ever apt to make, and it wouldn't stand out as the worst best picture choice of the 90s. Which is not to say it gets my vote, but I don't see any problem with it as a major Oscar contender.

Like about half of the Board, I choose Sense and Sensibility from this group, though with the same "it's not to say I love this sort of film" disclaimer BJ offered. Jane Austen is of course some kind of great writer, but a period piece is a period piece, and they're not generally to my taste. However, Emma Thompson fashioned an exceedingly witty, fast-paced script, the cast is superb throughout, and Ang Lee as usual provides a delicate touch and, as BJ says, creates an environment that feels fully lived-in (and observant). I don't really have that much to say about the film, other than, of the paltry choices Academy voters offer me, it is by far the most memorable.

For best director, though, I go with Mike Figgis, whose Leaving Las Vegas was the most powerful thing I saw that year. A chronicle of a guy drinking himself to death doesn't sound like engaging material, but Figgis' jazzy, mournful approach was incredibly moving, and full of fresh moments. Figgis doesn't shy away from the ugliness of severe alcoholism, and never provides his characters excuses for their lot in life -- there's not a romanticized moment. Yet the film is too bracing, too honest to feel like a simple downer. All this is of course largely possible because of the two actors at the center: Elisabeth Shue as good as she's ever been, and Nicolas Cage in a performance I think rates with the greatest ever given. I'd never dreamed he was capable of such work, but he somehow brings Ben Sanderson to tragic hero status. Figgis, it's true, has never again hit the heights he reached in this film. But we're not voting on careers; we're voting on individual achievement. And Figgis' achievement here easily rates my best director vote, and the best picture vote I'm prevented from casting.
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 1995

Post by Greg »

Big Magilla wrote:P.S. I think Sabin would have voted for Babe :)
Actually, I sort of remember both Sabin and Johnny Guitar crediting Braveheart as the film which made them aspire to be filmmakers, even if their tastes have matured since then.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Best Picture and Director 1995

Post by The Original BJ »

This year -- like 1999 -- is a good example of what can sometimes happen when there are just way too many options. With so many movies splintering support, it's more difficult for the cooler ones to stand out, and voters end up biffing the Best Picture lineup, like they did this year. It's not that I think the nominees are SO bad -- I can think of plenty where the movies are worse -- but given the available options, this has to rank as one of the most disappointing.

As for what could have been included, in no particular order: Toy Story, Leaving Las Vegas, Nixon, Safe, The Bridges of Madison County, Dead Man Walking, To Die For, Se7en, A Little Princess, Before Sunrise, The Usual Suspects, The American President, 12 Monkeys. And those were just the most mainstream efforts worth acknowledging.

And even given the lineup voters chose, it's just unfathomable that the worst nominee ended up the winner. Given Braveheart's reputation in popular circles, I couldn't believe how truly awful I found it to be when I finally saw it a few years ago. (I know we all loathe it here, but most people in my real life have been FLOORED when they find out I think it's a terrible movie.) If it were just a chintzy, lamely acted, laughably written faux-historical epic it would just be a dumb thing. But it was worse than that. It was full of an excessive, almost nihilistic amount of violence, which all but sums up Mel Gibson's cruel, odious view of humankind. (And these scenes also show just how bad of a craftsman he is, too -- those battle scenes are a MESS.) And if that weren't enough awfulness, the movie truly dips into the offensive with the portrayal of the king's son -- the sequence in which he's thrown out the window is one of the most jaw-droppingly hateful things I've seen in a recent movie. Certainly one of the bottom five Best Picture winners, and an absolutely embarrassing choice.

In that context, at the very least you can say that the other four movies have their hearts in the right place. But for me, that was essentially the chief selling point of a film like Il Postino. It's a sweet, charming movie, with a lovely setting, a romantic score, and an ending that really lands emotionally (made even more poignant by the film's real-life tragedy). But it's a bit of a trifle, and a film can only go so far on amiability alone. And Michael Radford's nomination is really weird -- the movie is pretty flatly directed, and a helmer with a more unique sensibility might have given the material more spark. (I think it says a lot about the wonkiness of the directorial slate that a number of this year's nominees had their careers go pretty much nowhere after their nominations.)

I can very clearly remember my dad taking me and my two best friends at the time to see Apollo 13 in the theater that summer. At the time, I was completely blown away by the spectacle and suspense, and the story of this doomed spaceship became my favorite movie for a while (at least until another movie about a doomed ship came along a few years later). My adult take on Apollo 13 would be that it's a pretty good summer movie: muscularly crafted (though in generic Howard-style), quite engaging, and decently written so that it doesn't feel like dumbed-down history. But, to borrow a phrase from Damien, it isn't about anything more than what it is about. Whereas The Right Stuff used real-life stories about the U.S. space program to get at a lot of interesting ideas about the shifts in American culture at the time, Apollo 13 is only about the Apollo 13 disaster. There is no subtext. This doesn't make it a BAD movie, it just means there isn't enough there there for me to choose it as Best Picture.

I didn't anticipate that Babe would strike up the most debate here. I guess I fall somewhere between the two factions that have emerged. On one hand, I think Babe is a very lovingly made, sensitive, and uplifting piece of family entertainment, with wonderful (and totally seamless) visual effects. Of course, I saw it with my whole family as a kid and enjoyed it deeply, and find that it holds up as an enjoyable film-for-all-ages nearly two decades later. But I agree with Mike D'Angelo's take on the movie -- isn't this really just the kinder, gentler version of Jurassic Park? That's not a knock on either movie -- I think Spielberg's movie is a pretty terrific entertainment, but I wouldn't ever consider it for Best Picture. And the same goes for Babe -- there just isn't enough narrative invention or thematic complexity here to make it more than a well-crafted spectacle for me. (Even at the family film level, I think Toy Story and A Little Princess surpass it in both departments by far.) Chris Noonan brings the film's visual wizardry together with a light and amusing touch, but he's another weird nominee, given how tiny the movie is overall. (He also has gone on to basically nothing, though I did see him speak at a screening of that awful Beatrix Potter movie.)

For me, Sense and Sensibility is the best of the Best Picture nominees. Throughout his career, Ang Lee has been especially deft at creating very specific portraits of a time and place and examining the social structures which repress his characters. This film is a very strong example of his work in this mode, and, as he would do with The Ice Storm and Brokeback Mountain, Lee makes a historical piece feel fresh and lively. Of course, Emma Thompson's script seems like an even more crucial element to the movie's success, as she adapts Austen's novel with intelligence, a lot of laughs, and a clever structure that brings out the author's themes in resonant ways. (It says a lot about BOTH Thompson and Lee that what many consider to be Austen's weakest novel was turned into what most consider to be the best film version of her work.) I can't say that Sense and Sensibility is necessarily my kind of movie -- romantic costume pieces don't usually strike me as the most exciting of film genres, and I don't think you could even argue that this one feels urgent in any way -- but in this sorry slate, I think it's the best-written, best-directed, best-acted, and overall most enjoyable of the candidates available. It gets my vote.

Under director, though, there are options which interest me more. The chief strength of BOTH Dead Man Walking and Leaving Las Vegas is the striking interplay between the two leads. I find the relationships between Penn/Sarandon and Cage/Shue to be overwhelmingly powerful, real and complex, and completely unique. And I think it's the strength of these characters, as crafted by the writer-directors and brilliantly embodied by the actors, that makes both films feel like much more than the reductive "issue" movies they could have easily become in lesser hands. And yet, neither movie skirts the serious subject at its core -- Dead Man is one of the best films about the death penalty ever, and Leaving Las Vegas one of the best about addiction. That said, I don't think either movie presents itself as the obvious choice for Best Director -- Tim Robbins's direction is slick and gripping, but I wouldn't call it terribly singular or innovative, and Mike Figgis's has a bit more raw energy and urgency, but can sometimes feel hemmed in technically by the small size of the piece. I decided to cast my vote for Figgis, because I think Leaving Las Vegas is a bit stronger film overall, and I've already voted for Robbins as an actor (the part of his career for which he'll be remembered anyway). Like those of many of his competitors, Figgis's career hasn't been especially notable since this year either, perhaps because he seems to be more interested in little experimental curios than anything as narrative-driven as Leaving Las Vegas. But based on Vegas (and the other films of his I've seen), he seems like an inventive and risk-taking director, and generally those are the kind I'd want to reward.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Picture and Director 1995

Post by Big Magilla »

OscarGuy wrote:It wasn't about retaining a friendship. It was that he posted here expecting it to be private and google picked it up and thus revealed the information. It wasn't a particularly offensive post, his "friend" took offense (even Sabin agrees that he shouldn't have), but because it was out there and destroyed a working relationship, he decided it was best if he didn't post here anymore because he didn't want his professional career to be upended because he made honest comments about co-workers and they then found out about it. That's how I understand the situation.
True, but the professional and personal relationships were/are? intertwined. My explanation was the shorter version. I'm just glad no one has repeated the name of the film which might start the whole brouhaha all over again.

P.S. I think Sabin would have voted for Babe :)
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Best Picture and Director 1995

Post by Reza »

Voted for Sense and Sensibility and Tim Robbins.

My picks for 1995:

Best Picture
1. Sense and Sensibilty
2. Toy Story
3. La Ceremonie
4. Dead Man Walking
5. The Usual Suspects

The 6th Spot: Leaving Las Vegas

Best Director
1. Ang Lee, Sense and Sensibility
2. Claude Chabrol, La Ceremonie
3. Tim Robbins, Dead Man Walking
4. Mike Figgis, Leaving Las Vegas
5. Bryan Singer, The Usual Suspects

The 6th Spot: Michael Radford, Il Postino
mlrg
Associate
Posts: 1747
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Best Picture and Director 1995

Post by mlrg »

ITALIANO wrote:
OscarGuy wrote:It wasn't about retaining a friendship. It was that he posted here expecting it to be private and google picked it up and thus revealed the information. It wasn't a particularly offensive post, his "friend" took offense (even Sabin agrees that he shouldn't have), but because it was out there and destroyed a working relationship, he decided it was best if he didn't post here anymore because he didn't want his professional career to be upended because he made honest comments about co-workers and they then found out about it. That's how I understand the situation.
But then he could simply keep posting here WITHOUT making "honest comments about co-workers" anymore... I don't see the problem, really :)

If a working relationship or a friendship are so weak that they can be destroyed by a (very light) post on an Oscar board, then they'd be soon stop anyway for any other reason.

I hope Sabin will get back here one day - seriously. I rarely agree with him but his opinions are often very interesting. And leaving for such a reason is so... I mean, a bit childish, isn't it?
Well, it's childish and also might reflect an unsafe personality, but that might be going a little bit to far without knowing them both personally.

I too miss Sabin's comments
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Best Picture and Director 1995

Post by ITALIANO »

OscarGuy wrote:It wasn't about retaining a friendship. It was that he posted here expecting it to be private and google picked it up and thus revealed the information. It wasn't a particularly offensive post, his "friend" took offense (even Sabin agrees that he shouldn't have), but because it was out there and destroyed a working relationship, he decided it was best if he didn't post here anymore because he didn't want his professional career to be upended because he made honest comments about co-workers and they then found out about it. That's how I understand the situation.
But then he could simply keep posting here WITHOUT making "honest comments about co-workers" anymore... I don't see the problem, really :)

If a working relationship or a friendship are so weak that they can be destroyed by a (very light) post on an Oscar board, then they'd be soon stop anyway for any other reason.

I hope Sabin will get back here one day - seriously. I rarely agree with him but his opinions are often very interesting. And leaving for such a reason is so... I mean, a bit childish, isn't it?
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 1995

Post by OscarGuy »

It wasn't about retaining a friendship. It was that he posted here expecting it to be private and google picked it up and thus revealed the information. It wasn't a particularly offensive post, his "friend" took offense (even Sabin agrees that he shouldn't have), but because it was out there and destroyed a working relationship, he decided it was best if he didn't post here anymore because he didn't want his professional career to be upended because he made honest comments about co-workers and they then found out about it. That's how I understand the situation.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Best Picture and Director 1995

Post by ITALIANO »

mlrg wrote:
Big Magilla wrote:
mlrg wrote:Why did Sabin left the board? I noticed that he wasn't posting, but didn't realise that he had actually left.
Something he wrote about a friend and the friend's film got picked up in a Google search by the friend who was offended. Sabin felt he had to choose between the friend and us, so he chose the friend.
Sorry to say, but this is pretty ridiculous. It's none of my business but I wouldn't call someone a friend if he/her had to force me to leave an internet board (or whatever) in order to keep him/her as a friend. But that's just me...
No, not just you... :)

Also - and this is kind of typical, too - if I made a mistake on the net, then it would be MY fault, not the net's. When one exposes himself emotionally on an internet board, first of all I don't think it's such a terrible thing - telling the truth is always good, as I've shown here even too often - but EVEN if it were a big problem or caused a big problem, it would simply be my responsability, rather than of the medium I am using. We are free to decide HOW to use this medium, we can be more or less careful - it's up to us - but then we can't complain if we didn't use it well.

But most importantly, even with so called "friends", especially with friends actually - honesty is the most important aspect. One always has to tell the truth, and shouldn't be worried if truth comes out in other ways. If a friend doesnt appreciate it, well, then I'm not sure that he's really a friend.
mlrg
Associate
Posts: 1747
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Best Picture and Director 1995

Post by mlrg »

Big Magilla wrote:
mlrg wrote:Why did Sabin left the board? I noticed that he wasn't posting, but didn't realise that he had actually left.
Something he wrote about a friend and the friend's film got picked up in a Google search by the friend who was offended. Sabin felt he had to choose between the friend and us, so he chose the friend.
Sorry to say, but this is pretty ridiculous. It's none of my business but I wouldn't call someone a friend if he/her had to force me to leave an internet board (or whatever) in order to keep him/her as a friend. But that's just me...
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Best Picture and Director 1995

Post by ITALIANO »

Big Magilla wrote:
mlrg wrote:Why did Sabin left the board? I noticed that he wasn't posting, but didn't realise that he had actually left.
Something he wrote about a friend and the friend's film got picked up in a Google search by the friend who was offended. Sabin felt he had to choose between the friend and us, so he chose the friend.

Yes, but it's absurd... I mean - the idea that one has to choose between a friend and an internet board... Plus, if I caught someone saying on the net that I was the "worst roommate ever", I'd just laugh and I'd probably admit that he's right, and invite him for a pizza or some wine together... Americans are too sensitive, too unstable, really.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Picture and Director 1995

Post by Big Magilla »

mlrg wrote:Why did Sabin left the board? I noticed that he wasn't posting, but didn't realise that he had actually left.
Something he wrote about a friend and the friend's film got picked up in a Google search by the friend who was offended. Sabin felt he had to choose between the friend and us, so he chose the friend.
Post Reply

Return to “The Damien Bona Memorial Oscar History Thread”