Best Screenplay 1994

[The Original BJ]

The Original side of the field this year was very strong. I wish there had been room for Ed Wood -- both here and in Larry Flynt, Alexander & Karaszewski found a way to make the bio genre sparkle with a lot more freshness than usual -- but it's hard to argue too much, given the high quality of the nominees overall.

I'd rank Four Weddings and a Funeral the lowest on the list, but it wasn't a bad effort or anything. I'd put it about in Jerry Maguire territory -- obviously mainstream, audience-pleasing stuff, but at a level that was well-executed, with genuine humor, heart, and a plot line that got us through those four weddings and a funeral in a manner laid out quite well. But the other nominees are far more obviously art-aspirant, not to mention more uniquely inventive.

Bullets Over Broadway is pretty frothy stuff too, but I think it's a tremendous amount of fun, full of great Woody Allen one-liners, a handful of memorable larger-than-life characters, and a zippy storyline that goes in inventive directions and creates a witty and detailed sense of milieu. I don't know if I've enjoyed any of Allen's films since as much -- and I've liked a handful of them -- perhaps simply because of the sheer buoyancy of Bullets Over Broadway's cleverness. Still, as I've been saying, and will continue to say almost like a broken record, there are so many places one can choose Allen in this category, I'll keep holding off for something a bit more thoughtful.

As someone who was a fan of Peter Jackson's work for a good period, but who has found his post-Rings output increasingly uninspired, I very much wish the director would make something like Heavenly Creatures again. (I guess The Lovely Bones was an attempt at that, making me fear he's lost the knack completely, but I'd still hope otherwise). His flair for fantasy was stunningly realized here, in a series of very imaginative set pieces that felt both outside of and fully integrated into the film's main narrative. And that plot line was grounded by the most observant portrait of human behavior Jackson has ever put on screen -- the progression of the young girls from seeming innocents to cold-blooded killers, and the manner in which their relationship with each other leads to their tragic behavior, is crafted with great richness and believability. I think this is one of the best films of the year, and while it was unfortunately left out of many categories, thankfully it managed the one nomination here.

But I think the two most imaginative scripts this year belonged to Red and Pulp Fiction, and I like what Mister Tee said about both, that the way each film told its story felt unlike that of any other movie up to that point. Red is my favorite movie of this year, and its innovative structure is one of the key reasons why -- I love the way the two narrative lines resonate thematically with one another throughout much of the film, then connect at a more literal plot level at the finale. (I also think the movie's thematic and narrative connections to Blue and White also give it added complexity). I like those earlier efforts in the Three Colors trilogy, but I feel that Red is a cut above entirely, its narrative ambition seems so much greater, and the mysterious way its story unfolds so haunting. I could have voted for it here with enthusiasm, though I too must acknowledge its directing and cinematography credentials seem to be even more notable, and...

...screenplay seems like the most deserving place to recognize another one of the year's triumphs, Pulp Fiction. It's definitely not as mature a film as Red -- Kieslowski has a lot more on his mind thematically than Tarantino does. But in terms of two other aspects that define great film writing -- narrative invention and singular dialogue -- it's pretty hard to deny that Tarantino achieved quite a lot here. Though plenty of movies had jumped around in time before (including Tarantino's own Reservoir Dogs), few had so boldly flaunted traditional structural chronology to the extent Pulp Fiction did, setting off a wave of imitation (for better and for worse) that still resonates in movies to this day. And the language incorporated all sorts of clever references in a manner both wildly funny and full of dark edge, other Tarantino trademarks copied endlessly over the past two decades. This is one movie I wish I'd had the chance to see upon opening, when I'm sure it must have seemed an even bigger blast of fresh air than it did by the time I got to it, a half-decade later. It's a close call, but I give my Original Screenplay vote to the most influential and groundbreaking piece of writing of its movie year, Pulp Fiction.

[Big Magilla]

There were three "also-rans" that I purposely left out of my original post that I expected others to pick up on. Mister Tee did mention John Dahl's ridiculously ineligible The Last Seduction (written by Steve Barancik) but no one has mentioned either Ang Lee's Eat Drink Man Woman (written by Lee and James Schamus) or Patrice Chereau's Queen Margot (adapted from the Alexandre Dumas pere novel by Chereau and Daniele Thompson).

The Last Seduction is a modern noir that comes as close to Double Indemnity fifty years on as any other film before or since. Eat Drink Man woman shows elements of Sense and Sensibility that suggests Lee's helming of the Jane Austen novel should not have been as big a surprise as it was. Queen Margot was hurt by Miramax's toning down of the violence by cutting a half hour out of the beginning of the film which made aspects of the film incomprehensible to American audiences unfamiliar with French history. Today no one in America with access to cable TV would blink twice at the film's bloody violence.

As for all the brouhaha over Forrest Gump's alleged conservative slant, no one seems to recall that the film in early days of digital effects was a marvel of "how did they do that" wizardry. That and the fact that it covered a period of then recent history that was familiar to the majority of its audiences are what made it such a crowd-pleaser at the time. I don't think the film takes sides. Forrest himself is torn between believing Lt. Dan's belief in a purposeful life and his mother's belief that we're all like feathers floating in the wind. Despite the advances in technology I'd rather watch this over again than waste time on the barrage of technically proficient albeit brain-dead films coming out of Hollywood by the truckload these days.

[The Original BJ]

Nothing leaps out at me as being egregiously overlooked on the Adapted side. Among subtitled fare, I'd offer up To Live as a worthy enough alternate.

I don't think The Madness of King George is anything hideous, but I definitely don't understand its appeal. The script seems to be going for a frothy comic tone, but it's pretty deficient in actual laughs. And as history, it just doesn't have much insight into the situations it depicts to amount to all that much.

I got to The Shawshank Redemption by the time its reputation had become, in popular culture terms, one of the all-time great films. And in that context, I thought it was almost unfathomably overrated. It always struck me that a lot of its appeal had to do with the fact that it was deeply sentimental at heart, but targeted toward men rather than women, and the sheer paucity of efforts in the middle of that Venn diagram made it stand out. Trying to remove myself from the hype, I will acknowledge that its structure is quite solid, and the way the numerous story elements congeal to form an admittedly knockout ending makes the film's emotional appeal perfectly understandable. But there's still a lot of hokiness along the way -- the portrayal of the vindictive warden is especially cartoonish -- and it wouldn't get my consideration.

I find Nobody's Fool a perfectly well-written movie, with a lot of colorful yet human characters, witty dialogue, and one of the more realistic portraits of small-town America in contemporary film. It also gave Paul Newman his great late-career role, as a guy who has definitely seen better days, but who still has a lot of energetic life in him. But I have to admit, aside from Newman, I never saw the greatness in the movie that many did -- it's sweet and charming, but a bit small for me in both scope and impact. And given that I see numerous options for which I can choose Robert Benton down the line, I'll hold off this time.

Quiz Show is quite a strong script. Its main narrative line is very swift and engaging, but I think the movie resonates as something much more than simply a story about the Twenty One scandals. It explores a lot of interesting cultural ideas, namely the way in which mainstream (white, Christian) America of the '50's was beginning to feel the rumblings of social shifts that would explode in the next decade, and attempted to either ignore them or outright squash them. And, as others have said, a lot of the dialogue was quite funny, giving the film an almost blackly comic sensibility that enlivened what easily could have been a musty history piece in lesser hands. I completely understand why many have voted for it in this category.

But I'm going to reveal myself as one of those who picked Forrest Gump. (And I notice a number of others have defected -- it's actually lost multiple votes in this category since I last checked the thread.) I first saw the movie at a relatively young age -- it was one of the first "grown-up" movies I ever experienced, and come to think of it, it was my first Best Picture winner too. I saw it numerous times before college, always finding it pretty wonderful, and it was only when I got to film school that I learned Gump had such vocal detractors. I get why some people don't like it -- even I have come to view its attitude towards history as frustratingly apolitical, stripping major cultural events of much context and simply viewing them as unrelated events in a timeline. But...I think there's still so much about the movie that's very compelling. The relationships between Forrest and the other major characters in his life are richly drawn and moving, especially as the film chronicles the passage of time, and the struggles they all must endure. And alongside these poignant moments there were tons of scenes bursting with humor, including a lot of memorable dialogue (of course, some of those lines became so entrenched in pop culture they became easy targets for the film's detractors to parody). I've always found it interesting that viewers -- both fans and detractors -- have such different takes on what the film is saying. Mine would be that it's a movie about a man who is deeply good, who succeeds in life despite his limitations because of the kindness he shows to people, and despite living in a world full of prejudice, war, and political abuses of power that should turn anyone who knew better deeply cynical. It's a movie that's both tremendously optimistic, but also possessing a satirical edge, in the way it shows that even a man with a child's mental capacity can see the ridiculousness in everything from segregation to war when so many more "intelligent" people could not. In this way, I think the screenplay is both a sprawling epic achievement, as well as a fairly complex one. I didn't vote for Gump in Picture/Director, or either of its acting races, but I like it enough to want it to go home with one major prize; I also didn't vote for any of Eric Roth's last three screenplay contenders. So voting for Forrest Gump here seems like the right way for me to go.

[Greg]

When Roger Avary ended his acceptance speech at the Academy Awards, he finished with, "And now I have to go pee," an allusion to Forrest Gump. I failed to get the allusion when I was watching the broadcast, but only later read about it. Did anyone here get the allusion when Avary was making it?

[Uri]

First, that’s what Tarantino, interestingly and rather correctly, had to say about Forrest Gump:

http://books.google.co.il/books?id=c5Sd ... mp&f=false

Yes, it’s that old debate again. FG is a fascinating film, more for the way what it has to say is being interpreted than for the way it says it, yet it is a kind of cultural litmus paper. The way I get it, the bottom line of FG is that the American Dream can be fully achieved only by complete idiots. In a way it’s a harbinger of the Bush era. But yes, the film itself does its best to water down this massage. It’s extremely cautious in presenting its subversive core, but this core is definitely there. And I’m sure its makers knew exactly what they were doing. At least Hanks did. I saw him being interviewed several times during the summer and fall of ’94, and he was in full control of how he was presenting FG, depending on who he was talking to, as well as where and when. Before the film was released, when the nature its appeal was still unknown, he was very much promoting its quirkiness, its offbeat elements. Later, after it became that monster phenomenon, Hanks completely changed his tune. He may be a Democrat and a liberal, but he’s an American first and a very smart one as well, so he knows where the buck is. On Leno’s that fall he was fully embracing Gump mythical stature to the delight of the studio audience. Yet even later that year, talking with Barry Norman on BBC, he was very perceptive and fully aware of the satiric nature of FG.

[ITALIANO]

This accusation seemed to rise primarily from the scene where the anti-war leader acts, unmistakably, like a jackass. But what about the scenes of Forrest helping to integrate Southern schools? Or when he gave all his money to a black woman? How do they fit into “this is a movie for reactionaries”? (Not to mention the fact that both Zemeckis and Hanks are active Democrats)

Well - wait. Making fun of pacifism is, even more than conservative, fascistic - like anything pro-war. But throwing money to the poor - or to the blacks - is conservative too, as Evita Peron knew well. It's like crying watching The Color Purple - an easy way to praise yourself for your (white) sensitiveness, without, of course, doing anything to effectively solve the problem. (Often, when you cry for the blacks as victims, you want them to STAY victims, so that you can cry more). So giving money to a black woman is self-congratulatory rather than actually political. Or, rather, it IS political, but not in a leftist way.

As for the fact that Zemeckis and Tom Hanks (Tom Hanks!) are Democrats... I mean, they can proclaim whatever they wish, but it's what they do, what they express in their work which really matters. (And, of course, by European standards the Democrats aren't really on the let, but that's another story).

[Heksagon]

The problem that I have with the Conservatism in Forrest Gump is the blind obedience to authority. The film promotes the mentality that you should do as you’re told and never question anything, and you’ll do fine. It is true that on occasion, Gump’s character does challenge people around him, but that is usually when the people around him are outside of establishment. And he does show individuality, but usually in a way which is non-threatening to authority (often embarrassing himself). The way in which the Vietnam War is portrayed is my biggest single problem with the film.

There is a long tradition of satirical books and films where you have a mentally challenged person going around and exposing faults and contradictions in authority through his naïveté, often in an anarchistic way. But only in Forrest Gump do you have a person like that affirming authority.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
To the film’s misfortune (in reputation terms), it became SUCH a hit that it inevitably attracted harsh criticisms – chief among them that it was some sort of right-wing screed. This accusation seemed to rise primarily from the scene where the anti-war leader acts, unmistakably, like a jackass. But what about the scenes of Forrest helping to integrate Southern schools? Or when he gave all his money to a black woman? How do they fit into “this is a movie for reactionaries”?

Or mooning LBJ. A Democrat, sure, but so is George Wallace. It's less a scene and more a successive punchline fitting into the film's strongest running joke that Forrest has no idea that he is a part of history. Another reading that I enjoy is that Forrest Gump is unknowingly a thorn in the side of the establishment, which legitimizes the suspicions of the powers that be: yes, these people are idiots.

As for giving all his money to a black woman, well, he's not doing that per se. He's giving all his money to the mother of his dead friend. Forrest Gump would have us believe that the world isn't newly color blind, but it's been color blind for ages, and it's the job of people like Forrest Gump (the individual) to help others. That's conservative. But I agree with you that Forrest Gump doesn't deserve the scrutiny it shouldered as a liberal nightmare. It's a satire content to amuse, not lecture. I don't think it gets enough credit for that.

Has anybody drawn any parallels between Forrest Gump and the writing of Benjamin Spock?

One last political thought from me on Forrest Gump: with the exception of John F. Kennedy who "gets" the joke in Forrest Gump (unflappably laughing when Gump says he has to go pee), the other political shadows that hover over the film would seem to be George Wallace, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard Nixon. Forrest interjects himself into Wallace's segregation agenda. Forrest causes Richard Nixon's undoing. And Forrest moons Lyndon Johnson, the man who escalated the war in Vietnam. Johnson may laugh it off, but he also tells Forrest "Why, I'd sure like to see that." -- why? Because Lyndon Johnson was a vulgarian. They're not Democrats or Republicans per se. Just politicians. And man, does it blow my mind every time I remember that George Wallace was a Democrat!

[Mister Tee]

First off, a general salute to the writers’ branch for pinpointing many of the year’s very best, even those short-changed by the overall membership.

On the adapted side, nothing was glaringly omitted, though Swicord’s Little Women was an impressive amalgam of Alcott’s life with her famous novel, and rated a mention (though not, as Magilla says, over the film the Writers’ Guild left out).

The Madness of King George, for me, was always an “I don’t get it” – mediocre costume drama without any particularly striking point of view. It’s the film I’d have deleted from this list.

I’m pretty much with FilmFan that, had Forrest Gump not turned into a global phenomenon and multi-prize winner, it wouldn’t be remembered in such negative terms by so many. I saw the film on opening day, and thought it pleasantly enjoyable. A friend of mine said it was nice to see a summer movie that became a hit because it was something different, as opposed to the same-old-thing that usually dominated. To the film’s misfortune (in reputation terms), it became SUCH a hit that it inevitably attracted harsh criticisms – chief among them that it was some sort of right-wing screed. This accusation seemed to rise primarily from the scene where the anti-war leader acts, unmistakably, like a jackass. But what about the scenes of Forrest helping to integrate Southern schools? Or when he gave all his money to a black woman? How do they fit into “this is a movie for reactionaries”? (Not to mention the fact that both Zemeckis and Hanks are active Democrats) It struck me that the historical coincidence of the GOP taking over Congress that Fall made many people slip into a glib “the culture represents the times” formulation that gave this film a dark mark it didn’t deserve. None of which is to say the film is in any way great, or deserved any of the Oscars it won. I’m certainly not voting for it here. But I don’t feel it necessary to hate it, either.

The Shawshank Redemption is another somewhat mediocre piece, but I understood why it was popular in certain circles (and became even bigger in hindsight). It offered a level of good-yarn storytelling that has become rare in modern film. Stephen King has lots of flaws as a writer, but his ability to get readers turning pages is not to be sniffed at, and this film adaptation (despite Frank Darabont’s soon-to-be-obvious indifference to pacing) offers a pretty solid movie equivalent. Again, nothing I’d vote for, but I have to say I enjoyed watching the film.

The remaining two are very strong films, among the year’s best, and either would be a solid choice. Quiz Show was so much more vital, offered so much more wit than previous Redford films that it’s impossible not to credit Paul Attanasio’s script with the improvement. What struck me most about the film at the time was how funny the dialogue was – especially as delivered by the brilliant Turturro – but Attanasio should also be credited for weaving together multiple story lines, and juggling tonal variations (from Turturro’s high comedy to the Fiennes/Scofield small tragedy). I can see why so many are voting for this.

But Nobody’s Fool was my favorite film of 1994, and it gets my vote. I recently watched the film again, for the first time since 20 years ago, and found I loved it exactly the same way: for its light touch, and its subtle insights into just how small towns operate. The film is populated with a wealth of memorable characters, even in the smallest roles (and played by wonderful actors: most people know Philip Seymour Hoffman was in it, but how many remember Margo Martindale?). And it’s full of dialogue that would make you laugh out loud if you weren’t so genuinely touched by so much of it. I just love this movie, and view it as Robert Benton’s finest achievement – it’s worthy of my vote here and other places it wasn’t deemed eligible.

Under original: the twisty The Last Seduction was deemed ineligible-by-technicality, costing Linda Fiorentino a likely best actress nod, and I’d have cited it here, as well. And, whatever famous problems the film had in production, I found James Brooks’ I’d Do Anything close enough to his finest work to merit consideration.

As I’ve said here on multiple occasions, I DON’T consider Bullets over Broadway anywhere near Woody Allen’s finest work, and I’ve always been puzzled why Academy types chose this one time to over-reward him. The Chazz Palminteri part of the plot I find interesting, but I think John Cusack’s character is poorly written and played, and the entire relationship with Mary-Louise Parker I find completely dreary (it was equally dreary in the musical version).

Four Wedding and a Funeral may be another of those you had to experience in real time to fully appreciate. This was a movie that came from seemingly nowhere, with nothing particular to sell it (Hugh Grant was nothing like a name prior), and it rose to relatively enormous success ($50 million; probably $75-$100 million today) simply on the strength of people loving it. Yes, I guess we’d now shove it into the rom-com pigeonhole, but rom-coms like any genre have their exceptional specimens, and this is, after Groundhog Day, probably the best the decade offered – it’s consistently funny, and goes in all sorts of unexpected directions. That doesn’t make it brilliant (or deserving of a best picture nod), but it makes it a film I’m happy to see on this list, even if I’m not voting for it. (By the way, I think, had Pulp Fiction not existed, Four Weddings would have been the easy Oscar winner in this category)

We talk about so many kinds of category fraud when it comes to actors, but we never spend much time on the clear fraud of non-fiction stories stuffing themselves into the original category. There’s at least some case to be made in the case of films like Milk, which, while based on fact, aren’t literally taken from something previously written down. But Heavenly Creatures lifts directly from diaries written by the murderous young girls, making its nomination here fraud undeniable. But what a happy fraud it was, for me, anyway. Heavenly Creatures was, after Nobody’s Fool, my favorite film of 1994 – I’d walked into it with little expectation or foreknowledge, and was completely blown away. We’ve seen many films centered on characters communing with fantasy worlds – Finding Neverland and The Fisher King, for two examples – but I don’t think any has done it as successfully as Heavenly Creatures. The film shows us both the appeal the girls’ fantasies have for them, and the tragic folie a deux to which they inevitably lead. I’m not voting for the film, because there are other contenders I thought more dependent on script (Jackson’s visuals, still fresh and under control, are the MVP here), but I salute it loudly.

Red and Pulp Fiction are so different from one another they might have sprung from different species. Red has a mysterious, quiet quality that reaches you almost subliminally – its richness catches you by surprise, and at the end you find yourself moved in unforeseen ways. Pulp Fiction, on the other hand, is in your face from the opening moments – it shouts at you, saying Look over here – No, over here’s even better – Now come back here – all at a pitch of wit and with an audacity American films appeared to have lost. What the two films have in common is startling originality – neither film reminded me of anything else I’d ever seen (which, for example, as good as it may have been, Quiz Show definitely did). My decision on a vote here is largely based on how much I thought pure script-writing contributed to the project. Like many, I voted for Kieslowski as best director for this year, because I thought that the area in which his mood-orchestrating featured most prominently. But, for script, I have to join the majority here and vote for Tarantino. His explosion of creativity may not have made for the year’s best film (many critics thought it did, but I dissent); it did, however, make for the year’s best original work. Hence, my vote.

[FilmFan720]

In the original category, I voted for Pulp Fiction. For the same reason that most everyone else here has. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot more to be said about the impact, energy or entertainment value of Tarantino's winner, so I'll leave it at that. It was an easy vote, but there is a lot of good competition here: a solid Woody Allen farce, the brilliant Red, a funny enough rom com and the fascinating Heavenly Creatures. I'm not an unrestricted Tarantino fan, but his script lands pretty high above the others to me. If Ed Wood were here, though, I might have thought twice.

In Adapted, I did think a little bit more before voting. I find The Shawshank Redemption to be a shallow mess, so I'll throw it out right away. Forrest Gump is a nice trifle of a movie that had the misfortune to be pushed so soon into "classic" consideration. Had it remained a Summer comedy, then it might be a little more well-remembered today. The Madness of King George is a smart adaptation, in the string of smart but cinematically bland British exports of the time, where I won't begrudge a nomination but won't consider a vote. Nobody's Fool is a really lovely character study, and Robert Benton an unfairly forgotten American filmmaker, and i would consider a vote for it. It is a movie so unfairly forgotten.

I have to vote here for Quiz Show, though, which I think is a triumph of American filmmaking that got lost in the shuffle of the 1994 Oscars. That race was labelled as Hollywood vs. Indie, the new vs. the old, the conservative vs. the liberal in the race between "conservative" megahit Forrest Gump and "ground-breaking" arthouse smash Pulp Fiction. Quiz Show, though, was a paean to classic Hollywood filmmaking. The way that Redford recreated a 50s or 60s Hollywood prestige "message" picture is a triumph of old-fashioned filmmaking, but done so with a vigor and energy that makes it feel fresh too. It is Paul Attanasio's literate screenplay that gives the film that foundation, and I gladly vote for it here.

[Heksagon]

The Original category is living up to its name with three of the most original films of the decade in the line-up: Heavenly Creatures, Pulp Fiction and Red. I’m going with Pulp Fiction, leaving Kieslowski’s masterpiece without a vote. Four Weddings is not a great film, but considering how few decent romantic comedies there are out there, I can sympathize with its nomination. Bullets over Broadway just did not impress me, except for its acting. It may be one of those films I need to see again, though.

The Adapted category is the weaker category this year - nevertheless, the five nominees are all entertaining films. The Shawshank Redempetion gets my vote, even if I feel it is worse than three of the five Original category nominees. I’m not bothered by the surrealistic, comic stumbling on historical events that goes on in Forrest Gump - possibly because I can’t take the simplistic story too seriously in any case. And there is no denial that Gump is philosophically far too conservative for my taste.

[Sabin]

Well, I have, and I'm voting for Pulp Fiction for two reasons: 1) I've already honored Kieslowski as Best Director, and 2) the writing of Pulp Fiction may not be deeper than the other nominees, but there is such creativity and energy to it that I think it's a fine choice. Both Red and Heavenly Creatures would be deserving winners as well, and if it weren't for a recent underwhelming viewing of Four Weddings and a Funeral, I might be tempted to go with Richard Curtis' finest hour, although really the problems with the film are more casting and even execution than anything else. And while Bullets over Broadway isn't Woody Allen's best film, it's his last film approaching greatness in that it genuinely does attempt to tackle thorny territory. It wouldn't surprise me if he wrote the damn thing after watching Barton Fink. I will laud one wonderful writing choice that he makes: the film does not announce its true colors in the meeting of minds between one who tries to write art (Cusack) and one who has lived life so he can (Palmentari) until 45 minutes into the film. That is such a bold choice, to set us so adrift with Cusack that when Palmentari truly sets out to save the show, there is no other option. Other filmmakers would set that mark 30 minutes in.

My choice would be Ed Wood were it nominated.

A difficult choice for Best Adapted Screenplay but I feel as though I must go with Quiz Show. I'm a fan of all the nominated films but The Shawshank Redemption, perhaps a movie I enjoy more, is not so much a brilliantly written film as a well-executed one. Quiz Show is a very perceptive film and certainly better written than directed. Many films deserved *something* on Oscar night that year, so it's not special in that regard. Box office too. I feel comfortable with Quiz Show winning in this category.

[Greg]

The problem I had with Forrest Gump was Gump's always implausibly stumbling into profound historical event after profound historical event, with the story posed as more serious drama rather than the all-out farce that would have been appropriate.

[ITALIANO]

Of course, I also wouldn't have expected Forrest Gump to win here.

Exactly, And that's scary.

But even Pulp Fiction - a much more deserving winner here.... Are we sure that all those who voted for it have seen, say, Red or Heavenly Creatures? I am not.

[Mister Tee]

But I know that I will suffer. A lot. And as we get into less recent years, I will suffer even more.

Silver lining: no more cartoons?

Yes but at least cartoons belong to a parallel world - I find it absurd that they can be taken seriously by anyone older than 10, but they are like extraterrestrials to me - I don't know them, I dont understand them, so I can't compare them to "real" movies.

But in the 60s and 70s especially, in these categories some great American and European movies were nominated, and I'm sure that they will lose here. Always.

Depends how honest people are (in terms of only voting when they've seen all the nominees). I haven't done anything like a complete scan of the decades ahead (or behind, in our method), but I can think of any number of years where I'll be voting the foreign-language choice (though probably not as many a a Euro-phile like yourself), and I wouldn't bet against many here following suit. They have, after all, voted for a great many subtitled directors.

Of course, I also wouldn't have expected Forrest Gump to win here. (And I hope as voting expands it'll lose its tenuous lead)