The Show - What can we expect

[Mister Tee]

As far as 1980: I think Ordinary People is a respectable but middling Playhouse 90-ish drama. But I also think Raging Bull is a technical marvel that doesn't have much narrative coherence. My favorite film of that dismal year was Schlondorff's The Tin Drum. If you must have an English-speaking movie, I preferred both The Elephant Man and the Stunt Man to the two endlessly-argued-about Oscar battlers.

I've documented here before that Raging Bull was not an overwhelming critics' cause celebre in 1980 -- it only managed the LA critics' prize, and even there it lost best director. But there was a vocal claque -- Roger Ebert prominent among them -- that thought it genius, and they just kept shouting it until, at the end of 1989, it actually won many best-of-decade polls.

Dances with Wolves was another matter. It was a huge audience hit, and it was clear early on it was going to win best picture at the Oscars. But the critics unanimously voted Goodfellas best film, with Dances with Wolves barely in the race. So there you can say it's a split between the intelligentsia and the people - like Titanic/LA Confidential, only moreso because a long-favored director lost to a tyro. If Scorsese had at least won best director -- a prize I think he deserved in a laydown -- the resentment might not have been piled so high.

[Penelope]

Sign me up as well for the Ordinary People is better than Raging Bull camp.

The Dances With Wolves situation is almost entirely to do with Scorsese's Goodfellas losing; Costner's career implosion is just icing for these people.

And the Chicago naysayers mystify me as well. I'd definitely say it's one of the better winners of the past decade--probably THE best winner of the decade.

[taki15]

I'm also in the camp of thinking Ordinary People is a better film than Raging Bull.

Me too.

I am also surprised that there is a backlash regarding ''Dances with the Wolves''. I wonder if Costner's subsequent career implosion has more to do with it rather than the merits of the film.

[OscarGuy]

I'm also in the camp of thinking Ordinary People is a better film than Raging Bull.

And, I am also mystified by this sudden reversal against Chicago. I remember at the time that there was very little negative said about the film and its win. Which is partly why I included as I did. Are they suddenly saying now that The Pianist should have won? Or Two Towers? Or The Hours? Or Gangs of New York? If it really is a small, but vocal minority creating such designations, I wonder if it's a pro-The Pianist faction because I can't imagine a faction of dissidents for the other three nominees that year.

And while I know we aren't supposed to use these as guides, but Chicago has a respectable 7.3/10 on imdb, it has an 87% fresh rating at RT and and 82 rating at Metacritic. So, obviously, critics and audiences aren't entirely against the film. So, I'm still a bit stymied by the whole affair.

[Big Magilla]

Whoever these cognoscenti are, thankfully I haven't read them.

As for Ordinary People, I still maintain it's a better film than the over-rated Raging Bull. Next to How Green was My Valley's win over Citizen Kane, I think this is the most unfairly maligned win of all time.

[Mister Tee]

I believe that every single Oscar winning film that I've liked will go down in history as timeless masterpieces that have stood the test of time. Every Oscar winning film I haven't liked will be regarded as a travesty that only confirms how out of touch AMPAS was.

I agree with this 100%, and add, most Oscar "revisionism" of my lifetime has amounted to those who dissented from the choice in real time who then proceed to shout the loudest as the years pass.

The Chicago backlash is the most mystifying to me, as it seems the result of a determined small claque beating the drum repeatedly. Remember what Steve Martin said on Oscar night '02? He suggested Harvey Weinstein hadn't played fair in the race, because "he made a really good movie that everybody liked". That was the widely prevailing view when the film won -- not the case with Ordinary People, Chariots of Fire, Dances with Wolves, and other notorious wanna-take-backs. But a batch of folks, mainly on the Internet, have apparently decided the film was too flimsy, or too gay, or whatever, and have somehow managed to get their view accepted by certain cognoscenti.

This is all bullshit, you realize?

[jsmalahy]

more topical film than Slumdog is with all its Mumbai-ness

And anyone who has been paying attention to your posts over the years knows exactly why you didn't like this film (and it's even glaringly there in your post). Had the film been filled with blandly attractive white muscle-heads kissing in Mumbai, you would have called it "transcendent."

[Sabin]

I know this sounds like a moot point, Sonic, but I am predicting that Slumdog Millionaire will be the most beloved Oscar winner of the decade. And I don't like it.


RE: Chicago

I'll concede that it will be remembered with some affection but little passion.



Edited By Sabin on 1234239016

[Sonic Youth]

I believe that every single Oscar winning film that I've liked will go down in history as timeless masterpieces that have stood the test of time. Every Oscar winning film I haven't liked will be regarded as a travesty that only confirms how out of touch AMPAS was.

[The Original BJ]

I absolutely do not think that Chicago will be remembered with any form of affection.

I agree with almost everything you said, Sabin, except this point. Maybe it's just my involvement in the musical theater scene, but I feel like good movie musicals are ALWAYS remembered. Plus, whatever one thinks of the film of Chicago, the stage version is widely seen as being a great musical, and so simply as the captured-on-film version of that piece, I think it will continue to be fairly widely watched and liked.

Perhaps in CINEASTE circles it will not be remembered affectionately (and may not have had much affection thrown at it to begin with), but it strikes me as the sort of entertaining populist winner that will have a long shelf life. (Sort of like some other musical winners, like The Sound of Music, which aren't widely respected by cineastes, but still hold much popular appeal.)

[Sabin]

I absolutely do not think that Chicago will be remembered with any form of affection.

Gladiator will be remembered with some form of derisive-if-appreciative laughter, a joke of a win that a lot of people like. I'm not really one of them, but it will be remembered more fondly than A Beautiful Mind and Chicago. The win for A Beautiful Mind will confuse people. The win for Chicago will be attributed to Moulin Rouge! and Harvey Weinstein.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King will probably go down as one of the most fondly remembered Best Picture winners of the decade even if it's not for this particular film.

Million Dollar Baby will be remembered somewhat fondly, as a film that was something of a phenomenon that left some people cold. Unlike Unforgiven, it won't age quite as well but looking back it will be seen as a fairly strong winner.

Crash will be one of the truly disastrous Oscar wins.

The Departed = Oliver(The French Connection) - Goodfellas/Raging Bull/Taxi Driver

No Country for Old Men is this decade's Unforgiven. The rare Oscar-winner that serves as meditation and genre film. It's not as accessible as Eastwood's Oscar winner but it will inspire respect and some degree of confusion as to how such a seemingly unfriendly film managed to win.

Even though I don't really like the film, I'm fairly positive that Slumdog Millionaire will be one of the more beloved Oscar winners this decade if only because - hyperbole alert! - it has inspired my genuine passion than any Oscar winner this decade.


FURTHER MEDITATION -

Films that are truly reviled Oscar winners usually hold some form of distinction of upsetting something regarded by many as "clearly" better. Films that are simply dismissed are the product of phenomenon and trend.

Gladiator revived the swords and sandals epic. I don't think anybody looking back is really going to get very upset that it beat Crouching Tiger or Traffic. It was a mediocre film for Oscar bait.

A Beautiful Mind inexplicably beat The Fellowship of the Ring and Moulin Rouge!, two movies that inspired quite a bit of passion and phenomenon. It will be reviled.

Chicago rode the Moulin Rouge! musical revival to something short of an Oscar sweep but to the second strongest tally this decade. If The Two Towers was an also ran (though my choice) and Gangs of New York and The Hours were very polarizing, then The Pianist was a movie of genuine artistry and personal statement that made a very strong last minute showing. Although The Pianist has the distinction of winning the Palme d'Or, it was a "late starter" and spawned some grassroots efforts to persuade Oscar voters that was somewhat successful. Chicago isn't reviled but seen as forgettable.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King feels like more of a phenomenon winner than a stand-alone winner. I don't know many people who really think it's the best. Master and Commander and Seabiscuit didn't inspire much passion. Mystic River revived Eastwood's career. Lost in Translation had some very passionate supporters but it was never going to happen. Phenomenon in a weak field = solid winner.

Million Dollar Baby is the same. The other movies weren't really going to happen and people who were passionate about Sideways were not in the Academy. It was something of a phenomenon in the Eastwood revival. It's a solid winner.

Crash has the distinction of being part of the Haggis phenomenon and upsetting one of the strongest front-runners of the decade.

The Departed is a weird case. Little Miss Sunshine was something of a phenomenon but too small to win and lacked a Directing nod. The Queen wasn't going to happen. Babel was very polarizing and would have come away with two victories, maybe the smallest tally for a Best Picture winner since the 30's, so you can't call it much of a front-runner. Letters from Iwo Jima was a late starter and a product of the Eastwood phenomenon but it's reward was being there and upsetting Dreamgirls. It was just the populist choice in a "weak" field, but more than that there is now a resurgence of Departed-chic in film today. Every cop movie wants to be The Departed. It's the zeitgeist of Scorsese's Populist Period. So it's remembered as a solid winner but not as good as his previous work.

No Country for Old Men isn't just a winner in a weak field. It's a winner in an impossible field! Just like Unforgiven. The Crying Game was a nomination's coup, but a win would have been unprecedented. Howards End wasn't very vogue, and A Few Good Men and Scent of a Woman split the vote. I'd say that No Country for Old Men triumphed in an even stranger field. I think critics will be buoying its victory for years but not the public.

As for Slumdog, it's a phenomenon for sure. But it's also a heavy front-runner. It's not really reviving anything, and it's gaining money and exposure as it heads towards Oscar evening. In addition, it's a film of very modern sensibilities instead of being a call-back. I think it's going be remembered very fondly...

If I had to guess?

9. Crash
8. A Beautiful Mind
7. Chicago
6. Gladiator
5. - 3. for different reasons: The Departed, Million Dollar Baby, and No Country for Old Men
2. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
1. Slumdog Millionaire



Edited By Sabin on 1234238875

[Eric]

They're definitely edited out of the more recent ceremonies. The oddness of the applause meter on the 1976 Best Actress video would seemingly indicate the removal of clips there.

[Big Magilla]

No, clips were not shown in the 70s. I don't recall when the practice began, but it wasn't done back then.

[Penelope]

The lack of clips is also quite aggravating. Why, in a ceremony devoted to celebrating the performances of a certain year, would there be no samples of the actors' work?

I think this has to do with copyright: note that in many of these Oscar moments, clips of the performances WERE originally shown, but they've been edited out for appearance on youtube.

[Big Magilla]

By the way, the Academy has updated their youtube page with some new past winners; they need a spell-checker--note the spelling error on the clip for Ben Kingsley's win.

My god, the five actresses nominated for Best Actress in 1976 are all so stony-faced and subdued. They look like they're all trying to avoid being called up to be hung.

Dunaway seems completely unenthusiastic about winning and her speech is boring. I've noticed that in these older clips (particularly ones from the 70's), the nominees are totally straight-faced when their name is called. Why was this so common back then?

You have to remember that in those days there were so few awards that up until the envelope was opened no one really knew what to expect. Winners didn't have the luxury of viewing their composure and speeches from taped copies of the Golden Globes, Broadcast Film Critics Awards, BAFTAs, SAGs, People's Choice Awards, MTV Awards and what have you. Nor were they as used to winning awards and consequently jaded by them. The Oscars were a big deal and the nominees took them very seriously.