Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For me it would be Braveheart n 1995, then Dances with Wolves in 1990 and definitely Driving Miss Daisy in 1989. I find all the recent winners to be some sort of popularity contest or mostly a form of social commentary (lest the academy voters be deemed "insensitive", heaven forfend).
I find all the recent winners to be some sort of popularity contest or mostly a form of social commentary (lest the academy voters be deemed "insensitive", heaven forfend).
It's not a popularity contest. It's actually an elitist contest. More of an anti-popularity contest.
It seems to me that Oscar was been going to the edgiest, quirkiest movie of the year for a long time.
It seems to me that 'best' is an entirely subjective concept.
It also seems to me that most people insist that 'best' is instead an entirely objective concept that just happens to jibe with their own preferences. Because most people do exactly that - they think that their tastes represent some sort of quantitative assessment.
Which is, of course, nothing but an exercise in self-absorption.
Keep in mind that Oscar winners have very little to do with actual quality. It has to do with who has the best PR forms and gifts (bribes) to the Academy members. It's all just a big publicity stunt. It means nothing.
That said, there have been some truly great movies that won the Best Picture Oscar:
12 Years a Slave (2013)
Argo (2012)
The Departed (2006)
Schindler's List (1993)
Unforgiven (1992)
But there have also bin A LOT of Best Picture winners that not only were not the best movies of that year, but weren't even very good movies. GLADIATOR, THE ENGLISH PATIENT, MOONLIGHT, and BIRDMAN come immediately to mind.
You think Argo deserved it over Django Unchained? That would be my argument there.. And I'm not saying Django certainly should have won it.. But.. There could be some argument.
1994.. Gump won and it was probably the worst of the nominees. Fine movie, but it won against Shawshank, Quiz show, Pulp Fiction and Four Weddings and a Funeral
Yup. I liked DJANGO UNCHAINED a lot. I found the ending a little over the top, but all in all it was still a great movie and one of the year's best.
But ARGO was an almost perfect movie in every respect. Definitely one of the best movies of that year. Set up against DJANGO, yeah, I'd still have to go with ARGO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labonte18
1994.. Gump won and it was probably the worst of the nominees. Fine movie, but it won against Shawshank, Quiz show, Pulp Fiction and Four Weddings and a Funeral
Agreed. FORREST GUMP is not a bad movie, but it isn't a great movie. All those others are indeed great movies.
How many people here actually watch each of the movies nominated for best picture?
Going back to 2000, I've only seen about 40% of the movies nominated for the award. So I don't think I can say if a movie deserved to win without having seen all of the movies.
Agreed. FORREST GUMP is not a bad movie, but it isn't a great movie. All those others are indeed great movies.
Let me put this proposition to you and see what you think:
Someone once said that when Europeans, Africans, or Asians say "That's history," what they mean is "That's the legacy from the past, pay attention and consider it as you move forward." However, when Americans say "That's history," what they mean is "That's irrelevant, and should be ignored because it should have no bearing on the present." Perhaps because of this difference, films from other parts of the world often embed a character in historical time. Outside of CITIZAN KANE, such movies are comparatively rare in American cinema. FORREST GUMP is, thus, an uncommon American Hollywood movie because it embeds a character in long-term historical time. And, because the character is embedded in the real events of the last 50 years--racial desegregation, the rise of black nationalism, the Vietnam War, the running craze, changing presidential administrations, a massive hurricane, marches in Washington, the AIDS epidemic, and more--it was not possible to make a formulaic story that hit the "beats" that screenwriters are now told to hit if they want to sell anything.
[Those "beats" are like "by XX minutes in, you should have shown the leading character," "by YY minutes in, the central challenge should be clear," "by ZZ minutes in, a reversal should occur that will eventually require the lead character to grow/change to eventually WIN". These "beats" are why cinema today is incredibly predictable and boring--this "formula" produces steady hits and thus money (allegedly), but drains the medium of artistic creativity.]
FORREST GUMP, by contradicting the American tendency to regard the past as something one should forget, by making one "everyman" secretly central to much of our recent past, and showing the impact of those actions and that history on his life and loves, humorously shows the incredible power of the past on the present.
Because of this, I think FORREST GUMP is actually a GREAT film, far more interesting and well-made than a lot of the formulaic stuff that often wins the Oscars.
FORREST GUMP is a feel-good popcorn flick, but not much more. It actually does hit all the formulaic 3 act beats, just about perfectly. It's got a lot of heart. It's funny. It's even moving in a couple of scenes. But it has all the depth of a Hallmark greeting card.
And I think you're wrong about American cinema avoiding history. There are lots of great American movies set in very specific periods of our past --- THE GODFATHER films, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, SCHINDLER'S LIST, ARGO, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, BRIDGE OF SPIES, AMERICAN GRAFFITI, MUNICH, APOCALYPSE NOW, MISSISSIPPI BURNING, RAGGEDY MAN, PLATOON, AMISTAD, 12 YEARS A SLAVE, APOLLO 13, JFK, THE GREAT ESCAPE, MASTER AND COMMANDER, THE LAST EMPEROR, and more Westerns than you could shoot at.
FORREST GUMP is a feel-good popcorn flick, but not much more. It actually does hit all the formulaic 3 act beats, just about perfectly. It's got a lot of heart. It's funny. It's even moving in a couple of scenes. But it has all the depth of a Hallmark greeting card.
And I think you're wrong about American cinema avoiding history. There are lots of great American movies set in very specific periods of our past --- THE GODFATHER films, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, SCHINDLER'S LIST, ARGO, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, BRIDGE OF SPIES, AMERICAN GRAFFITI, MUNICH, APOCALYPSE NOW, MISSISSIPPI BURNING, RAGGEDY MAN, PLATOON, AMISTAD, 12 YEARS A SLAVE, APOLLO 13, JFK, THE GREAT ESCAPE, MASTER AND COMMANDER, THE LAST EMPEROR, and more Westerns than you could shoot at.
That list has a lot of very good and very popular movies!
It's easy to forget that the Academy Awards are an insider affair. Members of the movie industry who are awarding other members of the industry.
It's an industry that is mostly business, partly art. Since both elements are equally important to the folks who are making their living in it, sometimes the business needs to be awarded, and other times the art.
Forrest Gump is a good example of the first. Any movie that develops long legs and fills theater seats is good for the business- viewers who bought a ticket the 2nd time to see Forrest Gump again can always change their mind and see another flick at the metroplex. Gump floated a lot of boats, and while it is a feel-good movie, people go to the movies to feel good lots of times.
Since lots of movies invest serious money into actors audiences like for their on-screen personas, some actors learn they need to keep their private lives and true selves quiet. Other actors don't learn that lesson. Still others discover shocking behavior actually helps boost their career.
The entire industry is based on personalities, real and imagined, so it has always been personality driven in many ways.
The movie business depends entirely on 2 things- publicity and delivering on the promise publicity offers. When the viewer's expectations are met, money is made. When one or the other fails to deliver, money is lost.
The industry has always played it as safe as they could, but there are always times when playing it safe is as risky as taking a big chance and offering something that is going to generate controversy.
Controversy can fill a theater as quickly as predictability. Each can fail in mysterious ways that fall into the professional-amateur divide. The movie makers are the pros, and the audience are the amateurs.
So every movie is a crap shoot.
Personally, I never liked Woody much. He's always too neurotic for me. Other actors are too. I don't go see them either. But one of my best friends never misses one of his movies and has always been an avid fan.
That's the movie biz. There's always something for everyone in it, one someone at a time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
