Nope.
Don’t get me wrong, “The Godfather” was a great film, it was just that “Cabaret” was better.
Sorry, can’t wait for the Pit Thread.
The movie isn’t supposed to be an accurate portrayal of 16th century England. This is pretty clearly established right at the beginning of the movie, when Will goes to a psychiatrist. The film cherry-picks what elements of the period and the life of the characters it want to include, and ignores or invents the rest according to the needs of the screenplay. This is a deliberate, informed artistic choice, not one born out of ignorance, much the same way the use of contemporary music for Moulin Rouge, while it might not have appealed to some viewers, cannot be called a “mistake” because the anachronism was deliberate.
What the film is really about is the works, not the life, of William Shakepeare, both on the literal and meta-textual level. Aside from the cute references to various palys he will write in the future (“The show must…” “Go on!” etc.), the movie treats the period it is set in, and the material it is about, with precisely the same amoung of historical accuracy as Shakespeare treated his own historical plays: which is to say, none at all. Well, SiL pays some attention to historical accuracy, insofar as they had the actors actually dress like the characters they were portraying would have dressed, and they went so far as to build actual sets for the action to take place on, both niceties that Shakespeare never bothered with in real life. While the movie is untrue to history in many, many ways, it is completely faithful to the spirit of Shakespeare’s plays. Which is what makes it so great, and what makes it one of the few movies to truly deserve its Best Picture Oscar.
Thank you! The fact that this movie beat out both Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption was nothing less than a travesty! Personally, I thought it was a weak movie and could barely watch it. Pulp Fiction was unique (then) and The Shawshank Redemption was breathtaking and, I believe, deserved the Oscar far more than any movie nominated that year. In fact, Gump is no where near the class of film that Shawshank is.
That’s the impression I had of the movie, which is why I enjoyed it far more than I enjoyed Elizabeth. SiL wasn’t trying to be historically accurate (which is good, because it failed), however Elizabeth ]was and failed. While watching Elizabeth I kept thinking to myself “that’s not what happened”, but with SiL, I was swept away by the story and the tribute to Will that, to me, was the purpose of the movie.
That said, while I thought SiL was the better movie, I thought Cate Blanchett was the better actress (over Gwenyth Paltrow).
Speaking of which … how come Catherine Zeta-Jones was nominated for best supporting actress for Chicago, but Morgan Freeman was nominated for best actor (not best supporting actor, the big one) for [iThe Shawshank Redemption*?
Surely, both of those roles were equally subservient to the leading roles played by Zellweger and Robbins, respectively.
The same could be said about “Training Day” since Ethan Hawk had really a bigger role then Denzel.
The thing is the studio directs which category it wants its actors to go in (supporting or leading), not the academy.
ie… after the Golden Globes, which has both Catherine and Renee in the leading actress category, the powers behind Chicago, took C Z-J out of contention for the leading actress award (which the felt would help Renee Zellweger more) and instead started pumping her in the supporting actress position.
This actually made more sense, since the competition in the Supporting Actress Category was seen as weaker and thus allowing C Z-J to get over the top and win all the major awards (which she did), and thus maximising Chicago’s number of Oscars.
You know, if they did the same for Richard Gere (yes he was the leading male actor in the movie, but really the movie was all about Roxie Hart, everybody else was a supporting character to her) and but Gere in Best Supporting Actor, instead of trying unsuccessfully pumping him for Lead Actor, we might just be looking at Oscar Winner Richard Gere today.
The Strategy worked for Catherine Zeta-Jone, and I feel it would’ve worked for Richard Gere
The Shawshank Redemption is told from Red’s perspective, is why. Red is the narrator, the plot follows him and is flavoured by him. I mean, consider the title; it’s not Andy Dufresne who’s redeemed - it’s Red!
You are always going to get pity votes (ie. Liz in Butterfield 8, Juli Andrews in Mary Poppins and Patricia Neal Hud) Patriotism votes (ie. Mrs. Miniver), “old” votes (ie. Spencer Tracy in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, Sr. John Gieldgood in Arthur, and John Wayne in True Grit) and Gosh, isn’t this movie spectacular (Lawrence of Ariabia) votes. It’s human and the voters are human.
But let me throw in my two bits regarding bad choices.
Estelle Parsons for Bonnie and Clyde. Everyone was so impressed how she could scream and cry to establish her character. It turned out that’s all she could do. The song “Talk to the Animals” from Dr. Dolittle (the one with Rex Harrison) There were some great songs out that year. Most didn’t even make the nominee list. “Talk to the Animals” was merely a nod to a studio. Probably one of the lamest reasons to give an Academy Award.
TV
Well, since it won’t be for his uninspired directing or his dead-fish-like acting, one assumes that any Oscars would have to come from his writing, which can be good, but also yields absolute turds on the screen about 50% of the time.
There may be Oscars in his future, but not for directing or acting. Now, a Kevin Smith written, Spike Jonze directed film - that has potential.
I won’t claim it’s the least deserving Oscar ever (there’ve been quite a few good contenders already mentioned here), but the one that pissed me off the most was the utterly brilliant and original Memento losing out for Best Original Screenplay to that boring, unoriginal, “upstairs-downstairs period murder mystery” crapfest, Gosford Park.
Titanic, Titanic, Titanic… Can’t even believe it was nominated.
Another sentimental glurge attack Oscar-
1969
Cliff Robertson, Best Actor for * Charly* over Peter O’Toole for The Lion in Winter
At least Kate won Best Actress
Wank wank wank. You’re a Titanic-basher. Oh, wow, how non-conformist and insightful and hip you are.
There really isn’t any way to objectively prove that a movie is good, but there are a few things which can be used as circumstantial evidence:
-Popularity
-Critical response
-Public opinion
In all three cases, Titanic passes with flying colors:
-It’s the most popular movie ever
-On its initial release, before all the backlash, it got fantastic reviews
-If you go here, you’ll see that it’s generally well-liked by the movie-viewing public (although the backlash even there is truly hilarious)
And speaking just for myself, I’m not some ooh-wow-special-effects nerd. Nor am I a teenage girl who loves Leonardo di Caprio. I hated Armageddon and Pearl Harbor. But I am someone with a sentimental streak, and I was moved to tears by Titanic the first several times I saw it. A really large number of people enjoyed it and were moved by it. Which is what a good movie does.
Clearly, it’s a good movie. You may not like it. You may even dislike it. You may think that plenty of other movies that were nominated that year were far better. But I’m sick of people harping about Titanic being terrible and undeserving. Grow up, realize that there’s more to judging things than just hating whatever’s popular, and shut up.
(Oh, and one other thing. I’m also sick of the “well, the writing/acting/whatever wasn’t very good. How could it have won best picture?” line. First of all, that’s just a matter of opinion. I thought the script was extremely well written and tight, if not enormously original, and the acting was quite good. But more important, Best Picture means just that. A movie shouldn’t win Best Picture just for having good special effects, costumes, lighting, cinematography, or whatever. But all of those things contribute. And even most Titanic-bashers acknowledge that in many of those categories, it shone.)
What the hell do critics know? I understand that in its first week of release, people were heard yelling “Sink the fuckin’ ship, already!”
Titanic is a bloated mess of a movie. The only good thing about it is the ship itself, built to 9/10th scale from the original blueprints and modelled from Cameron’s underwater filming of the real ship. It’s probably the greatest single achievement in the history of cinema … it just happens to be in a shitty film.
So what you’re saying, Max, is that if someone doesn’t like a popular and/or critically acclaimed movie, they should simply not ever mention that they didn’t like it?
Look, I’m aware that Titanic got a lot of awards, and was beloved by millions. That doesn’t change the fact that I found trying to watch this movie physically painful. My opinion on the movie is as valid as anyone else’s, because, as you said, there is no way to objectively prove the value of any work of art. You saw a good movie when you saw Titanic. I didn’t. Neither of us is wrong, and neither of us is trying to be “trendy,” we just have different reactions to a work of art.
To me, one of the definitive qualities of a great actor is their range. Sure, a person can have a great career playing the same role for years or roles that are similar enough that they might as well be the same (John Wayne, for example). They might even be terrifically convincing in that one role. But I don’t consider anyone to be a great actor until I’ve watched them play several different roles and had them convince me each time that they “were” that person.
And for this reason, I’d have to say that the least deserved Oscars were those given to anyone who was appearing in their debut role. It’s a rule that I’ve had to think about for a while – I was certainly cheering on Keisha Castle-Hughs for Whale Rider. I thought her performance was astounding. But I realize that until I’ve seen her tackle another role, I’ll never know if the impression she made was due to acting ability or just because that particular role suited her so well.
The difference, to me, is between you saying “I, personally, found Titanic less entertaining than having my head pulverized”, which is a personal opinion and no more, and saying “Titanic didn’t deserve its Oscars”, which is a judgment about the legitimacy of the opinions of the Academy members who voted for it, not to mention the people like me who love it.
I know I’m pretty knee-jerk about the issue, and I hope I don’t come off as trying to imply that your opinions are invalid… but I’m really sick of the hilarious backlash that Titanic experienced.
If I could add my two cents.
I like “Titanic” alot. I thought it was a great film that did deserve alot of the awards it won.
Saying that I liked “LA Confidental” better, and felt it should of won best picture (but not best supporting actress, I though both Julianne Moore for “Boogie Nights” and Joan Cusack for “In and Out” where alot better then either Kim Basinger or Gloria Stewart.
Heck I feel that James Cameron deserved the Best Director award (heck, anybody directing that monstrosity derserves an Oscar). But stylistically, artistically and visually, I thought “LA Confidental” was a far superior movie.
That is my two cents on the “Titanic” debate. I am willing to defend the movie against all the people who slag it simply because it was popular/did very well/started Leonardo DiCaprio, but also by the same token, I liked “LA Confidental” better.
Chariots of Fire.
Terms of Endearment.
Whatever song Phil Collins did for Tarzan that beat out “When She Loved Me” from Toy Story 2. This was about the nth time a Randy Newman song had been nominated, and, as this thread has shown is typical, he won the following year, but for a song that was far from his best.
Jeremy Irons for Reversal of Fortune. Now, I love Jeremy Irons, and I’m not saying his performance was bad. But it should have gone to Robert DeNiro for Awakenings, but it couldn’t, because the previous Best Actor had been Daniel Day Lewis for My Left Foot, and the one before that had been Dustin Hoffman for Rain Man, and they had to break the Poor Afflicted SOB streak.
Oh, and Best Actress for Children of a Lesser God was Marlee Matlin. Wow, she did such a job playing a deaf woman, didn’t she. But, I have to disagree with the person who dissed Geena Davis for Accidental Tourist. I thought her performance was the only thing that saved the film from being a total snoozefest.
Braveheart stunk. But so did all of the other nominees that year. The only good movies from that whole year were 12 Monkeys and The Usual Suspects but neither one got nominated.
Al Pacino for Scent of a Woman. You want someone to stare at a point off screen without blinking and yell Hoo-ah? I can do that. (otherwise, pacino is one of my faves)
Dustin Hoffman for Rain Main. You want me to stare at a point off screen and go “forty two forty two forty two”? I can do that.
I never saw The English Patient, but I can’t believe it was better than Fargo.
Fair enough, and I’ve had similar knee-jerks… but you did read the title of the thread before you opened it, didn’t you? That complaint applies equally to every single movie, actor, director, song, and what-have-you mentioned in here. Why single out Anduril? Especially since he was hardly the first person to bring up the big boat?