Man, I thought Paul Haggis was keeping busy writing anti-Scientology stuff?
I’m not sure I agree; but you’re likely to see more of the same this year when The King’s Speech wins over the more non-traditional movies that have been nominated.
Titanic was total and utter tripe.
It couldn’t have insulted my intelligence more if it had dissed my intelligences mother, and my intelligences sexual performance.
I think that may have more to do with it being a British film with very British subject matter.
-
I agree with you about Brokeback Mountain. This does not make Crash a good movie. As I posted above, I think Good Night and Good Luck or Munich were much more deserving.
-
You still aren’t making a case for Crash being a good movie. Yes, racism exists to some degree almost everywhere. But just because a movie addresses important social issues does not make it a good movie. As someone said: it’s not what a movie is about, it’s how the movie is about what it’s about.
I saw another list a while back that rannked all the Best Picture winners and I remember that dude having Chariots of Fire low on his list as well. I too am befuddled.
Out of Africa takes the cake for me, because while I feel movies like Crash and Forrest Gump were not Best Pictures, I at least enjoyed them. Out of Africa put me to sleep.
I hate Ridley Scott. And Akiva Goldsmith. Between Russell Crowe and the combination of the two of them I found out that there were two best pictures in Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind. Also Robin Hood: Ye olde civics lesson.
I don’t like disingenuous films that portray pseudo-history as bona fide fact. Ridley Scott did that three times (I presume Kingdom of Heaven was more made up B.S. pretend history around the Crusades, but refused to see it. I did see Robin Hood, though. I was not amused.) I remember all the lead up and hype to it about how it was a historical drama. I didn’t KNOW, however, that Gladiator won an oscar until I read this thread. I guess I forgot, or never paid attention. I didn’t watch that movie until three years ago.
I will argue vociferously, with as much internet trolling and sophistry as I can muster, that **300 **was an infinitely better movie in that genre than Gladiator. The action and the visuals were far more entertaining. And even though either one could probably be dissected by a scholar of the classics in 30 seconds flat, 300 never tried to pretend it was more than an opera based on Herodotus’ tabloid history. No one saw the Persian Kabuke warriors on screen and thought, “Wow, that’s exactly how it was back then. King Xerxes looked just like Dennis Rodman!” There was a wink and a nudge to the audience as you watched this celluloid masterpiece that this was all fake.
You don’t get this in Gladiator, even though it deviates as much, if not MORE, from the original history. For me, it ruins any chance of loving the picture. If he made a wholesale Roman epic from scratch, that’s one thing. But this is borrowed from bits and pieces of real history to make a scam narrative, and I don’t care for it. If 300 didn’t get every stupid fratboy in the known multiverse imitating Gerard Butler’s lines, I think it deserved to at least make a short list, if not get a nomination.
Incidentally, there’s a movie called Gladiator that’s on TBS every now and then when I can’t sleep. It has Cuba Gooding Junior in it, and it’s about these kids that make money in an underground boxing circuit. I’d much prefer to watch that Gladiator, and use the 54 minutes I saved by ranting about how much the longer Gladiator sucked. 
I agree that Gladiator was an awful BP choice, and I also liked 300 for what it was, but I’m curious: given your distaste for pseudo-history, what did you think of the Best Picture “historical” epic Braveheart? Personally, I really liked it despite the liberties it took with the actual historical facts.
I was never under the impression that Gladiator had any pretensions towards historicism. And Robin Hood… well, I didn’t see his Robin Hood, and I heard it wasn’t very good, but the guy’s a folktale. There’s some debate over whether he was based on a real character, but even if he was, Robin Hood and history parted ways about five hundred years before the invention of the cinema, so it seems an odd criticism to hang on Ridley Scott’s version.
No, see, I understand that what we know of R.H. (if he was, in fact a historical figure) is based largely on Medieval Song and folk tales. But he takes that whole body of literature, film and folk tales that preceded it, and decides to make the plucky archer from the woods this dark and serious man who rides on horseback, and, IIRC, doesn’t shoot a SINGLE arrow until the last fifteen seconds of the movie. If you’re going to deviate THAT FAR from the popular story, give the audience forewarning.
[Spoiler] So he comes back from France with King Richard, sieging castles and helping this evil King loot and pillage and steal. Ok. He wasn’t ORIGINALLY a loyalist of King Richard in the tales. Then, when he gets back to England from the Crusade he decides that England should have rights and privelages bestowed to each and every one of its citi–er, sorry, nobles. Yes, Robin Hood wrote the Magna Carta.
And then, to save his beloved Nation-state of England from those Goddamned French (who certainly weren’t the exact same people as the English Nobility; they had different accents and everything!) He helps King John defend his crown as they repeal the French invasion by William, Duke of Normandy. Or sorry, whichever king of France was invading this time.
Then, in the last scene of the film, he shoots an arrow to scare the bejesus out of the sheriff of Nottingham, and does some actual looting and pillaging for a change.
“Oh!” exclaims you, the hapless audience. “There’s the Robin Hood I recognize. I had no idea this was a prequel to the tale that’s been rehashed dozens and dozens of times. Perhaps you can understand my confusion, as this movie was titled ROBIN HOOD.” [/spoiler]
Maybe I’m being completely unreasonable with this one, though the movie had no other redeeming qualities as an action film, either. I’m not as much of a Medieval history buff as I’d like to be. I stand by my hate-on for Gladiator. And I’ve never seen Braveheart in its entirety, in part because I was afraid of ruining my man crush on Mad Max Mel. Ditto for “The Patriot.” But since he’s done a pretty good job of that himself in the past few years, I think I may be safe to see it now.
Ridley Scott did make one of my all-time favorite movies that was based on actual events, Black Hawk Down
And did a fairly accurate job of it, according to the commentary track by some of the soldiers who were actually involved in the battle.
Well, glad to hear he has some redeeming films. *Gladiator *is not one of them for me.
“The English Patient” is an absolutely miserable excuse for a movie, IMO. Third-degree burns were too good for that asshat. That such an atrocious movie beat out “Fargo” is mind boggling.
I will go on record (again) for saying that I love “Out of Africa.” I don’t care that it prettifies colonial exploitation. I don’t care if it doesn’t even scratch the surface of what a bizarre person Karen Blixen was, and how peculiar her relationships were. I don’t care if it’s ridiculous for a hunter to descry the loss of the African wilderness as if he were a member of the Sierra Club. It’s a beautiful movie.
Hmm. I like both “Oliver!” and “Chariots of Fire”.
When I was about eleven years old I played the soundtrack to “Oliver!” over and over. It’s etched into my memory.
I’m of the opinion that the Best Picture Oscar should only be voted on after a 3 year lag. I’ll bet things would look a lot different.
I think you’re right on that one, all too many movies gain undue prominence due to passing fashion or new gimicry.
Once the new tech, or the darling of the media becomes old hat then the film is seen at its true worth, which quite often isn’t much.
I think with Titanic people were wowed by the computer graphics (though they seem pretty lame now) and were blind to how dire the movie actually was.
Yep… too often there’s too much emotion tied into a movie. Maybe have a category for cinematic achievement for movies like titanic; but to me the litmus test of a movie you’re calling Best Picture should be that I’m willing to watch it again (and maybe even again and again) several years later.
My favorite year to pick on is 1994 because I absolutely hated that Forrest Gump beat pulp fiction. I liked Forrest Gump, but I don’t feel it was better than either Pulp Fiction or The Shawshank Redemption (I never saw Quiz Show). I’d like to think that given a couple of years before the final decision was made that something else would have won.
IMHO, I think a lot of people mistake the intentions of the Best Picture award and think it needs to go to the most “artistic”, “literate”, “insert-artistic-adjective-here” movie of the year. But, unlike all the other awards given out that night, Best Picture is not an artistic award - it’s a business award, the film industry’s equivalent to, say, Fortune Magazine giving a “CEO of the Year” award.
To me, the biggest clue to this is that none of the talent is given the award for Best Picture - the award goes to the producers of the film, the people who, either by their connections or their willingness to finance the film, are ultimately responsible for the organization, production, and distribution of the movie. The producers hire the people who hire the talent (director, casting director, artistic director, etc) and they are in charge of hiring the people who do the accounting, logistics, and other business functions involved in a $60 million production. They’re also responsible for finding funding, making sure investors earn a good ROI, and etc, etc, etc.
So I have no problem with Titanic winning Best Picture - without a doubt, it was the production of 1997 - a troubled shoot, wildly over-budget, PCP poisoning of the cast and crews, actors and actresses pissed off at the director… somehow resulting in the biggest box-office grossing movie (real $) of all time, a film that spent 15 straight weeks at #1 in the box office (with its biggest week earning-wise coming in on week nine). It’s a classic showbiz story of the show must go on and, despite all the odds, still wins the audience on opening night. Given that, how could one in the industry not vote for Titanic?
Perhaps I’m extending your analogy to cartoonish proportions, but if it’s a “Forbes Magazine” type award, should it not go to the movie that makes the highest profit, either in terms of % versus production cost, or raw dollar amount?