Watching "Spotlight" After it won the Oscar

Well that was underwhelming.

A good story, well told and well acted. An important story. There was nothing remarkable about it. Nothing innovative. Nothing about the cinematography, mise en scene, or the like was of particular note. As enraging as the subject matter should be, it didn’t enrage that much, perhaps because we spend so little time looking at the events directly.

Gosh, I’m not sure it should even have been nominated.

I guess I missed something.

Haven’t seen it yet; however, that’s how I felt about “Chicago” winning for Best Picture.

I’ve probably posted this too often over the years, but I’m of the opinion that Best Picture Oscar should not be awarded until at X number of years after the movie is made. Let some of the emotion die down first.

I think Pulp Fiction was a better choice than Forrest Gump. Saving Private Ryan lost to Shakespeare In Love. I think Fargo was a better movie than The English Patient. Goodfellas should have won over Dances with Wolves. Not that I expect everyone to agree with me on the above examples, I think everyone would agree that sometimes the Best Picture seems to go to the emotional favorite. I actually think that might be a good idea for best actor/actress etc. I look at it like being inducted into the baseball or rock & roll hall of fame. Give it a few years, and see which ones still have a buzz around them.

Important subject matter doesn’t always make for a good movie. Stanley Kramer proved that dozens of times.

I have yet to see Spotlight. I have not seen Crash, either.

However, Chicago is the worst Best Picture I’ve seen, at least off the top of my head. I actually hated it. Or was massively bored by it. Maybe that is the same thing sometimes.

Where is it written that a Best Picture Winner has to have something remarkable or innovative about it? Sure, some winners do, but shouldn’t the Best Picture simply be a solid film of story, acting, directing? A solid story?

Three of my favorite Best Picture winners are "Casablanca", "Marty" and "The Apartment". None had any innovative or remarkable about them. They were solid examples of storytelling that just happened to be considered better than all the other releases that year.

You weren’t enraged? Really??? Wow, you must have a more cynical outlook than I’d ever have. This film pisses me off for TWO reasons.

• The abuses that were passed over, the lives that were devastated, maybe even destroyed by a group of people who’s sole purpose is to enrich it’s followers and to aide in their faith. These victims were abused not only bodily, but mentally as well. And for the powers to be, rather than take actions so that practice wouldn’t continue, merely brushed aside… how can that not anger anyone.

• The death of REAL reporting. The kind of journalistic reporting that’s needed in a free society, to make sure abuses of power are being uncovered by a free and open press. With the disappearance of newspapers and news outlets, with clicks on news internet sites considered more important than uncovering stories, that should enrage everyone who lives in America.

Worts Best Picture Winner?
The Greatest Show On Earth"

A snoozefest to be sure.

I saw Spotlight before the Oscars. I thought it was a very good, but unexceptional, movie. I assumed the fact that it was nominated spoke to a lack of exceptional films last year. And I can’t for the life of me understand why Rachel McAdams was nominated. She’s a professional actress, she read her lines competently and reacted when her castmates spoke, nothing more.

On the other hand, I loved Chicago. And I thought Shakespeare in Love deserved to win over Saving Private Ryan. So go figure.

The innovative thing it did was tell the story without making it about the reporters.

For me, *Spotlight *was not just the best picture of the year, but probably the best picture of the decade. I walked out of the theater thinking that it deserved to win the Best Picture Oscar, although given the inconsistency of the Oscars, I didn’t know if it would win.

I think that it was the script that elevated Spotlight above other films, and of course the way the script was brought to life. The movie was as real as a documentary, without sacrificing the pacing that gave it the emotional beats of a drama. It was a thing of beauty, like looking at an extraordinary painting, or hearing a sublime piece of music. Just my opinion, but clearly one that is shared by Oscar voters.

I don’t think the subject matter itself was what made the movie great, although it certainly gave it emotional depth. I saw other movies this year that dealt with similarly meaningful issues but didn’t have the artistry of Spotlight. I was thrilled to see it win, and looking over the long list of winners, it’s one of the ones that will always make me think, “That year, they got it right.”

I’m not remotely surprised that Spotlight, a film that I didn’t consider the best of the year, won the Oscar for Best Picture. I’ve been watching the Oscars nearly every year for the past three decades or so, and I’ve seen a lot of older films too. Nearly always the film that I consider the best doesn’t win. Other times, although I don’t have a single favorite, the winner isn’t among the movies that I consider to be pretty good that year. I’m actually surprised when the film I consider to be best wins the Oscar. There’s nothing special about the Oscars. Every year there are dozens of polls, shows, and widely publicized personal lists about best films (and people working on movies that year). The choices of the Oscars aren’t terrible, but they’re no better than passible compared to other polls, shows, and lists.

I think you’d make a stronger point if you compared it to the movie you figure should’ve won the Oscar instead; even if we grant for the sake of argument that SPOTLIGHT was weak compared to previous Best Picture winners, that’s kind of irrelevant if “good story, well told and well acted” is also all you can say about BROOKLYN and BRIDGE OF SPIES and et cetera.

Never seen it.

It’s not really worth the trouble, but it is the last Best Picture winner to win only 2 Oscars total until Spotlight, 63 years later.

That bad…!?

I would have given the Oscar to Bridge of Spies myself, but Spotlight would have been a very close second.

The name of the organization which gives out the Oscars is the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and, from that name, one might presume that they do have a vested interested in advancing the science of film making.

But, that said, the best that they can do is nominate the best film of the year. If it was a year of dud films, they can’t nominate anything other than duds, nor can they do anything but award a dud. If there were good but no innovative films, all they can elect best is a good film. From the list of films that were up for the award, I’d say that it was a year of good but non-innovative films.

Other than the main topic, the movie did suggest that people are blind to the things around them and that it takes an outsider to notice. So it wasn’t completely one note. Though, largely it was.

That was pretty much my reaction to All the President’s Men.

I was enraged years and years ago when it happened. Catholic rape rings were old news when the events of the film took place, much less today. I can’t believe a well read person doesn’t alresdy know about this stuff or would not have known in 2001.

The movie seemed very detached from the victims and the coverup. It largely centred on the heroic journalists; a few victims were shown but largely as props for the heroes.

As to another point made I was even more amazed “Brooklyn” was nominated.