[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
Now whether you want to argue that they were more crass or sappy or maudlin or manipulative, there’s no denying that those films worked overtime for a genuine dramatic catharsis that the other films didn’t. I’m not saying that being a more emotional film makes you a better one, but it does often make it a more accessible and memorable one, and one more likely to rake in the votes.
So that’s how they won. You can disagree all you want, but don’t try to pretend it’s some inscrutable mystery. The answer is usually as simple as that.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah. ** Forrest Gump** won, didn’t it?
Well, I disagree with most mentions so far, as I usually do. Marisa Tomei was awesome in “My Cousin Vinny,” and you don’t have to speak with a British accent to be a good actress. Titanic was a good enough movie and certainly not even close to the worst movie to ever win that award. Apocalypse Now is boring and silly, and The Right Stuff was just boring. All IMHO, of course, but Oscar voting is all ISomeone’sHO.
You can also construct an argument that Tomei, Titanic et al. didn’t deserve their awards, too, but in a subjective thing like Oscars, where comparison between works is often nearly impossible, I think you have to come up with some REALLY strong arguments to prove someone definitely did not deserve their award.
The only acting award that stands out for me (well, that I remember) that really was not deserved is Pacino’s; his performance in “Scent of a Woman” was legitimately pretty bad. And even then I am sure some people could argue otherwise.
I was always very quizzical of why “Shakespeare in Love” won. Its female lead is a lightweight. The story was nothing special and the comedy was nothing great. The answer I got from one person made much sense. Miramax campaigned very hard for “Shakespeare in Love” and persuaded the voters and there was still a residual resentment towards Spielberg as not being a director of art.
I also realize many people did like this movie, but I never really have understood the Oscar worthiness. I would only rate the movie a 6 tops.
[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
Taking the question in the title quite literally: the reason that Kramer and Terms and Titanic won is because they were far more emotional experiences than Apocalypse or Stuff or L.A. Confidential. Now whether you want to argue that they were more crass or sappy or maudlin or manipulative, there’s no denying that those films worked overtime for a genuine dramatic catharsis that the other films didn’t. I’m not saying that being a more emotional film makes you a better one, but it does often make it a more accessible and memorable one, and one more likely to rake in the votes.
So that’s how they won. You can disagree all you want, but don’t try to pretend it’s some inscrutable mystery. The answer is usually as simple as that.
[/QUOTE]
“More emotional experiences”? Apocalypse ripped you apart at the insanity in an insane war, Stuff made you soar at the drive and determination of these brave men. Silence of the Lambs was not sappy or maudlin but it did fantastic with unforgettable performances.
But really, xenophobia cannot be the reason that Tomei won Best Supporting Actress. Why give an Oscar ™ to her for a very one-dimensional part when Redgrave was so dynamic in Howards End?
Kramer had fantastic acting from Hoffman and Streep and the film was heartwarming but Apocalypse…wow! Sheen, Duvall and, of course, Brando. The imagery, cinematography, dialogue, music all combined into a devastatingly powerful film. Where Kramer took you by the hand and pulled you in, Apocalypse grabbed your face and forced you to look.
Has a Best Piture winner ever fallen off the face of the earth faster than “Crash?”
I still see “Munich”, “Brokeback Mountain”, “Goodnight and Good Luck” on the shelves of video stores, but “Crash” lasted about a week and can be found in the bargain bins.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
I was always very quizzical of why “Shakespeare in Love” won.
[/QUOTE]
It’s a movie about people in show business: actors, writers, producers… Hollywood loves that stuff, just like they loved the agonizingly self-indulgent The Player a few years earlier. That particular year, though, had another Renaissance-era project (Elizabeth) and three WW2 flicks (Saving Private Ryan, Life is Beautiful, The Thin Red Line). I figure Ryan and Line split the war-movie vote, and the people who might’ve voted for Life were already satisfied that Schindler’s List won a few years before. As for Elizabeth, maybe Judi Dench found it easier to play the role better in her brief support in SIL than Cate Blanchett having to carry an entire film.
Personally, I like SIL a lot better than Ryan. The latter is more of an impressive technical achievement than a dramatic one.
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
Has a Best Piture winner ever fallen off the face of the earth faster than “Crash?”
I still see “Munich”, “Brokeback Mountain”, “Goodnight and Good Luck” on the shelves of video stores, but “Crash” lasted about a week and can be found in the bargain bins.
[/QUOTE]
Crash is on Blockbuster’s 10 Most Rented list as of yesterday. In fact, it’s the #1 rented Blockbuster movie.
The best example that comes to mind is Marisa Tomei winning for My Cousin Vinny. Afterwards people were wondering if Marisa had pictures of Academy members in compromising positions with goats. I mean, look who she was up against:
• Judy Davis in Husbands and Wives
• Joan Plowright in Enchanted April
• Vanessa Redgrave in Howards End
• Miranda Richardson in Damage
I felt it should have gone to Vanessa and that Marisa should was much better in In the Bedroom.
[/QUOTE]
1992 was probably my peak year for movie watching and I saw all those movies that year and I couldn’t have been more thrilled that Tomei won. She was delightful, she was hilarious, she was unexpected. I am an unabashed anglophile, but none of those movies gave me anywhere near the sheer delight that “My Cousin Vinny” did. I never crack out any of those movies to watch again, but “My Cousin Vinny” probably gets viewed at least once and year, and it wouldn’t work at all if the Tomei role fell flat.
This really goes to the difficulty of comparing comic and dramatic performances. Dramatic performances usually trump comic ones, they seem so much weightier, but someone I’m too lazy to look up right now once said…“Dying is easy, comedy is hard”
But really, xenophobia cannot be the reason that Tomei won Best Supporting Actress. Why give an Oscar ™ to her for a very one-dimensional part when Redgrave was so dynamic in Howards End?
[/QUOTE]
I suspect a non-trivial portion of the Academy may have decided that no matter how good Redgrave was, they weren’t voting for her out of worries that there’d be a replay of 1977’s ‘Zionist hoodlums’ speech.
[QUOTE=kurilla]
To add my candidate – “A Beautiful Mind.” Why it got best direction over LOTR is beyond me. LOTR was far more complex in shooting, logistics, editing, and so on, than ABM. (I can probably generalize this to any technically complex movie that loses out to a less technically complex one.)
[/QUOTE]
How did it happen? Easy. The Academy had yet to honor Ron Howard and they knew they had two more chances to give Peter Jackson a directing Oscar for the LOTR trilogy.
[QUOTE=carlotta]
Dramatic performances usually trump comic ones, they seem so much weightier, but someone I’m too lazy to look up right now once said…“Dying is easy, comedy is hard”
[/QUOTE]
The quote is usually creditted to Edmund Gwenn (best known as Kris Kringle in “Miracle on 34th Street”)
[QUOTE=RealityChuck]
Also, voters tend not to vote for nominees in films they haven’t seen. My Cousin Vinnie grossed $52 million; the other four films only grossed $55 million combined. It’s certain that more Academy voters saw Tomei than any of the other candidates, so when they had to choose one, they voted for the one person they saw instead of the four they didn’t.
[/QUOTE]
Huh? Are you saying the voters for the Oscars will vote even if they haven’t seen all the nominees in a category? That seems dishonest.
According to the Oscar website, there are only 6000 or so voting members. I’d hope they take it seriously enough to either watch all the movies in a category or abstain from voting in that category.
[QUOTE=muldoonthief]
Huh? Are you saying the voters for the Oscars will vote even if they haven’t seen all the nominees in a category? That seems dishonest.
According to the Oscar website, there are only 6000 or so voting members. I’d hope they take it seriously enough to either watch all the movies in a category or abstain from voting in that category.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. The studios send each member a copy of the nominated movies. I’m sure they could blow it off, but that would be a new low in Hollywood Suckitude.
[QUOTE=erie774]
“More emotional experiences”? Apocalypse ripped you apart at the insanity in an insane war,
[/quote]
YMMV, of course, but while AN shows the insanity of war, there’s almost nobody to identify with. Most of the characters (especially Willard) are underdeveloped cyphers. “Emotional experience” derives from emotional connection. There are things that struck me with awe about the film, but it’s more a technical achievement than an emotional one (I can certainly think of plenty of Vietnam films that are more emotionally moving).
But again, you only get to know the men as well as the actors’ skills allow, and even then, only Glenn and Cooper seem fairly fleshed out. Stuff is also insulated with a comfortable layer of ironic detachment. It has its tongue firmly placed in its cheek, and this is completely counter to what most people associate with an “emotional experience”. Again, YMMV, but Stuff probably resonated more on a technical level than on an emotional one. Yes, we’re thrilled with the achievement of Yeager & co., but compare that to the death bed scene in Terms, and I can guess which moved Academy members more.
I never said it was a hard and fast rule, but let’s look at 1991. What competition did Silence have on an emotional front: a cartoon and a Streisand film (and we all know her presence evokes all sorts of different emotions). I never said any of the films I cited earlier were sappy or maudlin (though some might think so). Terms isn’t, IMHO, and it also has some unforgettable performances. And Lambs isn’t just a police drama–at its center is a genuine relationship drama, and that’s why it resonated in a way that, say, The Fugitive wouldn’t.
Different people respond to films in different ways, but it’s no secret that on the whole, people (a) think drama is more “important” or “respectable” than comedy, (b) respond more to films that wear their emotions on their sleeves, and (c) are typically impressed by the largeness of scale and production values. It’s never a pat formula, but most of the Pic winners, especially for movies that date quite poorly decades later, are understandable if you use these tendencies as a guideline.
Often supporting performances win because they’re the most memorable part of the movie. Tomei is a lot of fun and is pervasive throughout the film–she even is the lynchpin in the courtroom scene. From 1992, Redgrave vanishes from the film quite early, and her history with the Academy is quite controversial anyway. Size of a part is important and Tomei’s was bigger and brassier then Redgrave and Richardson. How a movie plays is important too, and the Academy may have enjoyed Vinny more than April or Husbands. Combined together, it was clearly enough to put her over the top.
Personally, I think the movie’s a mess and wildly overrated–some brilliant bravura moments, but also suffering from overlength and lack of focus, especially toward the end (and the ending is key; that’s the lasting impression you leave people). In the long run, Apocalypse will more cleanly fit into the film “canon”, but I don’t think it’s a better movie, since so much of it flies off the rails. KvK has its own problems (I would’ve voted for Breaking Away that year), but it has a simple story that’s pitched perfectly for maximum effect, and sometimes, that’s enough for an Oscar.
[QUOTE=42fish]
I suspect a non-trivial portion of the Academy may have decided that no matter how good Redgrave was, they weren’t voting for her out of worries that there’d be a replay of 1977’s ‘Zionist hoodlums’ speech.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, I don’t think anyone’s worried about her doing it again–they just hate her for doing it the first time and won’t vote for her again on that past “sin” alone.
[QUOTE=42fish]
I suspect a non-trivial portion of the Academy may have decided that no matter how good Redgrave was, they weren’t voting for her out of worries that there’d be a replay of 1977’s ‘Zionist hoodlums’ speech.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=erie774]
Sorry, but in my OP I did say (bolding mine). So please do slam a movie where you already knew what was going to happen to the ship. That sentimental piece of tripe should have been sunk to the bottom of the North Atlantic (of course the special effects were damn good) with Celine Dion strapped to the film canisters. “My heart will go on…” Yeah, and my gorge will rise. Ugh.
[/QUOTE]
Holy tomato. I really need to work on my reading comprehension skills, don’t I?
Most women I talked with said they liked the idea of meeting their true love in heaven (or on the central concourse of a sunken cruise ship, whichever they prefer). When I gave my opinion I got a lot of responses ranging from, “Wow, I never thought of that,” to, “You cold, heartless man! He was her true love!”
At least her husband could have been there as well so she could have had eternal three-ways!
[/QUOTE]
Heh. My first thought was, “Do you really want to spend eternity with people you met LAST WEEK?”
Because, you know, it wasn’t just Jack that was there. It was all the other passengers.
