Best/Worst Oscar Winners for Best Picture

[dearprudence]

Originally posted by Ted Cikowski
why exactly do you people have American Beauty on the worst list?
I'm with you on this one, Ted. American Beauty blew me away! I think Sam Mendes is a genius.

[Ghost]

Here's a list of alternate possiblities for the Academy Awards.The idea is to pick films that don't stray too far afield, and, except in the most extreme circumstances, Engliish-language. Generally, I will stick with films that received major nominations, as to keep it in the practical realm. This is not a "best film" of the year list, and keep in mind, it's off the top of my head.Didn't change all of them, when I thought they were worthy.

2001: Mulholland Drive
2000: Requiem for a Dream
1999: Eyes Wide Shut
1998: The Thin Red Line.
97:The Sweet Hereafter
96: Fargo
95:Safe
94:Hoop Dreams
93: Short Cuts
92: Unforgiven v. Howard's End tough choice
91:Barton Fink
90: Goodfellas
89: Drugstore Cowboy/Sex, Lies, and Videotape/Do the Right Thing (good film year)
88:The Thin Blue Line
87:The Last Emperor
86: A Room with a View
85::Blood Simple
84: The Killingf Fields
83:The Year of Living Dangerously
82: Blade Runner
81: Gallipoli
80: Raging Bull
79: Apocalypse Now
78: Days of Heaven
77:Annie Hall
76:Taxi Driver
75: Nashville
74: Godfather Part !! (But really take your pick Chinatown, the Conversation, the Parallax View, etc. )
73: Badlands
72:The Godfather
71:A Clockwork Orange
70: MASH
69: Easy Rider
68: 2001
67: The Graduate
66:Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf
65:Doctor Zhivago
64: Fail Safe
63 Dr. Strangelove
62: Lawrence of Arabia
61: The Hustler
60:Psycho
59: North by Northwest
58: Vertigo
57:Paths of Glory
56:The Searchers
55:Night of the Hunter
54:On the Waterfront
53: From Here to Eternity
52: HIgh Noon
51 An Streetcar Named Desire
50: Sunset Boulevard
49:The Third Man
48: Treasure of the Sierra Madre
47:??
46: The Best Years of Our Lives
45: Henry V
44:Double Indemnity
43:Casablanca
42:The Magnificent Ambersons
41: Citizen Kane
40: Rebecca
39:The Wizard of Oz
38:The Lady Vanishes
37:The Petrified Forest
36 Modern Times
35: The Informer
34 It Happened One Night
33: King Kong
32:Trouble in Paradise
31:M
30 All Quiet on the Western Front
29:??
28: The Passion of Joan of Arc
27: The General

[GringoTex]

Originally posted by Ghost
Here's a list of alternate possiblities for the Academy Awards.The idea is to pick films that don't stray too far afield, and, except in the most extreme circumstances, Engliish-language.

Great list! Let me fill in your blanks:

1929 - The Crowd
1947 - Black Narcissus

[Ghost]

Originally posted by Ted Cikowski
why exactly do you people have American Beauty on the worst list?

Ted,

You probably won't like this answer, but here goes.

Really, I don't have to do anything but quote the great critic Paulene Kael, who said of the film, "I didn't hate American Beauty. I detested it. Why can't liberals see when they're being blatantly pandered to." That basically was my sentiment.

The overriding problem I have with the film is that it has an utterly teenage mentality. Adulthood is all about sex. Drugs are entirely benign, in fact good for you. Escaping this world by running away is presented as a brave, admirable happy ending..It's a film that wants to make you think it has adult concerns, when ifn fact it has a devoutly teenage outlook. It might as well be 10 Things I Hate About You. I wondered if a 16-year--old had written the script.

Has there ever been a less deeply written character in a film than the wife? I thought Annette Benning dida great job just to make her presentable. She's a complete dartboard, and that's emblematic of the way it treats suburbia.

the last hour of the film is basically a sitcom. It goes for the yuck-a-minute approach without showing any depth.

There are so many more better takes on suburban ennui. I mean, has anyone seen Safe? The Virgin Suicides, I think, showed more complexity and detail in dealing with this topic.The adults in that film are real, even if they're wrong. Kathleen Turner turns out to be an overbearing wench, but i understand the concerns that make her one. I can't really say the same thing about Annette Benning.

Anyway, I really don't like the film, although it does have some nice moments.

[GringoTex]

Originally posted by Ted Cikowski
why exactly do you people have American Beauty on the worst list?

"Mendes's harsh and hyperbolic, if not particularly funny, satire of suburban angst makes The Ice Storm seem a nuanced masterpiece of engaged cine-humanism and wiseguy Todd Solondz look like a Swiftian genius. Bleak as it is, American Beauty has a certain car-wreck fascination but, with all the rubbernecking, there's no narrative flow. As studied as its title would suggest, this is one cold movie. " - J. Hoberman

[Ghost]

Originally posted by GringoTex
The following films have made both a best list and a worst list:

Silence of the Lambs
Gone With the Wind
Forrest Gump
Dances with Wolves
West Side Story
Casablanca (what is there to hate in this movie?)
Schindler's List (ditto?)
The Last Emperor


Personally, I think the first half of GWTW is a great movie, the second half a lousy one.

I'm curious about some of these.

Schindler's List gets criticized along a few lines: 1) no major Jewish characters die. Some critics see that as a failing of Spielberg to allow the real anguish of death into the film. Personally, I always thought there was plenty of death in the film, as is. 2) Does Spielberg exonerate Schindler too easily, i.e. gloss over his Nazi past? That's another question. 3) Spielberg goes for the big Spielberg moment at the end, when Schindler leaves the factory, and it thoroughly falls flat and phony.

Some of that is valid, some not and soem to varying degrees. But I personally don't think it can blemish the power of the film. And Ray Fiennes is so good in that movie that it's not even funny. Whatever happened to him? WE' haven't seen him in a while.

I personally wonder about the Dances With Wolves detractors. I kind of see the problems -- it's a vanity piece, it's about native americans and whites getting along at a time when the whites were sllaghtering them, etc. -- but it's also a beautifully shot film; an involving story, and a three-hour film with much of the dialogue in the Lakota language. It took risks, which is more than you can say about a lot of the best picture films

[whirlwind]

Originally posted by Ghost

I personally wonder about the Dances With Wolves detractors. I kind of see the problems -- it's a vanity piece, it's about native americans and whites getting along at a time when the whites were sllaghtering them, etc. -- but it's also a beautifully shot film; an involving story, and a three-hour film with much of the dialogue in the Lakota language. It took risks, which is more than you can say about a lot of the best picture films

Let's just say Kevin Costner is no Sir Lawrence Olivier.

His character in DWW isn't noticably different from his character in Robin Hood: Prince of Indiana, or Bull Durham, or My Bodyguard, or Waterworld. He's cardboard.
Contrast with Samuel L. Jackson, where Elijah Prince (Unbreakable) and Jules Winnfield (Pulp Fiction) and Ray Arnold (Jurassic Park) actually don't seem like the same person.

[GringoTex]

Originally posted by Ghost


I personally wonder about the Dances With Wolves detractors. I kind of see the problems -- it's a vanity piece, it's about native americans and whites getting along at a time when the whites were sllaghtering them, etc. --

Indian activist/actor Russel Means called it "Lawrence of the Plains," whereas a white man out-indians the indians. He also complained about the demarcation between "good" indian tribes and "bad" indian tribes.

He participated in "Last of the Mohicans" as an antidote to "Dances With Wolves." That aside, I think "Mohicans" is the far superior movie.

[DoctorJones24]

I wonder if it is coincidence that the two detractors of "American Beauty" have each had to quote critics to "explain" why it is so bad. ;)

I remember being somewhat put off by the lack of depth of the female characters, but there is as much to admire about that film as well: the performances from Chris Cooper, Kevin Spacey, and Wes Bentley, for instance. Bentley is an intriguing young actor, IMO; he is excellent in the way overlooked "The Claim."

For my money, "Magnolia" was still far the superior "modern angst" film from that year.

[Alberto]

Originally posted by whirlwind


Let's just say Kevin Costner is no Sir Lawrence Olivier.

His character in DWW isn't noticably different from his character in Robin Hood: Prince of Indiana, or Bull Durham, or My Bodyguard, or Waterworld. He's cardboard.
Contrast with Samuel L. Jackson, where Elijah Prince (Unbreakable) and Jules Winnfield (Pulp Fiction) and Ray Arnold (Jurassic Park) actually don't seem like the same person.

I think you have listed a knee-jerk reaction to the types of roles Costner has taken since Dances with Wolves. Many leading male actors do not act in films. There are a handfull of actors that transform themsleves in roles. You listed Jackson, he has also played a similar angry black guy in several films. Costner is an actor of limited abilities. However, he was well suited for the role of Lt. Dunbar in Dances with Wolves. More so than in the other films particularly post DWW, when he started packing in his performances. So while his performance or character type may not change much from one film to the next, it was a good performance in the film.

As Ghost noted DWW is a compelling film. It moved me. I went in thinking what can Kevin Costner bring to the table as the director and lead actor and he impressed me with this film. The fact that he tried and failed to repeat this with subsequent films shoud not be used to detract from the achievement of DWW. I also believe this is a film that has to be seen in a theater, not on tv. It loses a lot in the transition to the small screen.

To Russel Means, who said he out indians the indians, that's a cheap shot. Perhaps Russel view point is skewed and he should look at it from the perspective Dunbar embraced indian life and could not return to white society because of his experience. This is very effectively portrayed in the scene when the relief soldiers attempt to shot two socks the plains wolf.

I think the real reason this film is hated is that it's detractors see it as very long sermon. Many also feel that it's lack of dialog is boring and many bring a bias regarding Costner.

[Alberto]

Originally posted by GringoTex


Indian activist/actor Russel Means called it "Lawrence of the Plains," whereas a white man out-indians the indians. He also complained about the demarcation between "good" indian tribes and "bad" indian tribes.

He participated in "Last of the Mohicans" as an antidote to "Dances With Wolves." That aside, I think "Mohicans" is the far superior movie.

Last of the Mohicans is a great film, but I would like to know why we feel it is far superior to Dance with Wolves.

[Doctor Stamen]

Titanic was arse. This is confirmed by the fact Celine Dion-Dublin did the song. The special effects were goof though, and Leo died.

[GringoTex]

Originally posted by Alberto


Last of the Mohicans is a great film, but I would like to know why we feel it is far superior to Dance with Wolves.

OK- but please don't hold it against me, because you asked for it. :D

DWW is an overbloated piece of shit. First thing to expose is that it fails as a genre piece. The Western genre pre-"Searchers" worked as a subconscious analysis of the American experience. Whereas the gangster film defined the failure of the past, the Western defined the hope for the future.

"The Searchers" busted that narrative wide open, explicitly revealing that the cowboy/indian dichotomy was a super ego/id parallel. Ethan and Scar were flip sides of the same coin- each needing the other for self-definition. Ford would tell me to screw off, but it's a Cold War parable.

Now it took Hollywood about 5 years to figure out what Ford had done, but once they did, the necessary existentialism set in. Peckinpah and Eastwood (I ignore Leone the poser) made a series of brilliant anti-social films where morality is defined by the hero rather than the society (and where society is destroyed by that morality). The indian disappears in these films. There's no need for an id when you're confronting the super ego head-on. When an Indian does appear, as in Eastwood's "The Outlaw Josey Wales," he's become a caracature of Abraham Lincoln: more civilized than the hero.

Then the Western genre goes into remission. The next step, of course, is to give the indians their due. But Hollywood does not allow for that.

But along comes Costner, who decides he wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He takes a step back to the early 1950's where the Western hero embodies society's values PLUS he wants to express the narrative of the indian peoples. Well, the two are impossible to mix, of course (Costner is anti-historical), so Costner's solution is for the hero to restore white man values to the indian.

Huh? Yeah, it was a stupid decision, I know.

The final step is to prove that Costner is a lousy, lazy filmmaker (I like Costner as an actor, so this isn't a cult of personality attack). What Costner did in 3 hours, John Ford could have done in 90 minutes. Why? Because Costner only has the skill to show one thing at a time. He can either show you a landscape, or an introduction of a new character, or a moment of movement -- but he has to do it one at a time. This elementary school technique bores me to tears.

Did you know Ford never once paused on a landscape? He always incorporated it within a narrative direction. That's why he was able to film 40 movies in the same goddamn location and nobody cared.

But Costner gives us a one-cut to one-minute vista panorama and then chops his action takes into a million arbitrary parts. He wants to be Howard Hawks AND Sergei Eisenstein at the same time.

I'll praise "Mohicans" in another post.

[Alberto]

For me Costner pulled it off. Dunbar is sufficiently detached from the American experience or belief in American Manifest Destiny given his experience in the civil war and his request to be stationed in the far west. The character does not embody the qualities of the era. He is open minded and learns from the native americans. It was believeable for me. Films do not have to speak to us in psychological terms.

It is not out of the realm of possibility to believe that free thinking and open minded individuals lived in the American West at that particular moment in history. Dunbar acts as our guide to see the vanishing native american culture during it's twilight. He is the focus of the film and it is his story until he arrives at the fort in the high plains, then he is the narrator. This change is entirely plausible and believeable. I don't understand why you would have difficulty believing a man like him could exist in the 1870's.

regarding the differences between the filmmakers. The fact that much of the films dialog in the middle and latter stages is subtitled and the spoken word is Lakota is as Ghost pointed out quite a risk by the film maker especially given american movie audiences aversions to subtitled foreign films.

Regarding your points on the economy of John Ford's filmmaking in comparison to Costner's framing of landscapes. I think you have to look at the differences between the two filmmakers. Ford was an accomplished filmmaker. This was Costner's first film. Time was of the essence for Ford given the number of films he made and the production schedules of the day. In Costner's defense, I will say his choices for composition appear deliberate and set a tone and pace for a film. It is similar visually in many respects to Terence Malick's Days of Heaven. The two films have similar pacing and shots to set mood and maintain pace. Ford did not have the luxury in his day to make 3 hour films. In fact it friction with the studio was a constant source of heartache for Ford in his latter years. No doubt it contributed to his relatively early demise.

I would agree that the Searchers exposed the reality of the West with regards to relations between native american and the whites. Ford went on to make Cheyenne Autumn (his last film) that completed his work on this subject. But to say that because the prevailing sentiment was different than what was portrayed goes against most great literature and films where the hero struggles against the prevailing thought of the age.

[GringoTex]

Originally posted by Alberto

It is not out of the realm of possibility to believe that free thinking and open minded individuals lived in the American West at that particular moment in history. Dunbar acts as our guide to see the vanishing native american culture during it's twilight. He is the focus of the film and it is his story until he arrives at the fort in the high plains, then he is the narrator. This change is entirely plausible and believeable. I don't understand why you would have difficulty believing a man like him could exist in the 1870's.


I don't. Sam Houston, father of Texas, married an indian in the 1830's, and politically defended the Texas indian tribes untill his death. But I'm taking this film on cinematic terms, not antecdotal ones.
The Houstons were our exceptions.


regarding the differences between the filmmakers. The fact that much of the films dialog in the middle and latter stages is subtitled and the spoken word is Lakota is as Ghost pointed out quite a risk by the film maker especially given american movie audiences aversions to subtitled foreign films.


It wasn't a risk at all. Film is primarily a visual medium. Cast a Hollywood glance at any foreign language, and the subtitles become irrelevant. This has been proved by Latin American audiences who prefer subtitles to Spanish dubbing.


Regarding your points on the economy of John Ford's filmmaking in comparison to Costner's framing of landscapes. I think you have to look at the differences between the two filmmakers. Ford was an accomplished filmmaker. This was Costner's first film.


Yes, but I can only judge the film in its context. Ford made 30 movies before he dared redefine the Western genre (with "Stagecoach"). Costner misdefined it in his debut.


Time was of the essence for Ford given the number of films he made and the production schedules of the day. In Costner's defense, I will say his choices for composition appear deliberate and set a tone and pace for a film. It is similar visually in many respects to Terence Malick's Days of Heaven. The two films have similar pacing and shots to set mood and maintain pace. Ford did not have the luxury in his day to make 3 hour films. In fact it friction with the studio was a constant source of heartache for Ford in his latter years. No doubt it contributed to his relatively early demise.


Ford was in his seventies when he made his last film, so you can't say he had an early demise, but you're exactly right when you say he could not have made a 3 hour movie even if he wanted to. I would like to think he would have chose not to, but that would just be my Hollywood nostalgia talking.


I would agree that the Searchers exposed the reality of the West with regards to relations between native american and the whites. Ford went on to make Cheyenne Autumn (his last film) that completed his work on this subject. But to say that because the prevailing sentiment was different than what was portrayed goes against most great literature and films where the hero struggles against the prevailing thought of the age.

I don't blame Costner for going against the prevailing thought of his age, but I do blame him for wanting to mix his pro-indian views with his John Wayne impersonation. Again, John Wayne and indians dont mix.

Thank you for your very intelligent defense of this movie.

[Alberto]

Originally posted by GringoTex


I don't. Sam Houston, father of Texas, married an indian in the 1830's, and politically defended the Texas indian tribes untill his death. But I'm taking this film on cinematic terms, not antecdotal ones.
The Houstons were our exceptions.



It wasn't a risk at all. Film is primarily a visual medium. Cast a Hollywood glance at any foreign language, and the subtitles become irrelevant. This has been proved by Latin American audiences who prefer subtitles to Spanish dubbing.



Yes, but I can only judge the film in its context. Ford made 30 movies before he dared redefine the Western genre (with "Stagecoach"). Costner misdefined it in his debut.



Ford was in his seventies when he made his last film, so you can't say he had an early demise, but you're exactly right when you say he could not have made a 3 hour movie even if he wanted to. I would like to think he would have chose not to, but that would just be my Hollywood nostalgia talking.



I don't blame Costner for going against the prevailing thought of his age, but I do blame him for wanting to mix his pro-indian views with his John Wayne impersonation. Again, John Wayne and indians dont mix.

Thank you for your very intelligent defense of this movie.
Your welcome GringoTex.

Hey this is fun. Let's talk about a film we do agree on Michael Mann's Last of the Mohicans. I had the pleasure of seeing this film the weekend it opened many years ago. Went in without any preconceived notions. Well save one, that it wasn't going to be a Miami Vice episode set in period costume. Certainly, this is not a serious or message film as Dances with Wolves or Black Robe tried to be. This is film as entertainment. Mann succeds in delivering an engrossing film with wonderful characters and a riveting plot. The issues of differences between the tribes and their alligences with the French and English serve as a vehicle to set up the story and to establish who the good and the bad guys are.

I can't recall if Daniel Day Lewis had already made the Unbearable Lightness of Being (I think he had) or starred in My Left Foot. Needless to say I was stunned. His performance as Hawkeye was terrific as were all of the other cast members. Madeline Stowe was beautiful. Stunning! Great performance by Wes Studi as Magwah(sp?) and Russell Means as Chingachgook. The pacing, the editing, the cinematography, direction, acting were all first rate. This film ranks way up there as one of the great action-adventure-romance films.

I would like to know where the film was shot particularly the sequence near the end of the film on the mountain and cliff. It was stunning. Reminded me of Yosemite.

Your thoughts Tex?

[GringoTex]

Originally posted by Alberto

Your thoughts Tex?

Michael Mann, bless him, pandered to nobody. The film is about movement, and everything (indians, politics, white men, romance) was forced to serve this end. We talked about economy earlier and Mann practices it perfectly here. He takes all the rhetorical wind out of the politics of representation without shorting those politics. The most color-blind film I've ever seen.

[Ghost]

I don't know, Gringo ...

1) I"m not sure that feminists would extend their congratulations on the film's egalitarianism. It's pretty much a damsel-in-distress film, in which the only way for a woman to assert herself is to throw herself off a cilff. Women aren't quite completely ornamental, but pretty much so. I suppose that rounding out the female characcters could be interpreted as pandering to a feminist agenda, but I personally wouldn't interpret it that way.

Of course, we don't get to know the inner emotional ticking of the males, either They mainly do what their testosterone tells them to do. SO we're left with a world of duelng gender roles. The men fight over women, the women serve as the reward for the fight. Theiir only source of power is to award or deny the males their prize i.e. their only action seems to be a reaction to the male world that assigns their value.

2) Is'nt the fear that the savages will have their way with the pristine white women one of the central, gripping anchors of the audience's interest?

Agree with you on the economy of the film, although I remember thinking it was a little too fast-paced. THings are constantlyu on the move in the film.

Of course I"m doing all this from memory, so feel free to correct me.

[El Toro]

BEST
The Godfather (1 and 2)
Lawrence of Arabia
Chariots of Fire (a personal favorite, one of my absolute faves of all time)
On the Waterfront
Bridge on the River Kwai

WORST
Braveheart
Driving Miss Daisy
Titanic
Gladiator
Dances with Wolves

[El Toro]

Best film not to win an Oscar for Best Picture:

A little piece known as Citizen Kane