Oscar revote
Entertainment Weekly is apparently launching an Oscar revote, in which a whole bunch of Hollywood people are going to play the role of revisionist historians and decide if the award winners . Basically it's a statement on which movies hold up the best, but it also may reflect how much impact ad campaigns have on the awards.
I think this is a great idea. While I believe the Academy Awards are mostly an excuse for Hollywood to pat each other on the back for whatever good output they've had the previous year (often a depressingly scant amount), they're still interesting to pay attention to, and they do occasionally unearth some diamonds in the rough. And they've been woefully misguided in many of their choices over the years.
By the way, for the years they're doing, here are what should be the Best Picture winners in the revised Oscars:
Other egregiously incorrect years that should be corrected include 2005 ("Brokeback Mountain" over "Crash"), 2000 ("Almost Famous" over "Gladiator", even though it wasn't nominated because the Academy are idiots), 1997 ("L.A. Confidential" over "Titanic"), 1996 ("Fargo" over "The English Patient"), 1979 ("Apocalypse Now" over "Kramer vs. Kramer"), 1971 ("A Clockwork Orange" over "The French Connection"), 1951 ("A Streetcar Named Desire" over "An American in Paris"), and of course, 1941 ("Citizen Kane" over "How Green Was My Valley", probably the most infamous of Academy oversights).
"I could have been wild and I could have been free
But nature played this trick on me"
- the Smiths, Pretty Girls Make Graves
I think this is a great idea. While I believe the Academy Awards are mostly an excuse for Hollywood to pat each other on the back for whatever good output they've had the previous year (often a depressingly scant amount), they're still interesting to pay attention to, and they do occasionally unearth some diamonds in the rough. And they've been woefully misguided in many of their choices over the years.
By the way, for the years they're doing, here are what should be the Best Picture winners in the revised Oscars:
- 2003 - still "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King". The cherry on top of one of the greatest cinematic achievements of our lifetimes will always deserve this recognition. Were it not for "Lost In Translation", I wouldn't even care about any of the competition in this one.
- 1998 - um, "Saving Private Ryan". Sure, "Shakespeare in Love" was a delightful movie, but c'mon, this one was a no-brainer the first time. I'm still not sure what the Academy was smoking.
- 1993 - still "Schindler's List". C'mon, it's just an amazing piece of filmmaking. (Granted, I haven't seen two of its competitors, but dude, it's friggin' "Schindler's List" for crying out loud.)
- 1988 - the only nominee I've actually seen is "Rain Man", so let's stick with that.
- 1983 - haven't seen any of the nominees, so I can't comment.
Other egregiously incorrect years that should be corrected include 2005 ("Brokeback Mountain" over "Crash"), 2000 ("Almost Famous" over "Gladiator", even though it wasn't nominated because the Academy are idiots), 1997 ("L.A. Confidential" over "Titanic"), 1996 ("Fargo" over "The English Patient"), 1979 ("Apocalypse Now" over "Kramer vs. Kramer"), 1971 ("A Clockwork Orange" over "The French Connection"), 1951 ("A Streetcar Named Desire" over "An American in Paris"), and of course, 1941 ("Citizen Kane" over "How Green Was My Valley", probably the most infamous of Academy oversights).
"I could have been wild and I could have been free
But nature played this trick on me"
- the Smiths, Pretty Girls Make Graves
4 Comments:
This is pretty cool. I agree with what you said for all of the years they're doing (including innability to comment some years). As far as other mistakes though...
2005... This was a really weak year. I haven't seen Crash, but I really didn't think Brokeback was Best Picture material; the "plot" is more accurately described as a thought experiment acted out. I probably would have gone with Good Night, and Good Luck (though I haven't seen them all).
2004 should have been The Aviator.
2001 should have been Moulin Rouge or LOTR.
2000... I actually haven't seen all of Almost Famous, but from the list of nominees I would have gone Crouching Tiger. I would also strip Julia Roberts of her Best Actress Oscar, since she in no way deserves to be recognized for acting.
1997 was a really strong year, and I've got no particular objection to Titanic, L.A. Confidential, or Good Will Hunting.
1996 - Definitely Fargo.
1991 - I know Silence of the Lambs is a great flick and all, but I would have gone with Beauty and the Beast.
1977 - I love Annie Hall, but Star Wars should have won. Or maybe Empire Strikes Back should have been nominated in '80, and won then. I wouldn't have minded Raiders of the Lost Ark winning in '81 either.
That's enough opinions from me though... For now.
I'll be interested to see some of the results for the non-Best Picture awards. For example, the 1998 Best Actor award - three extremely strong performances, but the one that won (Roberto Benigni for Life is Beautiful) has faded from memory somewhat while Tom Hanks' Saving Private Ryan work and Edward Norton's amazing job in American History X have grown in esteem...
Also, I think we should redo the 1989 Oscars. One, it was a great year for movies (so good that even "Henry V" and "Do the Right Thing" got left out). Two, it would provide Spike Lee a reminder to get the year right in his speeches, so he doesn't smack down undeserving college kids :)
I'm happy to see you're using a modified version of the phrase I use for the Lord of the Rings series - "The Cinematic Achievement of Our Lifetime."
Post a Comment
<< Home