Flashback Five - The Worst Best Pictures in Oscar History
Every year, Academy members give moviegoers at least one reason to begrudge and bemoan them. This, of course, is half the fun of the Oscars. In this edition of Flashback Five, we look at the Best Picture winners we've found to be the most undeserving -- and name the movie that history and heartfelt passions have shown to be that year's real winner.
4. 1965: My Fair Lady (Real Best Picture: Dr. Strangelove)
My Fair Lady is a very good stage-to-screen adaptation of a beloved musical. Compared with Dr. Strangelove -- morbid, funny, scary, and still relevant -- My Fair Lady seems more like a mere trifle.
5. 1999: Shakespeare in Love (Real Best Picture: Saving Private Ryan)
Yes, there are problems with Saving Private Ryan's storytelling (most famously explored and exploded by William Goldman). But the technical accomplishment and power of Spielberg's World War II epic should have made it a shoo-in for Best Picture. Regardless, the biggest branch of the Academy's voters is made up of actors, and Shakespeare In Love, a light, slight comedy, is all about how there's no business like show business.
Honorable Mentions:
1. In 1980, Kramer vs. Kramer took Best Picture for a sensitive exploration of divorce. But does it compare with the power and the glory of Apocalypse Now?
2. In 2006, careful marketing and old-Hollywood homophobia helped the maudlin melodrama Crash, which won over the wrenching Brokeback Mountain.
3. In 1957, the hollow, star-filled spectacle of Around the World in Eighty Days took the trophy, but The Ten Commandments is bigger, better, and bolder.
4. In recent years, the Academy has tended to reward lavish period pieces over dramas devoid of moralism, which is why, in 2001, Gladiator bested Traffic.
5. The Best Picture Oscar in 1953 went to a star-heavy ensemble piece, The Greatest Show on Earth. (Maybe it was voted for by the entire cast.) Meanwhile, High Noon is now considered peerless.
Chicago = travesty
Hmmm. The question is, which other film would you give it to, Clayton? Gangs of New York has serious problems (It either needs to be a half-hour shorter or two hours longer); The Hours is so noble it's immobile; LOTR: The Two Towers is just more-of-the-same; The Pianist, a great performance in a good film. Chicago was a razzle-dazzle piece of showmanship; besides, my pick for best movie that year, Far From Heaven. wasn't even nominated. ...
Honestly, I would have preferred anything over Chicago. If you're going to award LOTR with a best picture, I would have personally preferred Two Towers win -- I thought it was a much better movie than Return of the King, which dragged on waaayy too long. I think the Pianist, however, was an obvious choice and a beautiful film.
I never understood Chicago as a musical -- I understood it far less as a movie. It's a pretty bland story with your basic broadway music and too much razzle-dazzle disguising how empty it all really is.
"The fact that so many moviemakers have tried to duplicate it -- and no one has tried to reproduce Gump's saccharine stupidity -- says it all."
Have you even seen Benjamin Button? This is a boring, longer version of Forest Gump that cost three times as much money to produce. Benjamin is not really stupid but there are so many other similarities to Forest Gump in this film. (if you don't believe me just google benjamin button forest gump)
I think your article is very subjective, thus irreproducible. For instance, I prefer Forest Gump to Pulp Fiction. To me Pulp Fiction is not morally challenging. If you want to be confronted with the topic of violence you should watch Funny Games (the Austrian original - 1997).
Of course I agree with you on Citizen Kane. However there is just no point in criticizing a mistake that was made by an Oscar jury almost 70 years ago. What do you think?
Well, I've seen the Gump-vs.-Button stuff -- and sure, there are structural similarities, courtesy Eric Roth, but the cloying tone of Gump is, thankfully, avoided in Button's more staid, less overdone approach.
And I do find Pulp Fiction to be a moral film -- if you think about it, every vignette shows characters deciding the hard way, not to do certain things even though they know there'll be a cost. And I've seen the original of Funny Games; it and the remake are great movies. But I think that Pulp Fiction's flash and flair distract from the seriousness of its intent.
And finally, there's not much point to a lot of human existence, and yet we carry on. The only thing, it seems, the Oscars are good for is to inspire arguments and discussion; why not enjoy that?
love each of your dissection ad the post mortem of the films. do u think Slumdog is yet another bad pick over benjamin.
Loved ur every dissection and the post mortem.
Do u think that 'Slumdog' is yet another bad pick over 'Benjamin' or any other?
I don't think Slumdog is a horrible pick; I like the film a lot; it's not out-and-out wrong like any of the wins listed above, anyhow. ...