10 Most Egregious Academy Awards Decisions
February 25th, 2009 by BarakThe Oscar winners have been announced. As expected, Slumdog Millionaire won all the major categories: Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Director for Danny Boyle. Sean Penn snatched Best Actor from Mickey Rourke, and Heath Ledger won Best Supporting Actor (big surprise…). The pick that made me mad was Kate Winslet for Best Actress. First, Meryl Streep deserved it. Second, The Reader is an awful movie and Kate Winslet portrays “a good Nazi.” That’s annoying in itself, and her performance isn’t that impressive: she came up with a reasonably good German accent, and she was naked during the entire first hour of the movie. I too can speak in a decent German accent with no clothes on; it doesn’t mean I deserve an Oscar.
To express my disappointment with the Academy for picking the naked Nazi, here are the top ten atrocities ever committed by the Academy decision makers:
10. The Academy ignores a group called Monty Python
Monty Python’s influence on comedy has often been compared to The Beatles’ influence on music. In their last film they even managed to explain the meaning of life. So why the hell weren’t they honored at the Oscars?
The Holy Grail (1975) melds the ridiculous with the sublime. This anachronistic social satire was an instant cult hit, generated a host of quotes, and even inspired a computer game 20 years later.
Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979) is a scathing send-up of religion and Hollywood’s depiction of it. This second - and tightest - feature film, directed by Terry Jones, does for ancient Rome what The Holy Grail did for the Middle Ages.
In The Meaning of Life (1983), the group explains it all in an episodic comedy that dares to take on the most “sacred” aspects of life - sex, food, politics and religion - and bring them hilariously down to earth.
9. Shakespeare in Love gets the Oscars, Saving Private Ryan loses
Saving Private Ryan did get Best Director, but the much inferior Shakespeare in Love got both Best Picture and Best Screenplay at the 1998 Oscars.
Director Steven Spielberg’s World War II tour de force chronicles the journey of a GI squad on a dangerous mission behind enemy lines. The first unforgettable 20 minutes of the movie realistically and horrifically depict the Normandy invasion as Captain John Miller (Tom Hanks), his second-in-command Sergeant Horvath (Tom Sizemore), and the others in the unit land at Omaha Beach. Saving Private Ryan is considered one of the best war movies ever made, while Shakespeare in Love is just another so-so period piece.
8. Kramer vs. Kramer gets the Oscars, Apocalypse Now loses
Kramer vs. Kramer is a well-observed adaptation of Avery Corman’s novel about the aftermath of a divorce. But to choose it over Apocalypse Now? The guys who made this decision in 1979 are nowhere to be found, probably in hiding.
The grueling production and Francis Ford Coppola’s insistence on authenticity led to vast budget overruns and physical and emotional breakdowns. It was all worth it: Apocalypse Now is a surreal masterpiece, another of the best war movies of all time. With incredible performances and beautifully chaotic visuals, it’s an absolute must-see.
7. Scarface doesn’t even earn a nomination for Best Picture
Terms of Endearment is a deeply observed drama about the intimate relationship between a mother and daughter, based on the novel by Larry McMurtry. This decent but unremarkable drama won all the major awards at the 1983 Oscars. Scarface, one of the most memorable and beloved gangster movies of all time, didn’t even get a nomination.
Brian De Palma’s gory saga of a Cuban immigrant’s rise to the top of Miami’s cocaine business has become something of a popular classic since its release. It’s been referenced in rap songs and subsequent gangster movies and quoted the world over. In one of his most memorable performances, Al Pacino stars as Tony Montana, whose intelligence, guts, and ambition help him skyrocket from dishwasher to the top of a criminal empire - but whose eventual paranoia and incestuous desire for his kid sister (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) prove his undoing.
6. Ridley Scott
1979: Alien, one of the best Sci-Fi movies ever, wasn’t nominated in any major category.
1982: Blade Runner, one of the most outstanding dystopian futuristic movies ever made, wasn’t nominated in any major category.
1992: With Thelma and Louise, Scott lost Best Director to The Silence of the Lambs, which is reasonable. But Thelma and Louise wasn’t even nominated for Best Picture.
2000: Gladiator got 5 awards including Best Picture, but Scott himself lost Best Director to Steven Soderbergh for Traffic.
2001: With Black Hawk Down, Scott lost again in the Director category, this time to Ron Howard and his uplifting, mad-genius tale A Beautiful Mind.
2007: American Gangster should have been nominated in a year when Michael Clayton and Atonement were.
Needless to say, the Academy isn’t big on Ridley Scott, and by now he’s not big on them. I foresee an Academy Honorary Award coming soon - I just hope he gets it while he’s still alive…
5. Orson Welles
Many consider Orson Welles the best director in the history of cinema, mainly thanks to two masterpieces. Citizen Kane (1941) is a landmark in cinema history and Touch of Evil (1958) is a near-perfect examination of the dark underbelly of society and the tragic downfall of a once-proud man. It’s amazing that Citizen Kane lost to How Green Was My Valley (John Ford), both for Best Picture and Best Director. Touch of Evil is worse: he wasn’t even nominated!. Welles was nominated as an actor for Citizen Kane (and lost), and once again ignored for Touch of Evil, although his portrayal of the racist Captain Hank Quinlan, a grotesque, troubled, and powerful figure, was absolutely brilliant.
4. Sergio Leone
This genius director never got the honor he deserved. The academy ignored him totally.
A Fistful of Dollars was the first true Spaghetti Western, and the first in Leone’s A Man with No Name trilogy, starring Clint Eastwood as the lone-wolf hero and a stunning score from Ennio Morricone. In The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, Leone used vivid Cinemascope imagery to depict a bleak and bloody American West, in this final installment of the trilogy. In Once Upon a Time in The West, Leone used techniques previously unseen in the genre. Close-ups, color, and Morricone’s trademark score create a tense and somber meditation on death, widely considered to be one of the best westerns in cinematic history.
Once Upon a Time in America, an epic crime saga that runs nearly four hours starring Robert De Niro, James Woods and Joe Pesci, gave the Academy a chance to compensate for their shameful disregard of Leone’s movies, but they failed to do so. Sadly, this great movie was the last one Leone directed before dying in 1989 at age 60 from a heart attack (and without a single Academy Award).
It all started in 1976 when Rocky won and Taxi Driver lost. Then came the outrageous decision to choose Ordinary People over Raging Bull. Martin Scorsese probably thought - That’s okay, they’ll make up for their bad decisions with an Oscar for The Last Temptation of Christ. Wrong. Scorsese lost again and Barry Levinson (Rain Man) was the happy winner. It seemed like Scorsese couldn’t possibly lose with Goodfellas against Dances with Wolves. Kevin Costner and the Academy were the only people in the world that thought differently. No Oscar yet…
Scorsese was becoming desperate, so he made Casino – a movie with De Niro, Pesci and Sharon Stone in her prime. The Academy wouldn’t have the guts to ignore such a movie, would they? Wrong again. Casino wasn’t even nominated. In 2002 and 2004 he was hopeful again with Gangs of New York and The Aviator, and of course he lost again and again.
When Scorsese lost all faith in the Academy and possibly also himself and mankind, 2006 arrived with nominations for The Departed, not one of his best movies. The guys at the Academy may be cold-hearted, but even they probably couldn’t bear Scorsese’s usual disappointed Oscar face, so they finally gave him the Oscar. Well-deserved, just not for the right movie.
None of Stanley Kubrick’s movies ever won Best Picture or Best Screenplay. He himself never got Best Director. May I remind you that we are talking about the genius who made -
Paths of Glory (one of the best war movies ever), Spartacus (an amazing epic), Dr. Strangelove (brilliant dark satire), 2001: A Space Odyssey (one of the best Sci-Fi movies ever), A Clockwork Orange (maybe the best movie ever), The Shining (one of the best horror movies) and Full Metal Jacket (also an outstanding war movie).
Is it because his movies never have a happy end? Is it because he himself is a misanthrope? It can’t be because he’s British: just ask Kate Winslet and Danny Boyle.
Probably the greatest director of all time, Hitchcock was too controversial for the square, conservative, boring people in the Academy (or maybe they do have something against Brits – Scott, Kubrick and now Hitchcock). He was nominated for Best Director 5 times (for Rebecca, Lifeboat, Spellbound, Rear Window and Psycho), and lost all five.
Strangers on a Train – ignored. Dial M for Murder – ignored. The Man Who Knew too Much, Vertigo, and The Birds – all ignored in the major categories.
After all of these outrageous decisions, the studios have the nerve to complain about the Academy members for tending to choose indie or foreign winners over the big, popular mainstream studio productions. Ha…!
To end on a positive note, I say to all the suffering cinematic geniuses out there: take comfort in the fact that you will be recognized eventually, just probably after you die. …
Search on Jinni for –
Breakdowns * Surreal * Masterpiece * Chaotic * Gangster * Gory Saga * Immigrant * Rise To The Top * Uplifting * Mad Genius * Landmark * Society * Downfall * Lone Wolf * Bleak * Epic * Betrayal * War Movie
Technorati Tags: Oscars, Academy Awards, Best Director, Best Picture, Slumdog Millionaire, Danny Boyle, Kate Winslet, The Reader, Hitchcock, Film, Movie
Popularity: 70% [?]
February 25th, 2009 at 5:39 am
[...] Jinni Blog added an interesting post today on 10 Most Egregious Academy Awards DecisionsHere’s a small readingThe Oscar winners have been announced. As expected, Slumdog Millionaire won all the major categories: Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Director for Danny Boyle . Sean Penn snatched Best Actor from Mickey Rourke , and Heath Ledger won Best Supporting Actor (big surprise…). The pick that made me mad was Kate Winslet for Best Actress. First, Meryl Streep deserved it. Second, The Reader is an awful movie and Kate Winslet portrays “a good Nazi.” That’s annoying in itself, an [...]
Add a reply
February 25th, 2009 at 10:22 am
I totally agree with most of the points here, but Streep’s performance in Doubt? Equally underwhelming. While watching the movie, I could totally see her completely immerse herself in the role, but afterwards I realize that it wasn’t that much of a stretch for her. There were few interesting nuances in her performance, and in general I didn’t get the sense that she did anything new. Granted, neither did Kate Winslet in the Reader, but she’s so overdue for an Oscar that I’m chalking this one up to restorative justice.
Add a reply
February 26th, 2009 at 1:36 am
this is a well written, inteligent, critical piece of writing! I enjoyed reading it very much! keep up the great creative thinking!!
Add a reply
February 26th, 2009 at 2:22 am
Stanley Kubrick wasn’t British. He was born in New York City. He did move to England for cost productions to make Strangelove, and didn’t make a movie outside of England beyond that — but he was an American filmmaker.
Add a reply
February 26th, 2009 at 3:37 am
I’m so over anything to do with the Holocaust and Nazi’s being immediately dismissed because of sensitivities from the Jewish community. Before I appear patronising with the statement that “some of my best friends are Jewish”, I come from a Ukrainian family that survived “Holodomor” - the starvation of at least 8 MILLION Ukrainians during the 1930’s (some historians believe the number that died was more than the holocaust). Having more of my family’s people die than those who died in the Holocaust is not a competition I want to win. Yet as an appreciator of art in all its forms, I can handle watching footage/vision/movies/doco’s with objectivity and praise/criticism where and when due. Kate Winslet deserved the Oscar over the other contenders, which was an easy field to beat. Even if it was restorative justice, give the woman a break.
Add a reply
February 26th, 2009 at 7:01 am
The Academy is made up of over 6000 members all who work in the Hollywood film industry. You are really arguing about a populist vote.
Add a reply
February 26th, 2009 at 8:32 am
You wrote a good blog unfortunatly you have absolutely no idea on the criteria for an Oscar. ITS NOT BASED ON WHAT MOVIE WAS POPULAR. Otherwise wouldnt you think, The dark knight would have been nominated for best picture?
QUIT BITCHING
Add a reply
February 26th, 2009 at 8:37 am
I wonder how often they (the voters) watch other movies. I’ll bet not often, hence I wonder what they base their vote on? Is it just a little like politics? Anyway, great writing here! Bang on.
Add a reply
February 26th, 2009 at 10:29 am
In no way did Scarface ever deserve an Oscar nomination.
It’s an over-the-top, mediocre movie.
Add a reply
February 26th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I agree with Alex. Scarface did not deserve a nom… not even a nod.
Add a reply
February 26th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
The oscars suck, hollywood suck.
Good movies never get the appreciation they need by mainstream audiences. Just don’t fucking watch those fucking prizes. the real prizes for fims directors and movies in general, fuck even the music industry is not what a bunch of smart ass guys think about them. Its what the real people, who doesnt walk on red carpets think about them.
As long as somebody really aprecciates it, theres no man in gold or golden globe that can be a bigger satisfaction than that.
Add a reply
February 26th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Scarface is one of the most overrated movies of all time.
Add a reply
February 26th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Scarface doesn’t…. DESERVE best picture?
and it never did.
Add a reply
February 26th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
10. The Monty Python movies are good and all, but none of them were one of the five best films in their respective years. Not that like any of what AMPAS nominates is, either, but hey.
9. Shakespeare in Love may not be anywhere near the best film of 1998, but at least it didn’t have that ridiculous, sugary ending that Ryan did. The Thin Red Line (one of the very few times AMPAS has nominated a film that actually deserved it) should have won and is the only war film released that year worth remembering.
8. I haven’t bothered to see Kramer vs. Kramer, but I’ll take your word that Apocalypse Now is the better film (it certainly was deserving of its nomination). That being said, Andrei Tarkovsky’s Stalker was the best film released in 1979.
7. Had Scarface even been nominated for Best Picture, it would number one on this list. That film is an absolute joke.
6. I like Alien and love Blade Runner. That’s all that is worth mentioning about Ridley Scott.
5. Good call on Welles. Bad call on naming only two of his many masterpieces - there is much of worth beyond Kane and Touch of Evil (neither of which are even his best film!).
4. Sergio Leone? Whatever.
3. I like Scorsese and all, but I don’t know if he’s ever directed a film that was the best released in its year.
2. Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange maybe the best movie ever? Ha! You didn’t even mention his best two films - Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut. Although 2001 and Full Metal Jacket are both masterpieces as well. But good call on him overall, he definitely should have won an Oscar.
1. Stanley Kubrick, as someone else pointed out, was an American, not a Briton. Hitch definitely should have an Oscar for the glory that is Vertigo.
Add a reply
February 27th, 2009 at 12:35 am
@Italio:
I was fine until you brushed off Sergio Leone. I always feel bad for those who quite obviously don’t appreciate westerns.
And the very thought of Eyes Wide Shut being a better movie than A Clockwork Orange is blasphemy.
Add a reply
February 27th, 2009 at 12:38 am
Saving Ryan’s Privates sucks ass as does Scarface. Scorsese continues his downward plummet and only one for an awful Departed out of pity. This list is awful.
Add a reply
February 27th, 2009 at 5:11 am
Ireally enjoyed the analysis here - there are so many movies that are clsiics and are ignored - it is unreal
Add a reply
February 27th, 2009 at 5:19 am
Nothing was more egregious than the 1987 Academy giving the cold shoulder to Howard the Duck…sneaking it to the Last Emperor..what a crock!!
Add a reply
February 27th, 2009 at 6:28 am
Scarface is not an Oscar worthy movie. It’s just a fun, way over the top (on purpose) movie. Not a serious film at all.
Add a reply
February 27th, 2009 at 6:52 am
Doesn’t this list simply place fact on the reality that the oscars were and still are a complete sham.
Forest Gump Vs Pulp Fiction - it’s all politics baby!
Bring out the gimps
Add a reply
February 27th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Take a deep breathe and chill out, dudes! It is ONLY the Oscars (Academy Awards) that are being questioned here.
What about the Golden Globes, BAFTA and other less incestuous and self-congratulatory recognitions of cinematic greatness.
I attach as much significance and importance to the Academy Awards as a litmus paper for “good movie making” as I would consider the colour of my turd on the toilet paper after an ass wipe!
It comes down to popular opinion, fashion, political correctness and who gives the highest backhand bribe to the judges. The winners of the Academy Awards are about as legitimate as George W. Bush winning his 2nd term as President of the USA fairly and squarly.
Have I made my point?
Add a reply
February 27th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Al Pacino’s accent in Scarface was ridiculous. Cubans do not talk that way. I grew up in Miami. My wife teaches Spanish and agrees completely with this.
Add a reply
February 27th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Can’t forget David Lynch for Mulholland Drive and Blue Velvet
Add a reply
February 27th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Scarface was pure cinematic offal. It was poorly acted, poorly directed, and so over the top it was funny. Like Showgirls. It was an exploitation film, and while exploitation has its merits, very few exploitation films (if any) have ever merited consideration for an Acadamy Award: Scarface is certainly NOT one of those films.
Add a reply
February 27th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
You’ve lost credibility with saying Scarface should have gotten a best picture nomination. That movie is entertaining, but so are summer popcorn flicks. It doesn’t make them good.
Add a reply
February 27th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I really really liked this article. Don’t listen to the idiots that post negative comments…they’ve probably never seen half the movies that you listed.
Anyway, great job.
Add a reply
February 27th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Scarface in no way deserved a nomination, and Apocalypse Now is boring as shit.
Add a reply
February 27th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
How about the fact that Shawshank Redemption and Pulp Fiction lost to Forrest Gump? Or that Brokeback lost to Crash?
Your statement about Scorcese are dead on though, Raging Bull is one of the greatest movies ever.
Scarface sucked.
Sergio Leone sucked.
Saving Private Ryan should have won.
Add a reply
February 28th, 2009 at 4:31 am
As a brit I would love to claim Kubrick, but he was indeed a New Yorker, born, raised and educated. This is an interesting article though: it contains a list the of the greatest director’s in history. Also absent in the Oscar categories are Kieslowski and Kurosawa.
I like Welles and Scott is OK, but really, nothing for Leone or Kubrick: that is truly remarkable; utterly astonishing.
Add a reply
February 28th, 2009 at 6:57 am
Yes finally someone gets it!
Howard the Duck - totally overlooked but with remakes of features and even 80’s Tv series we can sleep well at night knowing a Howard the Duck 2 must be on someones production list, I wonder if I should just option those rights now!!!
Add a reply
February 28th, 2009 at 11:54 am
For the lov of god, Stanley Kubrick wasn´t british!!
Add a reply
February 28th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
are u a jinn?
Add a reply
February 28th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
You got Tony Montana’s relationship with his kid sister wrong.
He does not have an incestuous desire for her; he is merely overprotective, not wanting her to lose her “innocence” with guys Tony deems as not good enough for her. This overprotectiveness is Tony’s ultimate character flaw, leading to the end of his life and empire, as well as the life of his sister and Manny.
Add a reply
February 28th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
How about Children of Men not winning best cinematography? It fully should have.
Add a reply
February 28th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Don’t forget that in the same Oscar year as How Green Was My Valley and Citizen Kane, The Maltese Falcon was ALSO released. I won’t say whether Kane or Falcon should have gotten the award, but both were FAR more deserving.
Add a reply
March 1st, 2009 at 4:47 am
The most interesting thing for me is how different people view the films that they choose to watch.
Cinema, much like television, exists to inform,educate and entertain although not perhaps with the same priorities. ( bums on seats)
I do not know what criteria the “Judges” use as a reference but as sure as eggs is eggs you will never please all the people all the time.
Add a reply
March 1st, 2009 at 7:28 am
If you didn’t watch the movie on the big screen, but did the pic and pan TV version, can you really say which is the best movie? Or are you simply relying on the made for TV edit to get your info?
Thank god for HDTV! Now we need a channel that just shows awesome movies….
And yes, Scarface was over the top and some bad acting, but it was the Goodfellas of the time… guys loved it, quoted it, and watched it while the parents were out. Don’t think it was that Oscar worthy…
Cheers on Kubrick, Hitchcock, Scott and Leone. All of them have made movies that continue to impress… Hitchcock’s movies are especially mesmerizing 50 years later.
Add a reply
March 1st, 2009 at 7:56 am
Stating that the Academy is an inbred, thrill-seeking, conservative and slightly racist bunch of people with little knowledge of art is a good thing that can be argumented in a rational way. The main problem, however, is their oversensitivity for language: the fact that, in this day and age, this incredibly influential institution is generally focused solely on English-speaking movies is simply disgusting. The staggering amount of creative foreign-language filmmaking makes the usual academy award nominees look dull and old fashioned. Of course there have been great revolutionaries within the English film industry who have been rightfully awarded for their efforts, but when presenting yourself with the boastful (and, in my opion, far too ambitious) title of ‘Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’, you must try to live up to it. If the academy had really been what they say they are, the film industry would have progressed at a much faster rate - and this could have ultimately made the world a better place.
Add a reply
March 1st, 2009 at 9:22 am
1. Orson Welles is not one of the greatest directors ever. He is respected as he created one the best if not most influential moves of all time but the rest of his movies were shit.
2. American Gangster was garbage. Atonement was a beautiful film (a bit of a snore) but deserving of the nomination. Michael Clayton shouldn’t have gotten it but that is a place that should have been taken by Lars and the Real Girl and a travesty is that Gosling didn’t earn a best acting nod for it.
3. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree about Scorsese winning for the wrong movie. Departed was only a so-so film while the ones that he didn’t win for were masterpieces.
Add a reply
March 1st, 2009 at 10:21 am
you sure like stating opinion as fact
Add a reply
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:15 am
So cute! Keep up the good work!
Add a reply
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:34 am
You forgot the year Forrest Gump won out over Pulp Fiction in several categories.
Egregious is as egregious does, Jenny.
Add a reply
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Scarface???? OK OK, I loved the movie, too, but it’s a REMAKE and not only that, but where, exactly, is Montana’s accent from? Yeah… I’m not sure either.
Add a reply
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:10 pm
This whole list is a wee bit obsessive don’t ya think? And “A Clockwork Orange” was a bunch of cliche bullshit.
Add a reply
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Good piece… Wouldn’t agree with all that you said on Scott, Alien and Bladerunner brilliant, but after that I wouldn’t have chose him and his film as the winners either.
Scarface is a cult classic, and I love it and even though it’s up there with my favourites I wouldn’t rate up there with the best.
And when it comes to Scorsese, god, has that guy been ripped off but the gangs of new york and the aviator weren’t the best, not surprised they didn’t pick up anything, they were grand but I wouldn’t have been surprise if they weren’t even nominated. The departed though I loved and I do think it’s one (of which actually there are so many) of his best.
Anyway other than those I loved what you wrote.
Add a reply
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
10. Yeah, right, Monty Python getting an Oscar. Love them, but I’d like them less had they been that mainstream.
9. Loved Shakespeare in Love. Was it better than Private Ryan? No, but it was definitely different.
8. Waaahhhh, Francis Ford Coppola didn’t get an Oscar. I’m sure the scads of money he makes kinda resolves that.
7. Scarface. You’re joking, right? Scarface (shakes head in disappointment)
6. I’d like someone to tell me exactly what is so good about Blade Runner. I’ve seen it twice; the first to see it, and the second to see what all the hubbub is about. Honestly, I think it’s crap. As for the rest, Alien was good, but not Oscar-worthy; Thelma and Louise… come on; Traffic was directed better than Gladiator, fantastic though it was; Black Hawk Down? there you go with the jokes again; I agree with American Gangster.
5. Orson Welles is just too fat.
4. More jokes? I thought this was a serious article!
3. Sure, Scorsese makes great films… films that are good enough for second place at the Oscars, and second place ain’t bad!
2. Stanley Kubrick, like Monty Python, is not Oscar material.
1. Alfred Hitchcock was fantastic
Add a reply
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Well, there’s a reason Citizen Kane didn’t win: The movie was based on William Randolph Hearst, and being displayed in such a negative way pissed him off, which is that time’s equivalent of pissing off Rupert Murdoch.
Add a reply
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:50 pm
I don’t usually say this, but you are absolutely wrong about Scarface. I understood you to the point that Scarface should have been Best Picture. Scarface is nothing but a string of F-bombs for two hours and it is a remake of what I can only assume is a much better film.
Add a reply
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Your post almost seem to suggest that hard-hitting high impact “man” films = good, family/relationship “woman” films = bad. Films such as “Pulp Fiction” or almost anything by Serio Leone are amongst the most pretentious ever made, because their self-conscious directors attempt to pass connoisseurship of their medium, technical dexterity and a willingness to thrown in some very portentous-sounding party pieces (”Pulp Fiction” and it’s ultimately meaningless biblical quotations, for example) as profundity.
On first viewing, such films do cast some very clever-looking fireworks at screen, but unless you’re hooked on frat-pack “had to be there” re-screenings, they offer next to nothing on return viewing. You poo-poo films such as “Ordinary People”, “Kramer Vs Kramer”, or “Terms Of Endearment”, but these often ruthlessly unsentimental works often cut deeper and reveal more unpleasant truths about human relationships at their most banal level. For all of their mastery of the art, directors like Scorsese, Spielberg and even Kubrick often choose (or chose) to abandon such lightness of touch in favour of manipulation, even though they are all capable on rare occasions of doing so.
Take Spielberg, for example, who has made himself the most successful direct in cinema history not by exploring the often difficult truths about our lives, but by colonising our sentiments by the quickest and cheapest means necessary.
“Schindler’s List”, “Munich”, “Saving Private Ryan”, all films of potential and truth, but all undermined and even ruined by moments of schmaltz that verge on the offensive: think of the girl in the red coat in “Schindler”, the supposedly redemptive and cleansing sex scene at the end of “Munich”, and the deeply disappointing pay-off at the end of “Ryan”.
Some films, such as the fantastic “Blade Runner”, “Blue Velvet” or “Mulholland Drive” are not, as you say, criminally overlooked, but just victims of their own subtlety, as it often takes years for these difficult films to assert their place in the canon.
Others, however, such as “Raging Bull”, actually lose their foothold. Like many people I spent the end of the last century in awe of the many bravura contributions that made the film seem so remarkable at the time, but I now find it difficult to take as seriously as I once did.
If there’s one clear-cut travesty in recent Oscar history, however, that must remain the collectively bonkers decision of the Academy to award the best pic award to “Braveheart”. WHY???
Add a reply
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:41 pm
how about Denzel “Malcolm X” Washington losing to Al “Hooo-Ahh!” Pacino in 1992? now that’s a travesty. also, neither “Magnolia” nor “Being John Malkovich” were nominated for Best Picture in 1999 — but “The Green Mile” was. barf.
Add a reply
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:46 am
Although aesthetically and artistically I agree with you on most (not all) of the picks in your list, the tendency of the Academy to overlook some of the most memorable films is explained by their avoidance of Genre films in general (by genre, I basically mean anything but the “Drama” section of your local Blockbuster).
The job of the Academy isn’t to vote for the most popular films - or even their favorite - but those that were significant to the general public, which, sadly enough, rules out Leone’s movies for best picture, and, yes, Hitchcock for best director.
If the awards were decided by Film Theory students and too-cool-for-school video store employees (which gives me two votes, whoopee), it might be different. But they don’t reward movies that totally changed the worlds of misanthropic teens, they reward the movies that made your middle aged Aunt Suzy who lives in Buttfuck, WI cry and talk about the injustices of various wars/societal expectations/fictional characters with all the other administrative assistants at the real estate office.
If I were a director, I would get off on knowing my movie generated crappy geocities fan sites and a spot in your local independant video store’s Staff Picks section a hell of a lot more than on an Oscar. Which is how these movies live on. Maybe if I was lucky it could head a Midnight Movie night. ah, fame.
Add a reply
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:48 am
I appreciate all your post and I find all the reading interesting. Only disagreement with what you say is about “Kramer vs Kramer” and “Apocalypse now”. Perhaps because I am not too inclined towards war movies, but I find Hoffman great, as well as the film.
Cheers,
Marco
Add a reply
March 5th, 2009 at 1:45 am
Thank you. I thought I was the only one that felt this way.
Add a reply
March 5th, 2009 at 1:46 am
This previous reply is to Alex who states that Scarface is a mediocre movie. I’m in total agreement.
Add a reply
March 6th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Hollywood sucks big time, if you care for some quality cinema watch European cinema, ok maybe some woody allen
Add a reply
March 9th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Scarface is still one of the best ganster movies.
Add a reply
March 9th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Sergio Leone sucked… is that a serious comment?
Add a reply
March 9th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
The Oscars are the most pointless award ceremonies with the highest budgets.
You don’t need a group of faceless people to decide what movie you should like.
Add a reply
March 10th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Just so you know, Kubrick was not British, he was American. He lived in Britain for a long time, but he spent his early years and much of his adult life in the United States, as well as being born in the US.
Add a reply
March 10th, 2009 at 10:00 am
barry lyndon was horrible. wet, soppy vaseline lens pitchaskew codswallop. but hey. people think it’s deep.
alien and blade runner are NOT all that is worth mentioning about ridley scott. black hawk down was a better film than alien.
so what if kubrick was ‘officially’ american because he spent a few instants during and after his birth there. he spent his FORMATIVE years in england. get used to it.
’sergio leone whatever’? how patronising. and how wrong. that you rate alien above any of leone’s films says it all. in fact, why bother refuting the guff of one so obviously misguided? case rested.
Add a reply
March 10th, 2009 at 10:12 am
yes, ismateo. you’re right about magnolia, being john malkovich and green mile. both of the former two being Great films in their originality. and how painful it is to be reminded of their neglect. in agreement also with Mark on spielberg re: colonising sentiments. green mile imo is one of the nastiest films ever made, and my most hated, less because of its violence than because the combination of extreme violence and extreme saccharine shmaltz. the subtext about illness and evil is really repulsive.
Add a reply
March 10th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I agree with the important points of your list. Hitch, Leone and Kubrick not being honored a true failure. Good work, however, I really wish folks would read the posts before commenting - really, Kubrick was not British, really? And finally, right on about Clockwork, please re-think the whole Scarface thing.
Add a reply
March 10th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Most of this list can be summed up like this:
[Something tough and macho, with murder, the military, violent criminals etc.]
should have won instead of
[something more character-driven, with women as likely as men to be the lead characters, involving depth of psychology and powerhouse acting but no car chases or gunfights].
Add a reply
March 10th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Ok, did I misread, or did you honestly complain that Scarface wasn’t nominated for best picture? Was it a good movie? Definitely. Worthy of Best Picture? Not a chance. It’s also a somewhat misunderstood film: at least for you since you think Tony Montana has an incestuous desire for his sister. He’s overprotective and wants better for her than to end up with a guy like him and his friend.
As for the Kubrick comment about being because hes British “just ask Kate Winslet and Danny Boyle”. I guess we can put that argument to rest! I’ll agree that most of the movies on this list are good films, but that doesn’t mean they deserve Academy awards. Scorcese is one definite exception. Several of his films were deserving before The Departed.
Add a reply
March 16th, 2009 at 12:31 am
[...] Historicos olvidos e injusticias de la Academia con los Oscarsblog.jinni.com/2009/02/10-most-egregious-academy-awards-deci… por sevilla92 hace pocos segundos [...]
Add a reply
March 16th, 2009 at 1:40 am
[...] el sector cinéfilo de las típicas recopilaciones en listas que nos encantan llega 10 Most Egregious Academy Awards Decisions, donde describen diez de las mayores aberraciones, injusticias, atrocidades, esto-clama-al-cielo o [...]
Add a reply
March 16th, 2009 at 4:29 am
11th Clint Eastwood Grand Torino is ignored by the academy. Although the awards have lost their influence and prestige in the latest years, this magnificent movie adds another key point to the absurd price event.
12th Morgan Freeman. What can I say? I’m pretty sure that he will only get a honour award the day he retires. But the entire film industry should recognize his magnificent acting work on (almost) every movie he works in.
Add a reply
March 16th, 2009 at 4:33 am
Agree with chris. Shawshank redemption is Top #1 in imdb and i haven’t met anyone who says that movie didn’t deserve an Academy Award. I think it is the major atrocity in history of Oscars.
In any case, do you still think winning an oscar makes a movie better than other? I don’t think so.
Add a reply
March 16th, 2009 at 9:11 am
and jean claude van-damme? and Arnold, Jackie Chan, jet lee, Antonio Banderas…..?
Add a reply
March 16th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
[...] 10. The Academy ignores a group called Monty Python 9. Shakespeare in Love gets the Oscars, Saving Private Ryan loses 8. Kramer vs. Kramer gets the Oscars, Apocalypse Now loses 7. Scarface doesn’t even earn a nomination for Best Picture 6. Ridley Scott 5. Orson Welles 4. Sergio Leone 3. Martin Scorsese 2. Stanley Kubrick 1. Alfred Hitchcock 10 Most Egregious Academy Awards Decisions [...]
Add a reply
March 17th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
They (The Academy) forgot the genius of Peter Sellers
Add a reply
March 18th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
CHAPLIN !!!! Can anyone imagine that the genius of Charles Chaplin only got honorary awards and an award for “Best Music”? Probably the man that made cinema the profitable business that the Academy enjoys !
Add a reply
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
you are absolutely out of your mind if you think american gangster was a better movie than michael clayton.
Add a reply
March 30th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
[...] una web que ha clasificado las 10 atrocidades cometidas por la Academia de las Artes y las Ciencias Cinematográficas de Hollywood en la [...]
Add a reply
April 11th, 2009 at 7:05 am
My view, for the #1 spot, and the reason I NEVER watch the Award ceremony, is that Julie Andrews did not win best actress for the Sound of Music.
Add a reply
April 18th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
[...] bookmarks tagged egregious 10 Most Egregious Academy Awards Decisions - Jinni… saved by 3 others x0MissJ0x bookmarked on 04/18/09 | [...]
Add a reply
May 29th, 2009 at 11:05 am
The best movies stand the test of time and get the glory in the court of public opinion.
Add a reply
May 29th, 2009 at 11:57 am
A better mention on the list (over half of what’s actually there) would be last year, when WALL-E, the best reviewed film of the year and on most critics’ top ten lists, didn’t even earn a Best Pic nom, not to mention losing in shoo-in categories like sound simply because it was “animated”.
Add a reply
May 31st, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Good list, but I have to disagree with Saving Private Ryan / Shakespeare in Love. I think they got it right. Saving Private Ryan had a great opening scene but it had no connection to the rest of the rather mundane movie. Shakespeare in Love was very fresh and smart, and would be almost impossible to do any better. Plus, it was good to see a comedy win for once.
Add a reply
July 8th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
[...] Monty Python & The Meaning of Life blog.jinni.com [...]
Add a reply