(UPDATED)Worst "best picture" winner of the decade - After 2005

[Big Magilla]

Just as the majority of voters in the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 voted for the clearly intellectually challenged George W. Bush, who was no smarter than most of them

-- Big magilla

OKay, so George Bush is dumb in your opinion, but this sentence, and the whole argument, suggests that Americans are just dumb (unless, of course, they agree with you). Oh, mighty one, you are sooo wise.

Oh, Criddic, what context did you take this out of? I can't find the original comment, though I seem to recall it. As I also recall, someone already corrected me on the fact that Gore won the popular vote in 2000 rendering my statment incorrect anyway. It doesn't appear I was referring to all Americans, just those who voted, which as we all sadly know, is not the majority of people in this country or even the majoirty of those who are eligible to vote. However, as that great Republican of almost 150 years ago said, "you can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." I'm glad most of the people finally figured out they were being fooled for the last six years. What will it take for you to wise up?

[Damien]

Oh, mighty one, you are sooo wise.

Deep breath, criddic, Your bitterness is showing.

[criddic3]

Just as the majority of voters in the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 voted for the clearly intellectually challenged George W. Bush, who was no smarter than most of them

-- Big magilla

OKay, so George Bush is dumb in your opinion, but this sentence, and the whole argument, suggests that Americans are just dumb (unless, of course, they agree with you). Oh, mighty one, you are sooo wise.

[The Original BJ]

Odd, I'd say the epic that will be remembered, or, rather, rediscovered, in the coming years will be The New World. NOT one of my favorite movies of the year, but, strangely, certain aspects have lingered with me the past few months. I suspect it may develop a cult following, if it hasn't already....

I agree completely, although it is one of my faves, so I might be biased. It has already developed a strong cult following.

My hunch for the film's fate is this analogy:

Crash is to Around the World in 80 Days what The New World is to The Searchers.

With the former films, people (will) look back in horror at how people could have loved them so. With the latter films, people (will) LOVE congratulating themselves for appreciating a film no one understood back then. (And I don't mean you guys around here who don't like New World, but the masses for whom the film never even registered as being on the radar.)

[Penelope]

Odd, I'd say the epic that will be remembered, or, rather, rediscovered, in the coming years will be The New World. NOT one of my favorite movies of the year, but, strangely, certain aspects have lingered with me the past few months. I suspect it may develop a cult following, if it hasn't already....

[Big Magilla]

Dennis, I was nodding in agreement as I read your post until I got to the last sentence - Jackson's remake of King Kong will be as fondly recalled as John Guillerman's 1976 version in years to come, says I, while the Merian C. Cooper-Ernst B. Schoedsack original will live on in perpetuity.

The 2005 epic that will be more appreciated in years to come is The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, a majectic film whose gretest sin was coming too closely behind Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, but unlike the Harry Potter films which took until the fourth installment to pique my interest, this planned anthology series hooked me out of the gate. It, too, is a remake, albeit of a BBC TV anthology series, and is proof positive of how the big screen can outdo the small when all the elements are aligned. I can't wait for Prince Caspian, which hopefully will do better with Oscar and its pre-cursors in 2007 than the Lion and the Witch did in 2005.

[Dennis Bee]

Good posts, everybody. "More than just a comedy" means either some major melodramatic elements to give the comedy "gravitas," as The Apartment and Terms of Endearment have in abundance, and/or an overwhelming literary pedigree, as Shakespeare in Love and Tom Jones unquestionably have.

Actually, this little "rule" makes the 1977 win for Annie Hall all the more remarkable. Very occasionally a social comedy like Annie Hall or The Apartment (I just now realized that both of Wilder's winning Best Pictures take place largely in drab New York apartments) or It Happened One Night can manage a win, if the stars--that is, the other nominees that year--are aligned just right.

For instance, Annie Hall's competition consisted of Julia (too political), Star Wars (too much a fantasy, too popular, too FX-driven), and the two Herbert Ross movies (too ordinary). The Apartment's competition was very weak compared to the hefty seriousness and epic stature of the movies Some Like It Hot was up against the previous year. As for Sideways, I'm realizing that a lot of people didn't get its mingling of grungy realism and classic comic conventions. The Academy may finally have recognized the Auteur Theory, but they still need to be served their genres straight, not shaken or stirred.

BTW, and I feel that I'm just stating the obvious here, Return of the King proves that the Literary Pedigree Exception holds for fantasy as well.

Finally, the voters have been settling for faux-prestige junk out of desperation in the last decade because the kind of social phenomenon that used to win Best Picture (e.g., Best Years of Our Lives, On the Waterfront, Marty, West Side Story, Midnight Cowboy, and so on) is now the province of the independent cinema, except for the occasional Spielberg or Eastwood breakthrough. There is a hurdle with the Academy that no indie film has been able to clear. Traffic couldn't do it, neither could The Pianist nor Brokeback Mountain. Unless the Academy can really come to grips with the "two Hollywoods," instead of just flirting with the products of the majors' indie subsidiaries in the nominations and the non-Best Picture awards, it's going to go the way of the Miss America pageant. In 15 years the Oscars are going to be on the USA network, not ABC, unless AMPAS turns around the way it votes on Best Picture. And BTW, the Academy ought to get over its hypocrisy--that set in when popular cinema went to teenagers for good in the early '80s-- about the films that studio Hollywood produces. Years from now 2005 will look bizarre, not just because of the snubbing of Brokeback, but also because Jackson's King Kong remake was ignored out of hand. These will be the two best remembered films of last year, says I.

[Mister Tee]

Yeah, Eric and BJ, I was thinking more along the historical lines Magilla documents -- add in Some Like It Hot, widely deemed the all-time greatest comedy, failing to receive a best picture nomination; American Graffiti winning nothing; and Tootsie losing even screenplay to the lumbering Gandhi. The preference for "serious" mediocre cinema over classic comedy has been an Academy hallmark my entire lifetime, and earlier. (Though I do think the bias has loosened a bit lately -- especially in supporting acting categories, where Goldberg, Palance, Tomei, Wiest, Sorvino and Gooding all managed wins for comic work in a short period)

Yes, certainly Shakespeare has a "more than just a comedy" tinge to it (though I apparently found it flat funnier than some here) -- but so did Tootsie and Graffiti, and it got them nowhere. I remember saying to a friend that, if any comic film of recent years had a shot at best picture, Shakespeare was it (thanks to its winning combination of elements), but still it was considered a long-shot, and its win is still called a shocker by the powers that be. (And, let's not forget, Sideways, despite sweeping critics' prizes at a staggering rate, was basically treatd as second-class citizen in last year's race)

I agree that this argument gets muddled by the many today who simply want to honor more popular films (those two voting Academy members who told EW 40-Year-Old Virgin was their number one movie of the year? Frightening). A weird phenomenon emerged in the 80s (alongside the commercial death of the serious film), and continues to this day: the $200-million-grossing comedy that isn't very funny. From Beverly Hills Cop through Sister Act to Austin Powers and Meet the Parents/Fockers, the lame level of comedy that draws out huge audiences is, I think, as horrifying a fact of contemporary movie-going as the empty-headed action films. (Only stacked next to this witless crew can 40-Year-Old Virgin seem like a real achievement) Anyone advocating Academy nods for some of these efforts in the name of "appreciating comedy" is misusing a historic argument for another agenda entirely.

[Big Magilla]

The comedy bias goes back to the beginning of the Academy Awards - Charlie Chaplin never won a competitive award - Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd were never nominated - nor were Laurel & Hardy, W.C. Fields or the Marx Brothers -C ary Grant was nominated twice for serious dramas, both of which were inferior to his great comedies - Gary Cooper won twice for his dramatic work, not his comedies - the great female comedy stars - Jean Arthur, Carole Lomabard, Barbara Stanwyck, Rosalind Russell and Irene Dunne never won - Myrna Loy, Jean Harlow and Mae West were never nominated.

Dinenr at Eight and Duck Soup weren't nominated. Mr. Deeds Goes to Town lost to The Great Ziegfeld. Bringing Up Baby and Holiday weren't nominated. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington lost to Gone With the Wind and The Philadelphia Story to Rebecca the year His Girl Friday and The Shop Around the Corner weren't even nominated. Sullivan's Travels, The Palm Beach Story, To Be or Not to Be and Woman of the Year all failed to win nominations the same year, which makes later comedy wins for great films like The Apartment and Tom Jones all the sweeter. Is Shakespeare in Love in the same league? Perhaps not, but it's certainly a better choice for a rare comedy win than There's Something About Mary or The 40 Year-Old Virgin.

[The Original BJ]

I hate to veer things off topic even further, but I must admit that I've never really felt, at least in recent years, that the Academy had a bias against comedies.

To be sure, there have been plenty of comedic films and performances I've loved that haven't made the lineup, but often the omission of strong comedy work (Almost Famous, Renée Zellweger in Nurse Betty) results merely from the inclusion of lame comedy work (Chocolat, Juliette Binoche).

Of course I can rattle off a list of great comic work snubbed by Oscar (Steve Buscemi, Paul Giamatti, Michael Douglas, Gene Hackman, Jeff Daniels, all tellingly from comedy-dramas) but I can also quickly list some comic work I'd rather had been left off (Dench in Chocolat AND Mrs. Henderson, Keira Knightley, Zellweger in Cold Mountain, and even more pure comic work like Zellweger in Bridget Jones and Johnny Depp in Pirates).

More often than not the griping about the Oscars snubbing comedies seems to come from people who would like to see Robin Williams nominated for Mrs. Doubtfire, Jim Carrey nominated for The Grinch, and The 40 Year-Old Virgin nominated for Best Picture. When was the last time you saw the short shrift given to The Royal Tenenbaums and Ghost World listed as examples of Oscar's comedy bias?

[Sonic Youth]

Ah, here lies the confusion. Didn't the "Oscar ignores comedies" thing only really start to become an Oscar meme in '84, when the comedies getting "snubbed" weren't just drolly witty but out and out comedies like Ghostbusters and such? Because, by those standards, Shakespeare in Love isn't funny at all and the '98 film suffering from Oscar's resistance towards comedies would be There's Something About Mary.

By those standards, Shakespeare himself isn't funny at all. If we're going to measure comedy by "how many laughs-per-minute" does the film pick up, then "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" is the funniest comedy to win the Oscar, and it ISN'T a comedy.

I think it's the perception of few out-and-out comedies winning Best Picture is what got the meme off and running. "It Happened One Night", "You Can't Take it With You" and "Annie Hall" are the only ones I can think of that fits that description.


But there's also the comedy-dramas "Terms of Endearment", "The Apartment", "American Beauty", "Forrest Gump". These films are comedies, but - y'know - they're much MORE than that. "Life is Beautiful" would have been placed in that category. Then there are the established dramas with comic interludes - sometimes in abundance - like "Rain Man", "Cuckoo's Nest", "Amadeus", "Grand Hotel". Then there's "Tom Jones" and "The Sting" which get thought of as period or genre pieces as often as comedies. And then there's all those pesky musical comedies...

But out-and-out comedy winning is rare.

Shakespeare's only funny in a pretentious, "oh, that's from Twelfth Night, in'nt it?" way that gets Landmark audiences all goober-throated with obsequious laughter... sort of like that Monty Python skit where everyone doubles over with explosive laughter at Oscar Wilde's tautological wit for what seems like minutes on end.

Yeah, there's that.

But it's also a romantic comedy. Also, a comedy about writers block and artistic inspiration. And also a satire of entertainment in today's times as played out in Elizabethean times. And there's even a little slapstick thrown in.

Maybe Shakespeare in Love seems like an odd choice when placed alongside the more Oscar-appropriate Saving Private Ryan. But when placed alongside all the other winning comedies and comedy hybrids, it's perfectly at home.

And let's not forget, SIL also had the most Oscar noms, more than SPR even. And it was at a time, before A Beautiful Mind, when such a statistic meant a position of strength.

[Eric]

Shakespeare in Love was not as ambitious an effort, clearly. But on its own terms --as romance, historic examination, and just simple pleasure -- I thought it succeeded utterly. We always gripe about how comedies aren't given their due by the Oscars. Here's a shining exception -- and people are still moaning about it.

Ah, here lies the confusion. Didn't the "Oscar ignores comedies" thing only really start to become an Oscar meme in '84, when the comedies getting "snubbed" weren't just drolly witty but out and out comedies like Ghostbusters and such? Because, by those standards, Shakespeare in Love isn't funny at all and the '98 film suffering from Oscar's resistance towards comedies would be There's Something About Mary. Shakespeare's only funny in a pretentious, "oh, that's from Twelfth Night, in'nt it?" way that gets Landmark audiences all goober-throated with obsequious laughter... sort of like that Monty Python skit where everyone doubles over with explosive laughter at Oscar Wilde's tautological wit for what seems like minutes on end. It's value as a comedy most certainly takes a back seat to its value as standard, "tradition of quality" Oscar-bait. Give it the screenplay award, by all means. But Best Picture? I'm ambivalent about Private Ryan and The New World has me wondering if I didn't maybe overrate The Thin Red Line. But both, unlike Shakespeare, at least fit the conceivable definition of the "Picture" in "Best Picture."

Anyway, we're missing the forest for the trees here, aren't we? The most popular "comedy" in the '98 line-up, and probably every bit the near-contender for the upset win, was that Begnini flick. Italiano aside, I think we can all agree that every other conceivable BP winner is a win for us all.

[Penelope]

Shakespeare in Love, a film that appealed more to women more than men and brought the notion that women now controlled the Oscar vote. That notion died a quick death when Gladiator won two years later.

I don't know that that's an entirely correct statement: Gladiator may have had the blood-and-guts action to appeal to men, but it also had a barely clothed Russell Crowe seeking vengeance for the murder of his wife and child and Connie Nielsen attempting to manipulate events behind the scenes partly through her once-upon-a-time love for Crowe's character and through her maternal instincts to protect her son--all of it presented in a very sentimental, commercial way.

As for the Ryan-Shakespeare debate: before this year's Oscarcast, that contest was the last time I had an Oscar party--and I'll never forget how, when Harrison Ford announced the winner, the entire crowd at my house leapt to their feet cheering. We ALL preferred the exquisitely charming, smart, delightful Shakespeare over the solidly pretentious Ryan.

[Mister Tee]

Just as the majority of voters in the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 voted for the clearly intellectually challenged George W. Bush,

Just for the record, more voters in 2000 voted Al Gore...

As I've said many times, I have trouble finding coherence in the voter quirks of recent years. In my most paranoid moments, it seems to me they stick with all favorites about which I'm not especially crazy, and upset the few for whom I'm rooting.

[Big Magilla]

1998 was the year that everything changed. Prior to that, predicting the best picture winner was generally quite simple. There were exceptions to be sure, but aside from Braveheart, even the exceptions were understandabe.

1998 changed all that. Saving Private Ryan was the presumed winner because it was a well-made war film, and well-made war films, with the exception of Born on the Fourth July, when they are the front runner, tend to win.

The problem was that while people generally liked the film, they didn't love it. Some thought the heart-on-its-sleeve look-at-the-trees-don't-focus-on-the-battle-and-forget-about-the-Adiren-Brody-character-arc mess that was The Thin Red Line was a viable alternative. Some, like me, thought Gods and Monsters, which won the National Board of Review award and was a Producers Guild nominee, was the film that Oscar voters could really get behind. After all, it was a film about Hollywood, and Hollywood does love its films about show business. Alas, the film about show business they really loved turned out to be Shakespeare in Love, a film that appealed more to women more than men and brought the notion that women now controlled the Oscar vote. That notion died a quick death when Gladiator won two years later.

Now we are in a totally unpredictable state where our best picture assumptions can be dumped in the trash in the blink of an eye. Saving Private Ryan loses. American Beauty wins even though not everyone loves it. Traffic and Couching Tiger, Hidden Dragon lose to Gladiator. A Beautiful Mind wins despite loud protests. Chicago wins. The third of the films in the Lord of the Rings trilogy wins as everyone thought for three years it would. Million Dollar Baby comes out of nowhere to win to mostly everyone's last minute predicitons to great satisfaction and we smugly think we're back on the prediction track and boom! Crash happens. So where are we now?

I think we're in a dangerous place, culturally. Maybe I've been brainwashed by Italiano, but I think today's Oscar voters, like today's American voters in general, love the underdog and will vote for the underdog even if the underdog is the wrong choice. Just as the majority of voters in the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 voted for the clearly intellectually challenged George W. Bush, who was no smarter than most of them, the majority of Oscar voters in several of the last few Oscar races voted for films no better than most of them were capable of making.

Now we have people, though thankfully none here, predicting great things for Sophia Coppola's little kids playing dress-up looking Marie Antoinette and awards guru Tom O'Neil suggesting that Paris Hilton could be a best actress contender for a proposed film about Mother Teresa.

The world has gone mad, and so have Oscar voters.