WORST FILMS THAT GOT OSCARS from Film Comment

[Chris Knipp]

What are your comments on this list? There are some that I agree with, wrong choices for the years or films I strongly dislike or at least think basically mediocre such as CRASH or FORREST GUMP or OUT OF AFRICA or A BEAUTIFUL MIND. Other choices of terrific films like TOM JONES, NO COUNTR FOR OLD MEN and MARTY seem wildly wrong, as well as choosing beloved films like MY FAIR LADY, AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS, or GIGI, TITANIC, GONE WITH THE WIND, and many more seems clueless concerning what the Oscars are about. What do you think?

Trivial Top 20: Worst Winners of Best Picture Oscars®
By Film Comment
http://www.filmcomment.com/article/extended-trivial-top-20
1. Crash Paul Haggis, 2005
2. Slumdog Millionaire Danny Boyle, 2008
3. Chicago Rob Marshall, 2002
4. Forrest Gump Robert Zemeckis, 1994
5. A Beautiful Mind Ron Howard, 2001
6. Gladiator Ridley Scott, 2000
7. American Beauty Sam Mendes, 1999
8. Shakespeare in Love John Madden, 1998
9. Braveheart Mel Gibson, 1995
10. Titanic James Cameron, 1997
11. Driving Miss Daisy Bruce Beresford, 1989
12. Dances with Wolves Kevin Costner, 1990
13. The Greatest Show on Earth Cecil B. DeMille, 1952
14. The King’s Speech Tom Hooper, 2010
15. The English Patient Anthony Minghella, 1996
16. Amadeus Milos Forman, 1984
17. Around the World in 80 Days Michael Anderson, 1956
18. Chariots of Fire Hugh Hudson, 1981
19. Gandhi Richard Attenborough, 1982
20. Mrs. Miniver William Wyler, 1942
21. Terms of Endearment James L. Brooks, 1983
22. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King Peter Jackson, 2003
23. The Sound of Music Robert Wise, 1965
24. Ben-Hur William Wyler, 1959
25. Rain Man Barry Levinson, 1988
26. Million Dollar Baby Clint Eastwood, 2004
27. Cimarron Wesley Ruggles, 1930/31
28. Rocky Sylvester Stallone, 1976
29. No Country for Old Men Joel & Ethan Coen, 2007
30. Out of Africa Sydney Pollack, 1985
31. Tom Jones Tony Richardson, 1963
32. The Deer Hunter Michael Cimino, 1978
33. Oliver! Carol Reed, 1968
34. Ordinary People Robert Redford, 1980
35. Kramer vs. Kramer Robert Benton, 1979
36. The Sting George Roy Hill, 1973
37. Cavalcade Frank Lloyd, 1932/33
38. Platoon Oliver Stone, 1986
39. A Man for All Seasons Fred Zinnemann, 1966
40. Marty Delbert Mann, 1955
41. The Life of Emile Zola William Dieterle, 1937
42. Schindler’s List Steven Spielberg, 1993
43. My Fair Lady George Cukor, 1964
44. Gigi Vincente Minnelli, 1958
45. In the Heat of the Night Norman Jewison, 1967
46. The Great Ziegfeld Robert Z. Leonard, 1936
47. All Quiet on the Western Front Lewis Milestone, 1929/30
48. Midnight Cowboy John Schlesinger, 1969
49. Gone with the Wind Victor Fleming, 1939
50. West Side Story Robert Wise & Jerome Robbins, 1961

Poll Participants: Thom Andersen, Geoff Andrew, Nico Baumbach, Michael Chaiken, Richard Combs, David Edelstein, David Ehrenstein, Jesse P. Finnegan, Scott Foundas, Marco Grosoli, Haden Guest, Matthew Hubbell, Harlan Jacobson, Laura Kern, Michael Koresky, Olaf Möller, Mark Olsen, Nicolas Rapold, Jonathan Robbins, Gavin Smith, Manuel Yáñez-Murillo

[Johann]

Hmmm.
Interesting topic, no doubt about it.
I can see why most of these were chosen for this list.

[cinemabon]

So many choices, it's difficult on where to begin. I'm curious why you chose this subject. This isn't a review so much as it is a commentary on what we consider preferable. There are many films on that list that are not my "cup of tea" for one reason or another. But my object would be based on a personal choice and that would hardly change the outcome. The decision has been made.

I'm not a fan of Cecil B. DeMille. I would take off any work he's done. I never liked his dictatorial style of directing.

Many choices for Best Pix in the last two decades, again in my judgment, are rebellious ones. I hated last year's pick with a passion. Others, like Tab, loved it. I think "Man of Steel" is a joke. Half the critics in America agree with me. But again, these are personal choices and attacks that Johann makes on me for expressing my beliefs and my feelings show the kind of person he is - a vindictive one.

I don't like the Cohen Brothers either. I like many scenes in their films. But scenes do not a story make. You need an overall arc.

"The Deer Hunter" and "Heat of the Night" are outstanding pictures with great scripts, incredible acting, great cinematography, and excellent direction. On the other hand, I could say the exact opposite about movies like "Around the World in 80 days" or "The Greatest Show on Earth." Both movies are not only bad, again in my opinion, but they're silly. They have no reflection of reality in any way, shape or form.

"Amadeus" "The Sound of Music" and "Ben Hur" are not only good films but great movies that have stood the test of time. How they ever landed on such a list not only confounds me but reflects on the author of that piece. What an effete snob!

Have any of you sat in a director's chair and directed anything? Have you? Have you ever shot a film or edited one? Have you? Have you ever written a screenplay? I would never go into an art gallery and criticize an artist's work because I am not a graphic artist and I have never truly studied art except as an appreciation. I have studied film. I have directed. I have written not only screenplays, but novels and been published. My work has appeared in national magazines, newspapers, and locally. I've been paid professionally as a writer and as a director. I would never presume for a second to be such an arrogant ass as to criticize someone for something that I knew absolutely nothing about. So excuse my expression, but unless you've walked in those shoes, you might consider what you have to say about someone else before you open your big fat mouth.

[Chris Knipp]

Maybe it's not as controversial as I had initially thought.

But I personally like Slumdog Millionaire, Titanic, The King's Speech, Rain Man, Million Dollar Baby, Platoon, Schindler's List, and Gigi.

I think No Country for Old Men and Tom Jones and possibly Marty are great films.

I used to admire American Beauty; it has faded.

I don't see how they could deny the Oscar, or can see very well how it went to, certain very popular and influential movies, such as Forrest Gump Glaidator, Around the World in Eighty Days (which I enjoyed too), The Lord of the Rings, The Sting, My Fair Lady, Gone with the Wind, and West Side Story.

The thing you have to do is see what else was nominated when some of these won that should have won.
Dances with Wolves beat Godfather III and Goodfellas
Forrest Gump beat Pulp Fiction was nominated. This is as bad as the Crash year.
Gladiator beat Erin Brokovitch and Traffic.
Kramer vs. Kramer beat Apocalypse Now, Breaking Away and Norma Rae
The King's Speech beat Inception and The Fighter.
A Beautiful Mind (which, to me, like Forrest Gump, is a detestable movie) beat Gosford Park, as well as In the Bedroom, another one I used to admire that has faded.
Titanic beat L.A. Confidential (which won a lot of awards, though).

So it goes.

Gone with the Wind by the way beat Ninotchka and The Wizard of Oz. They're not so good at guessing what people will go on watching.

One of the worst, for me, is that Crash won the year Brokeback Mountain was nominated. That I can never forgive because I think Crash is a false movie and Brokeback Mountain is a true and beautiful one and a landmark big mainstream Hollywood gay romance. But that' one thing; the other thing is that it's authentic and based on a superb short story and Crash is a contrivance.

[Chris Knipp]

Cinemabon -- your post came up while I was writing my last one. I was responding to Johann's remark that he could see why most of these films were on the list. I wish you and Johann would take it easy. Johann is not "vindictive." He is just plainspoken, as plainspoken as you are being when you call MAN OF STEEL, which he loves and I thought one of the year's best blockbuster movies, a joke. Neither of you is being diplomatic. That's fine, as long as skins don't suddenly become thin.


So many choices, it's difficult on where to begin. I'm curious why you chose this subject. This isn't a review so much as it is a commentary on what we consider preferable. There are many films on that list that are not my "cup of tea" for one reason or another. But my object would be based on a personal choice and that would hardly change the outcome. The decision has been made.

Why I chose this subject? Because the Oscars and what's best for the year is a subject in the air this time of year and always, and because I could not see another part of Filmleaf where this would fit better than the general film forum.
But my object would be based on a personal choice and that would hardly change the outcome. The decision has been made But, my friend, the decision is not written in stone. It is subject to debate. And that's what we do here.
But my object[ion] would be based on a personal choice Yes, of course it would. Very much so. Again, that's what we do here. It's all about taste, and about. I quoted Mike D'Angelo on AV Club from Cannes introducing his admiring review of NEBRASKA:
Mike D'Angelo May 23, 2013 • 11:20AM
The dirty little secret of criticism is that it’s a form of codified rationalization. We see movies, we have emotional reactions to them like everyone else, and then we consciously or (often) unconsciously construct intellectual arguments to justify those reactions.

But, I might add, some people's rationalizations carry more wight for me than others. But anyway, the statement "this isn't a review" is true, but that it's just a commentary on what we consider preferable is a meaningless distinction: reviews are commentaries on what we consider preferable. We give a certain movie a bad review because we consider others preferable.

I think the thing to do is first to understand why the movies are on this list, and then consider if putting them on it was a mistake. I would argue that if a better movie was nominated that year, as is the case I think in the ones I listed above, then their inclusion here is justified, because the choice was wrong. Others whose right to open their "big fat mouth" might be greater than mine have written about the injustice of the Oscars, the notorious times when a great film has been passed over and the Best Picture award has gone to something patently inferior.

[cinemabon]

I admire everyone on this site and feel blessed to be a part of it. I just don't like personal attacks.

[Chris Knipp]

Anyway, cinemabon, let's pass over your provocative remarks suggesting you alone here are qualified to pass judgment on films because you've written screenplays and directed and we (and most film critics and many voters in the Academy and members of film festival juries) have not -- you have at least stepped into a discussion of the list. I am right then: it is controversial.


"Amadeus" "The Sound of Music" and "Ben Hur" are not only good films but great movies that have stood the test of time. How they ever landed on such a list not only confounds me but reflects on the author of that piece. What an effete snob!

Again, the name-calling; let's chill, let's be diplomatic and nice, can we? But I agree, i.e. these are well-made films, and also extremely popular ones, which as I said makes it seem hard for the Academy to deny them an Oscar.
What an effete snob![
With due respect, if you read to the end of my original post in this thread, you'll find that there were 21 people who voted to make up this list. So you will have to reword your epithet to "What effete snobs!"

By the way, Thom Anderson, the renouned CalArts professor of film who made LOS ANGELES PLAYS ITSELF, was one of the voters, as well as Scott Foundas, VARIETY's current main film critic and on the selection jury of the New York Film Festival; Gavin Smith, of FILM COMMENT, and David Edelstein, film critic of NEW YORK MAGAZINE.

[Chris Knipp]

We will try to pass over any personal attacks. I'm sure none were intended. Arguments just get heated sometimes, but cinemabon, your suggestion that if we have not directed films or written screenplays we have no right to evaluating movies can itself be taken as a "personal attack," and I think you ought to reconsider that last paragraph. We're not eyeing credentials here. Film criticism is not an exact science. The best qualification for it, if one is writing about older films, anyway, obviously is to have some knowledge of film history, and to have seen a lot of films. And remember them. Anyway, I read what people write and I judge their film criticism on what is there in the text they provide, the insights, the good prose, the convincing arguments. I don't care about what their résumé contains. In reviewing current films, it's advisable to be well informed on the current cultural climate. In rating current films in relation to each other, it's advisable to have seen as many of the year's output as possible, particularly the good ones.

According to Oscar's position -- which I don't fully share -- that in watching films and writing about and discussing them, one finds out more about one's own mind and taste (I think this is what he has recently said) -- then as we comment on this list, we find out more about each other. We often tend to think we're being totally objective, but when you praise THE DEER HUNTER and condemn AROUND THE WORLD IN EIGHTY DAYS you're choosing a certain type of film but overlooking certain aspects of content. I remember AROUND THE WORLD IN EIGHTY DAYS as being great entertainment and spectacle. THE DEER HUNTER profoundly disturbed me because of its falsifications of Vietnam war experience (which I commented at the time some veterans also objected to), and I objected precisely because it was a skillfully made film. No doubt about that. But just skill isn't all you look for.

On the Coen brothers: I think they are uneven. Some of their movies just don't work and a few of them have been horrible (people often sharply disagree on which) but sometimes they are splendid, and do have an arc. INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS is very well made and has a nifty arc, though I don't see why it was quiite so highly praised by critics. It seems to be fading with the Oscars.

I found AMADEUS very tiresome and simplistic and a mockery of one of the greatest composers. It has some good scenes. Saul Zaentz has occasionally been a shrewd operator.
What about FORREST GUMP?

[cinemabon]

Have no right... you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that. I said, and I'm quoting myself, "You should consider what you say." There's a HUGE different, Chris.

[Chris Knipp]

So excuse my expression, but unless you've walked in those shoes, you might consider what you have to say about someone else before you open your big fat mouth.

Surely the phrase "before you open your big fat mouth" should be included in noting what you wrote. It is designed to strike fear into the hear of any poster, surely. How dare we?! You may not have meant that, but it's how it sounds.

[cinemabon]

Then, "before you speak" perhaps

[cinemabon]

"Amadeus" was based on the idea at the time it was made, that Mozart may have been poisoned. The play, like the film, acted on that premise with some rather convincing arguments.

"Forrest Gump" is sort of "Zelig" with window dressing. I've admired Zemekis as a filmmaker. However, his style as times tends to mimic DePalma who mimicked Hitch. "Gump" was supposed to have those same qualities that Allen pursued in a better way in "Zelig." While I enjoyed the performances in "Gump" and found many of its sentimental themes satisfying as an audience member, the film overall has its shortcomings in plot. Hanks performance is stellar.

[cinemabon]

I find the choice of "Man for all Seasons" baffling as well. The script by Bolt is one of the finest ever written for any medium. Just to sit and listen to the words being spoken is a blessing in disguise. Bolt is one of those screenwriters who had a great gift for dialogue - Lawrence of Arabia being one of his finest examples.

[cinemabon]

And they're going after my beloved "Oliver!"???? Why? Of all the musicals ever made, this one, again in my mind, is one of the greatest musical films ever made. It's at the top of my list! I can't find fault with it! Take these critics out and give them fifty lashes with a wet noodle.

[Johann]

I'm here for dialogue, not to be vindictive. Why would I be vindictive to anyone here? What's the basis?
You get your fur up when challenged, CB.
We want to arrive at sound opinions about movies, don't we?
I'm not attacking you. That's in your imagination, which, as an author of fiction, is quite expansive.

[cinemabon]

You finally got me to laugh. kudos

[Johann]

Have a beer and calm down.
You're among friends here.

:)

[Chris Knipp]

A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS beat WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?

I agree, going by the play, that it much impressed me -- actually VIRGINIA WOOLF even more than MAN FOR ALL SEAONS, but I mean the latter. However, I don't know if MAN holds up as well as WOOLF. And both, like Amadeus, is transfers from the stage, and arguably not cinematic. LIkewise MY FAIR LADY, I think clearly not one of Cukor's best efforts though one of his highest profile ones, seems, despite Aubrey Hepburn's engaging performance (lacking in various key technical requirements but possessed of spirit and dedication), to be a kind of faded waxworks record of the great stage musical, whose songs are such classics.

MY FAIR LADY beat DR. STRANGELOVE and ZORBA THE GREEK. How can you skip over Kubrick for a pretty musical? Because it pleases the Academy.

AMADEUS beat THE KILLING FIELDS and A SOLDIER'S STORY.

The question is not whether you like these various movies but whether or not they were the best of the year.

[cinemabon]

Well, that is the subjective part of this exercise. Isn't it, Chris? And pitting one film against another is not my way of picking a winner. I believe films should win prizes based on their own merits and not on how they compare to other films. But the Academy is about picking a winner from a list of winners, or at least films being recognized as being the best of the year. Then we go back to what was the best of the year.

I find, more often than not, that you and Tab and Johann and Oscar have picked movies that aren't on the Academy's site at all and I often wonder why. Part of the reason is surly politics (as you've stated). But there is this other thing in Hollywood that goes back to the Academy's origins and why the New York Circle or anyone should buy into this premise - promotion.

Promotion is all about self interest or promoting oneself. The critics want people to read their work and listen to their voices. The filmmakers want to promote their films. The theaters thrive on promotion. The networks gain viewers. This sort of slapping on the back of self admirers is a ritual that may become mundane to a rather jaded youth who find their entertainment more satisfying wrapped up in packets of brevity rather than sitting through a dull two hours of intellectual submission.

[Chris Knipp]

At a certain point -- Pauline Kael argued this in her Bad Films essay -- some retire from writing film criticism because they've seen a lot of movies and begin to see the new ones not only don't hold up to the comparison with the older ones, but are not even new. This is how the comparing works. Movie A is held up for an award, but we know Movies B, C, & D already did the same thing better. Needless to say, this is subject to debate. That's what we're having here about this list. Why FORREST GUMP and not PULP FICTION? They were both on the nominations list for 1994. We don't have to perform the outrage you accuse me, Johann, Tabuno and Oscar of doing, of picking something not even on the Academy list. It was there. And when you choose which is the best of the nominees, you are comparing. You don't have to explain that promotion plays a role. But let's compare the Oscars with the European Film Awards and Cannes. If we're allowed to compare things. Why are they, also from the commercial and promotional world of movie distribution and film festivals, more wide ranging? "And pitting one film against another is not my way of picking a winner" is not a logical statement, if you give it a little thought. You do not "pick a winner" in a void. The horse that wins the race is pitted against other horses.

[cinemabon]

You love to twist things. So now I'm accusing everyone of an outrage? You have a weird way of interpreting another person's words, Chris Knipp. When I spoke of you as a group, I marveled at how you find so many movies throughout the year and put them on your best lists and I wonder how they don't end up on the Academy list. That has nothing to do with outrage. I'm trying to figure out how one person can decide what is great while others pick something that is very different. I would not have chosen half the movies the Academy chose this year. I'm outraged at myself? They don't consider these other movies as ones that qualify for a number of reasons. That has nothing to do with outrage. Why are you so quick to find fault with my reasoning? Why are you being so defensive? I read all of your reviews and marvel over how you attend numerous film festivals. How is that outrage? I express my admiration of your insight into so many films. What is so outrageous about that? And when I ask why you've chosen different movies than the Academy has, I wonder more about the correctness of the Academy's choices than about yours, or Oscar's or anyone of the devoted cinemaphiles who write for this site. The outrage is in your mind, not in mine.

[cinemabon]

And one more thing....

Comparing films to horse races? So now it is a horse race? Or am I reading something into that as well. Sure. Why not?

[Chris Knipp]

"Outrage" was ironic. Don't bother yourself about it. As for "horse race," that's a metaphor for competition. It's all competition, isn't it, the Academy Awards?

If you were blaming the Academy and not me (or us), I'm quite flattered. That indeed had not occurred to me!

But as you said earlier, their choices are a matter of promotion, of business. And ours are not. We haven't any financial investment in what succeeds or fails.

You've bypassed my point, where I was replying to your assertion that you don't compare one film to another and just judge them "on their own merits." I don't think you can separate the two. You must compare them to other films, and then judge them on their merits. Their own ones, of course.

[cinemabon]

Well, I think you've hit on the core of conundrum I was trying to tackle. Isn't it possible to judge a film based on its own merits?

I know that in order to have a fix on anything in art, you must have a grounding in its understanding by exposure to other works of art.

But assuming you've (anyone) achieved that level, can you then judge a work of art, in this case a film, on its own merits without having to compare it others and say - "Well, I believe this film best expresses this kind of bias in a way that makes it unique." Or is that kind of subjectivity impossible without at least comparing a film's merits or lack thereof to films of the past or its contemporaries.

Certainly you can say a sculpture is thing of beauty or not based on the work itself. But must it be compared to another sculpture's work to give it relevance?

I could say, "I liked this, this, and this film in a given year because they appeal to my sense of patriotism, or my sense of green appreciation or my sense of sentimentality." But must I say, "Prefer this film over another because this film is better than that film."

Or is this all just some esoteric exercise in mental intellectual masturbation.

Annie Hall: Ha! I knew you'd get around to the subject of masturbation.
Alvie Singer: At least it's sex with someone I love!
(I couldn't bear it if one of Allen's films are on THE list of baddies)

[Chris Knipp]

Ah, the work of art itself: this is an approach I love. I was raised on "the New Criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism)" in literature.* However, it's an ideal. We read and understand everything in context. I think when we judge a work of art we bring to bear all we've learned about the art form, and in doing so, we consciously or subconsciously consider other stuff we've studied/enjoyed over the years. We can pretend we're not comparing, and leave the other stuff out of our discussion, but it's there in the back of our minds. But, fine, talk about the sculpture standing by itself. That's cool. Only in this thread we've got this list of fifty movies -- it's sort of hard not to have some of them knock together, or bring up other movies.

I can't look at CRASH as a Best Picture Oscar winner without thinking of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. Sure they have nothing to do with each other. They ought not to be compared. I totally think that. I don't think CRASH is worthy to be mentioned in the same breath. But CRASH beat BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN for the Oscar. Context. Comparison. I'd like to escape it. Really. But I can't.

It's useful and pretty inevitable to mention other related movies when reviewing a movie. That helps readers and provides some guidelines and background. Earlier movies by the same director, for instance, or other movies the actors have acted in. Other movies of the same genre. And in this discussion of "WORST FILMS THAT GOT OSCARS from Film Comment" it's pretty natural I think to see what nominated (or not even nominated) films got beaten by the ones listed that won for that year.


*The New Criticism was a formalist movement in literary theory that dominated American literary criticism in the middle decades of the 20th century. It emphasized close reading, particularly of poetry, to discover how a work of literature functioned as a self-contained, self-referential aesthetic object. The movement derived its name from John Crowe Ransom's 1941 book The New Criticism. The work of English scholar I. A. Richards, especially his Practical Criticism and The Meaning of Meaning, which offered what was claimed to be an empirical, scientific approach, were important to the development of New Critical methodology.

I think that's wrong to call it "formalist." This is only Wikipedia -- they're not the last word.

[cinemabon]

That's one film I believe I misunderstood from the start (Brokeback Mountain) and when they announced "Crash" I couldn't believe it. The whole big story that year was "Brokeback Mountain" and Heath's performance - I have never seen "Capote." That was one of those strange years when Best Director and Best Picture did not line up (another puzzle). I wanted "Good night and good luck" to win. I've never seen "Brokeback Mountain" again because I hated what happened to the characters and it depressed me. I hated the idea that gay men can't have a happy ending to their lives - some one straight always has to come in and kill them for some warped reason (that's happened in other films, too). The scene at the end with Ledger holding the shirt was just too sad for me to witness again, so I never bought the DVD and never saw the film a second time (I've never seen "Schindler's List" a second time either).

[Chris Knipp]

I've never watched BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN again either, because it moved me too much. It resonated with me more than any other film of the decade. It was in my heart and mind day after day for some time after seeing it. However, I have read the Annie Proulx short story several times, and I recommend it. To me it is true to gay life as I have known it and as it has long been, even though now a much rosier picture is painted. People still hide and live on the down low and hate crimes still abound, and increase with each pro-gay law. The thing is that CRASH (to repeat) is a trumped up politically correct film, which is completely insincere while Ang Lee's film (with Heath Ledger's great performance of the stifled passion) is significant to so many people. Surprised you wanted GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK to win. Nice film; it was in the NYFF. But without the same power.

[Johann]

This list is designed to stir up debate and that's what we do here.
Chicago is number 3? Is it that bad? It may not be Best Picture material, but number 3?
I loved that movie. Still do. Great fun. Too bad Rob Marshall never recovered....
Shades of Cimino....

Dances With Wolves is another favorite of mine. I like that movie a lot.
I guess this brings the purpose of the Best Picture award into question. It's about sheer excellence, isn't it?
(For the Year in Question). What constitutes "excellence"? Making the audience feel good?
Giving us a laugh? Social conscience? Political conscience?
It seems to vary from year to year. "Flavor of the Year" maybe?
Some of these films nobody watches anymore. Who rushes home to put on Terms of Endearment? Ordinary People?

I think Pulp Fiction being overlooked was one of the worst travesties ever. And yes, I know that it won the Palme D'or.
That's not the point. It was and will always be light years better than Forrest Gump.
Gump was Great- it has Legions who hold it dear to their hearts and for good reason. But the fact is it wasn't the Best Picture of 1994.

[Chris Knipp]

Indeed, debate is what we do here, and that this would stir it up is why I thought this list too good not to post. It's a recent creation.

A good friend who was an expert in ethnography and anthropology was very disappointed in Dances with Wolves and so was I. As to Chicago being no. 3, can they really convincingly rate 50 "worst" choices in descending order? Surely that order means little. I have no problem with Chicago -- just not my thing. Chicago beat The Pianist, but I have some reservations about that film. And The Hours, which I have nothing but reservations about. So, let it be.

"Worst travesties ever" is a good category. I don't mind the choice of a movie I don't think much of if it was a year of mediocre Oscar candidates, but when there is a classic there, it's a travesty. I personally happen to despise Forrest Gump. I could never really watch it from beginning to end. It may have something--something that eluded me due to its sentimentalities and simplifications and the dumpy fake everyman Hanks. As you say, the point is just that Pulp Fiction is one of the great ones. That I could watch any number of times. Much of the dialogue is already classic. Who can't recite the lines about what they call a quarter-pounder in Amsterdam? "Royale with cheese." And "Oh--did I break your concentration?"


I guess this brings the purpose of the Best Picture award into question. It's about sheer excellence, isn't it?
(For the Year in Question). What constitutes "excellence"? Making the audience feel good?
Giving us a laugh? Social conscience? Political conscience?
It seems to vary from year to year. "Flavor of the Year" maybe?

Good suggestions. All of the above, at different times, no doubt. It does seem "to vary from year to year."

Or course re: mediocre candidates, as cinemabon suggested we often choose as faves films not even nominated, and so there may be a number of years when the Oscar list was itself a travesty for what it left off.

[cinemabon]

2001 - the year, not the film, is not a great year in cinema. I did not see many of the movies that year because my life was in great turmoil. But "Gladiator" is not a film I would cherish because I am not a great fan of the Russell Crowe school of acting. He is boisterous, uses gimmicks, and lacks imagination. Yet, two years in a row his principle film won best picture. Personally, I love Bob Altman; and his film "Gosford Park" which later inspired "Downton Abbey" is better film than "A Beautiful Mind." Again, politics. Ronny Howard has many friends in the Hollywood community and this film was destined to make money. But I was not as impressed with its complexity as I was with the great cast that inhabited "Gosford Park." For all of his tremendous effort to produce meaningful films with an artistic flair, the Academy never awarded Altman anything except a nod at the end of his life. Crowe's Aussie style would need toning down in an Altman picture.

I might have to agree that in 1990, my least favorite pick for Best Pix would be the racist film "Driving Miss Daisy." I can hardly stand to watch it now. Not for its attempt to tell the "black side" of the story but for its patronizing tone to black people; as if white people are giving black people permission to enjoy something of their past. But it wasn't such a good past for them and didn't need to be glorified. Nearly every other film out that year was a better picture - "Born on the fourth of July" directed by Oliver Stone was better; "Dead Poet Society" directed by Peter Weir was a better film. "My Left Foot" directed by Jim Sheridan was a much better film. I even enjoyed "Field of Dreams" more but for sentimental reasons because my son was playing baseball at the time.

In 1976, I was living and working in Hollywood. The last picture I wanted to win that year was the STUPID film, Rocky. But it had great emotional support in the community as Stallone was a nobody who tried to rise through the ranks of the studio system and beat the odds. A great story but not a new one. All other four films nominated that year were better by far, in almost every way (in my mind) - "Taxi Driver" brilliantly directed by Martin Scorsese; "Network" with its incredible screenplay written Paddy Chayevsky; "All the President's Men" with outstanding direction by Alan Pakula; and "Bound for Glory" directed by Hal Ashby (who was not nominated). Then you also have Brian DePalma's "Carrie" that year - one of the finest horror movies ever made in terms of quality; "Face to Face" directed by Ingmar Bergman; "Marathon Man" directed by John Schlesinger; "Voyage of the Damned" directed by Stuart Rosenberg; "Seven Beauties" directed by Lina Wertmuller - an incredible film; "Casanova" directed by Frederico Fellini; and a long list of other great films that year - Silver Streak, Obsession, A Star is Born, Outlaw Josey Wales, The Omen, The Pink Panther Strikes Again (yes, it was very good), Two Minute Warning, King Kong, The Seven Percent Solution, The Shootist, The Last Tycoon, and The Front. I mean SHIT! Out of that entire list you give it to "Adrian! Adrian!" WTF!???

[cinemabon]

And while I'm on the subject, lets talk about movies that didn't make that list - let's go back to 1941 and one of the biggest travesties of all time - "How Green Was my Valley." REALLY???? BEST PICTURE???? Let's see what else was up that year and you decided...

Citizen Kane directed by Orson Welles

The Little Foxes directed by William Wyler

The Maltese Falcon directed by John Huston

Sergeant York directed by Howard Hawks

Suspicion directed Alfred Hitchcock

Honorable mention - Here Comes Mr. Jordon, Blood and Sand, Ball of Fire, The 47 Ronin, Tobacco Road, Sullivan's Travels, Meet John Doe, Major Barbara, High Sierra, Hold back the dawn, Blossoms in the dust, Sundown, That Hamilton Woman, and Fantasia!

And they gave it to a sentimental film that makes "Mrs. Miniver" look like one of the greatest movies of all time, and that wasn't on their worst best picture list?????? Why the f--- not?

[cinemabon]

Did "Going My Way" make the list???? NO! It did not... take a look at that year (1944) and gasp! Really (again) they couldn't have picked a better movie. And in 1948, "Hamlet" was ok, but it drags on and on versus a film like "Treasure of Sierra Madre" one of the great films Bogart ever did with his descent into madness. REALLY????? That's not on the list???? "All About Eve" versus "Sunset Boulevard" ??? Really??? "An American in Paris" versus "A Streetcar Named Desire" ???? Really???? None of those made the list!!!!!

[cinemabon]

Finally, and the most unkind cut of all - what the f--- (and I mean F---) movie in 1959 can compete against "Ben Hur?" Are they (the critics) implying that "Anatomy of a Murder" is a better film than "Ben Hur?" REALLY???? I mean when you look at the list that year, what other movie is as incredible in scope, grandeur, acting, music, cinematography, art direction, writing, and direction than f---ing "Ben Hur"????? I mean really, this time - what the f--- were they thinking over at Film Comment.

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks for all the comments. I agree with most of them. Maybe you swore too much in discussing BEN HUR. You may subconsciously realize that it has some faults and ROOM AT THE TOP and ANATOMY OF A MURDER are quite good. But 90% of what you say in unimpeachable. Imagine HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY beating CITIZEN KANE.

[Johann]

It could be argued that Kieslowski's THREE COLORS: BLUE deserved to beat Gump and Pulp Fiction, but the Oscars are really American.

These are Academy members voting on the winners, it's no open ballot.
Gump can be considered silly, I don't watch it anymore, haven't seen it in ages. I love the soundtrack- it has the Doors Mang!

Re: Citizen Kane- that is a textbook example of politics trumping quality Art. Hearst was ripped up by Welles, and that is personal.
Movies can't be personal can they? Not in 1941, not now! (I'm kidding- but I think I have a point).
Part of the problem is Academy voters don't seem to know their own history and cannot seem to look too far into the future for what will be considered a rock-solid piece of work.

Some of the gripes I have about movies not nominated or considered for "the golden dude":

Jim Jarmusch might as well have never lived, if you count how many times he's been recognized for his amazing films.
Sam Fuller- same thing. Sam was too gruff, too tough, too much to take I guess....
DO THE RIGHT THING and MALCOLM X- no wins for Best Picture. They deserve to be considered. (To me, anyway).
I can see how Dances with Wolves is disappointing to those in the know. I just admire it as a movie. Not enough filmmakers tackle Native Indian issues with any substance. Watch the documentary REEL INJUN to see how badly Native Indians have been portrayed in films. They were the first "Villain" in cinema history.

I wish I had more time today to post on this topic. Lots to say.

[Chris Knipp]

You are absolutely right -- except that the Oscars are not wholly "American." They never have been, in the sense that some key directors were foreign born. And this year, if 12 YEARS A SLAVE wins Best Picture, the director is from the UK. So is his star, Chiwetel Ejiofor (of NIgerian parents). So are some of the other main characters, including Benedict Cumberbatch (English) and Michael Fassbender (Irish/German). And the number two film, GRAVITY: the director, obviously, is Mexican. And look at recent Best Picture winners. THE KING'S SPEECH, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. Those were not American. The thing you can say is that the Best Picture is usually in the English language. Directors and sometimes films have been from other countries among nominees and even winners from time to time, all along recently. The 2009 Best Picture nominee DISTRICT 9 was from South Africa. The 2011 winner for Best Picture was 100% French. The only reason it got by was it was silent, and took place in Hollywood.


Not enough filmmakers tackle Native Indian issues with any substance. Watch the documentary REEL INJUN to see how badly Native Indians have been portrayed in films. They were the first "Villain" in cinema history. Yes, but that first statement is why DANCES WITH WOLVES was such a disappointment; it was inaccurate and inauthentic. As for REEL INJUN, good point, but note also the Steppin Fetchit Negroes and the universal longtime demonization of Arabs delineated in the book REEL BAD ARABS by Jack Shaheen.

[cinemabon]

Unfortunately for Sam, the studio tore "The Big Red One" to pieces; the full version not restored until after his death. I love what Roger Ebert said about it. "The Big Red One is a B picture... 'A' [listed] movies are about war, 'B' movies are about soldiers."

I saw "Dances with Wolves" in 70mm in Chicago and loved the film soundtrack immensely. I was not aware of its inaccuracies. I thought it shed a positive light on the Native American culture and its historical plight. I was not aware that so many people regarded it with so much dislike (as evidenced by your repeated comments to the negative). I'm not a big Kevin Costner fan but he certainly humbled himself at the Golden Globes. I thought for a directorial/starring role effort, he did well for a first timer. Most auteurs do not have their picture nominated for Best Picture their first time out.

I would say that most critics would have preferred "Goodfellas" that year and they'd probably be right in a certain regard. "Goodfellas" is definitely a film that is full of raw and real emotion with outstanding performances and a captivating story that is still relevant. Whereas, "Dances..." seems almost dated and patronizing at times.

[Chris Knipp]

Well, it was enterprising and brave no doubt of Costner to direct and star in DANCES WITH WOLVES. It's one of those seemingly (though tone deaf) politically correct films the Oscar folks like to get credit for liking, and Kevin Costner has a lot of friends and influence. And more power to him. I've started to like him more. I liked him in JACK RYAN, the new movie. He begins to have more authority and even maybe more pep. He seems strong from the trailers in a new football movie, DRAFT DAY, but it's by a hack, Ivan Reitman (whose NO STRINGS ATTACHED I liked, but nobody else does). I hate GOODFELLAS but it's a classic in its way and no doubt DANCES WITH WOLVES would seem dated, as you say.

[cinemabon]

As a diversion, this is fun to watch. Love the stuff coming from Sundance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1KOfSLlhs0

[Johann]

Excellent points cinemabon about 1941, Sierra Madre, Ben-Hur, Carrie and Gosford Park- Robert Altman definitely deserved much more Oscar Gold in his great career.
And so did Otto Preminger. Anatomy of a Murder is outstanding.

Chris, I have no interest whatsoever in 12 Years a Slave or Gravity. Those two will be on this exact list of Worst Films That Got Oscars in due time I think.
I've noticed that many of the Best Picture winners have a very HUMAN streak in them:
Slumdog, Titanic, Gump, Gladiator, Driving Miss Daisy, Chariots of Fire, Rocky, Terms of Endearment, Kramer Vs. Kramer, Ordinary People, No Country For Old Men, Chicago, American Beauty, Braveheart, The English Patient, The Deer Hunter, Amadeus, Gandhi, Dances With Wolves, Mrs. Miniver, Platoon, Rain Man, The Sound of Music, Marty, Gone With The Wind and West Side Story.

Titanic is also a film I admire, and it is the Biggest Film of the 90's- certainly of 1997.

I haven't seen Tom Jones, The King's Speech, The Greatest Show on Earth, Cimarron, Out of Africa, Cavalcade or The Great Ziegfeld.

[Chris Knipp]

Tony Richardson's TOM JONES in my opinion is a brilliant and free literary adaptation -- with splendid performances, starting with Albert Finney in the title role. Henry Fielding's novel is one of the greatest early novels in English, arguably the greatest, and is very unique. It took panache to be able to adapt it in a way that captured its flavor and was fun. The adaptation was penned by none other than John Osborne.
John James Osborne was an English playwright, screenwriter, actor and critic of the Establishment. The success of his 1956 play Look Back in Anger transformed English theatre.
--Wikipedia.

I have no comprehension why they would have included TOM JONES in this list. I have not seen the film recently, but I've seen it more than once. I saw it originally at a time when I was a graduate student in English, myself focusing on the 18th century, at the University of Virginia. My impression was that faculty members who saw the film, 18th-century specialists, liked it, and that articles by scholars were written in its favor.

See IMDb. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057590/) -- and see the movie. Be careful though, reports I see online are that the early video version of it was not a good copy.

Johann, I'm glad you share my opinion that GRAVITY and 12 YEARS A SLAVE are being overrated. I think THE KING'S SPEECH is a brilliant crowd-pleaser, and I can very well see why it got the Oscar. It's very human too. A great movie? Maybe not. But very entertaining. I was very taken by THE SOCIAL NETWORK that year, and other nominees were WINTER'S BONE, INCEPTION, and THE FIGHTER. But I wasn't surprised THE KING'S SPEECH WON and realized THE SOCIAL NETWORK was a smart-ass movie about smart mean boys; it lacked the humanism of THE KING'S SPEECH that indeed is what the Academy voters look for.

[cinemabon]

Aren't we also talking about big pictures versus small ones? Take William Wyler's "Mrs. Miniver" (1942) for example. Wyler's movies were the most nominated films in the history of the Oscars. He had many friendships in the Hollywood community, even though actors feared the number of takes they would have to make with him (90 take Willie) they relished the prestige of appearing in his films. The movie had the backing of MGM (just prior to his split with Sam Goldwyn) and was part of the movie-making machine. As much as I love and admire Wyler (as I have previously posted), "The Magnificent Ambersons" was and still is one of the best films Orson Welles made. I believe that with the war and with so many political pluses in their column, "Miniver" won over "Ambersons" not based on merit. I like Wyler's film. But it is hardly on the same level as "Ambersons." We will never know the true version as the studio destroyed some of the cuts to prevent Welles from inserting them later. How's that for vengeance? I'm certain that affected Welles' working relationship with RKO after that. Although he went on to make "The Stranger" there, his direction improved after he left RKO (Lady from Shanghai, Touch of Evil) - an example of another great director (along with Hitchcock) who never won an Oscar for direction.

http://flavorwire.com/147926/14-great-filmmakers-who-never-won-best-director/14/

[Chris Knipp]

That Hitchcock never won an Oscar for direction says it all.

Maybe we are talking about big pictures vs. small ones but what are we saying about that?

[Chris Knipp]

A VIDEO (http://www.fandor.com/keyframe/oscar-video-2014-who-really-deserves-to-win) by Kevin B. Lee about who he thinks should win Best Supporting Actor and why, illustrated with clips. Lee is noted for his video essays about aspects of the movies. Note: this is about who he thinks should win, not who he thinks will win.

[cinemabon]

I enjoyed "American Hustle" and believe that out of the nominees, it should be the best picture of the year. I think that the four actors who played the leads are outstanding and it should sweep the majors - the first since "One Flew over the cuckoo's nest." The second video said it was not legal in this country.

[Johann]

I'll look for Tom Jones.

Hitchcock not winning for Directing is a travesty, same with Kubrick and Robert Altman, among others.
The Oscars should only award the films that are without question the Best. If a film doesn't live up, or any other film in the category doesn't live up, then you don't hand it out that year. How about putting some Lustre back on that statuette?
It's starting to look like a tarnished brass statuette, isn't it?
I agree with you Chris that if it's a year with mediocre candidates then it may be OK to hand it to some film that would've "lost" in another year, but shouldn't it be a clear thoroughbred? Each and every year? Standards have slipped, AMPAS!
Maybe the Hollywood talent pool is thinner than it's ever been?

I watched Saving Private Ryan this week and I feel Spielberg should have won the Best Picture for 1998, even though I have a few problems with the movie. He won Best Director that year, but to see the making of this magnum WWII opus (on DVD) you realize what went into making it, and it is still impressive. Very impressive. Malick's The Thin Red Line is more beautiful to me, but Spielberg did alright with Private Ryan. It looks amazing: the sets are amazing, the costumes are amazing, the SOUND is amazing. The only thing not that amazing was the acting.
He could have gotten a better cast I think.

[cinemabon]

I'm still scraping my chin off the floor over "Argo." Along with "Crash" I would put in category "least deserving an Oscar due to lack of interest and authenticity" award, as Argo's reality is totally fabricated and Crash's audience was one of the lowest ever for a best picture nod.

Also Chris, went to see "The Invisible Woman" yesterday with my wife. First movie I ever fell asleep from sheer boredom. Beautiful photography. Most boring movie I've seen in years. So Dickens had a mistress. Big deal. Had he taken her to America and paraded her around Boston during his last American tour, now that would have been interesting.

[Johann]

Howard Hawks was also severely overlooked in the Oscar department.
Billy Wilder's Some Like it Hot was a Best Picture contender to me.

cinemabon: the antidote to Argo is this movie: OUR MAN IN TEHRAN

www.tiff.net/filmsandschedules/festival/2013/ourmanintehran

[cinemabon]

I loved Tony Curtis both as an actor and a regular Joe. His stories about the shoot (Some like it hot) are priceless. He and Jack insisted on looking good as "dames" so Wilder hired Orry-Kelly to make their clothes!

[Johann]

I don't agree with ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT being on the list.

CRASH was crap, but I liked Michael Pena in it. Oliver Stone reminded me how good he was in the commentary on World Trade Center.
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE is one I could care less about.
GLADIATOR was enjoyable, but I'm not sure it was Best Picture that year.
I have no problems with BRAVEHEART. Mel made a Great movie there.
PLATOON deserved the Oscar, but I know that Oliver Stone stole that statuette from Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick released his film too late...

A BEAUTIFUL MIND is not my cup of tea at all, but I can see how people revered it. It is an interesting movie for what it is, but not my cuppa.

[Johann]

Amadeus and American Beauty are also fantastic movies to me. I have no problem with those two as best Picture winners.
I would like to see a "real" Mozart film that illustrates his Genius in a bold new *For The Ages* way. It's due I think.
But I loved Milos Forman's movie a lot.

Gone With The Wind I have no problem with either, except that maybe it should've had more of the Civil War and less of Scarlett's Lust.
That film was all about her, wasn't it?
Ben-Hur shouldn't be on this list, I agree with cinemabon. It deserved the Oscar.