Oscars Blunders: Best Picture

With the Academy Awards coming soon I thought I'd do a post I have been wanting to do for a while. Those of you who know me really well know how I feel about some of the selections of the Academy Awards. I'm sure a few can probably name my biggest complaint, which I will get to later, but time after time the best nominated movie is not selected. Why? I don't know, my guess is popularity and ticket sales plays a major role, more of one then it should. Again for those of you who feel I'm being cynical take a look at this weeks Billboards top 10 to see if you get my point that the most popular does not always equal the best.

So what follows is a list of what I believe are the worst selections for Best Picture in the history of the Academy Awards. A few explanation points: 1) I am only comparing movies that were nominated. I'm sure there were many movies that were not even nominated which could have been the best movies of the year, but it would take way to much time and effort to look that up. Maybe some day. 2) You will see many more selections from recent years Why? Because I have seen many more movies made recently then I have those from the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's. 3) I have not seen all the nominated movies, in fact, in most cases, especially the older ones I may have seen none of the nominees except 1, but having seen that one I may find it so good that I will say it should have won. In several cases I have seen both the winner and only one other one and since I know that the winner was not better then the other one I have seen. I then make the assumption that the other one I've seen should have won. 4) I am choosing only those that are obvious screw ups, if a couple movies were close, or if none of the nominated movies from a certain year were all that great I will not even mention it. 5) I am right in every single one of these cases- so here goes.

1941: I've never seen either the movie that won best picture or the one which I believe should have, but this is the earliest Oscar blunder I found. I don't know anything about the movie that won, "How Green Was My Valley." And I'm embarrased to say that I've never seen the movie which should have won, but how can a movie considered to be one of the all-time greats, if not the best ever, not win. "How Green Was My Valley" won over "Citizen Kane."

1964: My Fair Lady won best picture. Never seen it but I know exactly what kind of movie it is, a fun, festive, Hollywood big-studio musical, and I know that there is absolutely no way in hell it is better than Stanley Kubrick's classic Cold-War satire, "Dr. Strangelove: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."

1976: Rocky won best picture. Rocky is a good movie, an unlikely underdog-does-the- unthinkable, feel good movie full of unlikely-underdog-does-the-unthinkable-feel-good-movie cliche's before they were cliches. I'm not criticising it. Its a good movie. Good. But Martin Scorcesse's "Taxi Driver" is a great movie.

1979: Kramer vs. Kramer won best picture. I have seen this movie, believe it or not. A long time ago. If I remember its about a divorce and what it does to a family. Ok may be good. Usually Oscar seems to be biased to big epics over smaller character driven films, but not in 1979; a year when it absolutely should have, because Kramer vs. Kramer is not even close to being as good as "Apacolypse Now," Francis Ford Coppala's classic Vietnam War movie.

1989: "Driving Miss Daisey" better than "Born on the Fourth of July?" Tom Cruises' and maybe Oliver Stones best work. I haven't seen "Driving Miss Daisey" but I highly doubt it could be better than "Born on the 4th." The only reason I can think of is because Stones' "Platoon" won best film three years earlier. But that shouldn't matter, the best movie is the best movie.

1990: "Dances With Wolves" is the heartbreaking story of the Plaines Sioux Indians, a movie which finally turned the tables and made the Indians out to be the victems they were and not the brutal savages as they had been represented in movies the 50 years before. A deserving movie, but lets be honest. Sometimes deserving movies happen to be nominated the same year as one which ought get the award because it is one of the all time greats. 1975 comes to mind, a great nominee class, maybe the best, when "Barry Lyndon," "Jaws," and "A Dog Day Afternoon" were all deserving and much better then many previous winners, but were, unfortunately for them, up against "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," and therefore I believe rightfully lost out when they would have been easy winners in other years. In 1990 "Dances With Wolves" should have suffered the same bad luck because also nominated in the same year was Scorceses' classic mob movie, "Goodfellas." The better movie lost. Why? My guess is the people in Hollywood and the Academy only picked "Dances..." instead, because they could all give themselves a big pat on the back for picking the sentimental and politically correct choice. So now thats twice that Scorcese got jipped.

1994: "Forrest Gump" won mostly, I believe, because of the hype surrounding it. I'm not going to keep repeating myself saying its a solid movie, as many of the other choices I disagree with are, its just that it was not deserving to win. Quinten Tarrantino's classic hip, stylisitic "Pulp Fiction" was easily a much better choice. Even "The Shawshank Redemption," also nominated, was better then "Forrest Gump." But sometimes its hard to look past the hype and ticket sales, I guess.

1996 : "Fargo," Joel and Ethan Coehn's Minnessota-murder-mystery masterpiece, one of my favorites, ( and of course then one of the best ) lost to the snooze-fest "The English Patient." This is one of those situations when the big epic love story was chosen over a smaller, plot and character driven, and vastly superior movies. I don't get it.

1997: This one has just been irking me ever since it happened. The sad thing is you knew it was going to happen. Why? The winner was a big romantic epic love story (see above) which also was at the time the biggest movie ever as far as ticket sales ( and I believe still is), due in large part to the teenie-bop girls who went to see it 5, 10, 15, 20 times, because its so romantic, and so sad, and oh-my-god isn't Leo sooooo cute! If you haven't guessed yet the movie that won was "Titanic" which I'll give it credit was really good for 1/2, the half after it hit the ice burg. However, the great modern film-noir Curtis Hansen masterpiece "L.A. Confidential" was overlooked, as I knew it would be. I'll save the review for a different day, but there is not one minute of "Titanic" that is better than any second of "L.A. Confidential." This stands in my opinion as the biggest blunder of a choice. But there are more... I'll keep the rest short.

1998: "Shakespeare in Love" over "Saving Private Ryan"

2001: " A Beautiful Mind" over "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring."

2002: I'd have been happier if any of the following 3 movies would have won over the musical dreck, "Chicago:" "LTR: the Two Towers," "Gangs of New York," and the movie which should have won, Roman Polanski's "The Pianist." But if not "The Pianist," how did "Chicago" get picked. Another one I just don't get.

Thats my list. There a number of movies which should have won best movie that weren't even nominated, "2001: A Space Odyssey," and "Boogie Nights" are just a couple of examples but I wouldn't even know where to start with that list. Maybe my next one will be Oscar Brilliance, Best Picture selections that were absolutely correct. Ok talk to you next time.

Capote (2005)

"Capote," directed by Bennet Miller, is not as much a biopic about the famous author Truman Capote, who penned "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and "In Cold Blood," as one would expect as it to be, as it is a crime story and study of human relationships. It chronicles only the years of Capote's life where he was researching and writing "In Cold Blood."

The movie is headed by an exceptional performance by Phillip Seymore Hoffman, and is a taught, suspenseful crime story, as well as an emotional study of human relationships in extraordinary circumstances. The best film of 2005 that I have seen and by far the best performance (granted I have not seen many of the other popular candidates yet, so I guess final judgement will have to be withheld but I can't see how either a movie or performance could be much better.)

Phillip Seymore Hoffman has become one of the great actors of this generation. He is probably more well known for the characters he has played than he is by his name. If you don't know him by name you should know instantly who I am talking about when I say he was Brandt in "The Big Labowski," the big Laboskis' butler/assistant, he also was hilarious as Scotty, the gay microphone guy with a crush on Dirk in "Boogie Nights," my favorite movie. However, this is his star making turn, and rightfully so. Many people have done great immitations of famous people in movies, recent examples being Jaimie Fox in "Ray," Jaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon in "Walk the Line." However, in each of those cases you never completely forget that you are watching actors doing a great job immitating those people. Hoffman becomes Capote. It is an award winning performance.

Many times a great performance is misplaced in a sub-par film, however this is not the case. This is a powerful movie on many fronts. The basic plot summary: Truman is a famous American author. An effeminant, personable homosexual with impish tendancies who comes across a story about a family who was murdered in a rural Kansas town. He is fascinated by the story and goes to the town with his friend Harper Lee, author of "To Kill A Mockingbird," to meet the people for the purpose of writing an article in a journal. However, when he gets there and talks with the characters involved and especially after he meets one of the murderers, Perry Smith, he realizes that what he is researching is not an article but a full length book. The book it turns out to be is "In Cold Blood." It becomes a best seller and the first 'true-crime' novel of its type.

The most important relationship in the movie is that between Capote and Perry Smith, one of the murderers. Capote sees in Perry a fascinating, thoughtful person... who will make a great character in his book, and he forges a loving, yet flawed relationship with him. He uses Perry's hopes and emotions to draw out his deepest thoughts, especially his describing the night of the murders. It is a complicated relationship full of guilt, love, lying, understanding, and ultimately, death, which ironically, Truman needed to have happen in order to finish his book. He sees in Perry a kindred spirit and found it fascinating how he ended up rich and famous while Perry ended up locked in a cell on death row, at one point saying, " It's as if Perry and I grew up in the same house. And one day he went out the back door and I went out the front. "

While I make "Capote" sound like a melodrama about human relationships, which it is, I'm afraid saying it is that alone might turn people off because those movies are often associated with being boring. However, not only is it a fine study human relationships it is also a tense, finely crafted crime movie. The scene where Perry finally tells Truman about the night of the murders is shocking and grizzly in both its visual and emotional impact. Starkly filmed with a motionless camera, and bleached, deadened color, "Capote's" visually mesmerizing and minimalist cinematography fit the tone of the movie perfectly.

"Capote" is an emotional powerhouse, headed by a career defining performance by Phillip Seymore Hoffman. It is rounded out by a stellar cast of supporting roles. Katherine Keener (The 40 year old Virgin-- Andy's girlfriend) is fine as Harper Lee, and Chris Cooper, who plays the chief investigator, is always excellent ( he is probably most famously known for his roles in American Beauty, as the stern, in-the-closet, military father of the neighbor boy, and in "Seabisquit" as the recluse horse trainer, Tom Smith.) "Capote" understands perfectly the complexity and contradictions of many human relatioinships and is an excellent murder mystery and crime story all in one. The best movie I have seen this year, and the best performance.

my rating: 4 out of 5

( Interesting note: In the original movie version of "In Cold Blood," A very famous and critically acclaimed movie in its own right, Perry Smith is played by a young Robert Blake. Blake recieved high praise for his acting in that movie, but maybe he didn't have to act at all. Ironically, he was recently acquited in the criminal court and found guilty in the civil court, and this was WELL publicised on the tabloid shows and court t.v., for the murder of his own wife. The actor sort of became the role he played.)