I totally agree with Todd on #5. I also agree on #4, #2 and #1. These just show how much the Oscar race has become a popularity contest and/or a way to pay someone back who lost the year before. I do like Shakespeare in Love, though.
I think the article would have been more interesting had it listed the other movies that were nominated each year when "the worst" won. I remember a hoo and cry when "Shakespeare in Love" beat "Saving Private Ryan." I'm sure there are others like that in each of the years covered.
The presence of actually good films like "Ordinary People" (yes, it beat Scorsese's Raging Bull but it's still pretty good in its own genre) "How Green Was My Valley" and "Rebecca" (!!!!) keeps me from taking this list seriously, even though some of the items are indeed mind-boggling.
Danny Peary wrote a whole book a few years ago on what movies "should" have won the Oscar each year since the award began. The award is mostly a publicity stunt, circlejerk, and popularity contest anyway. With the number of "best picture" candidates doubled this year, the interminable ceremony will be even longer.
Some of the older champs like AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS and GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH won pretty much on showmanship rather than any intrinsic quality of script or concept. I doubt if many viewers can sit still anymore for those travelogue scenes in 80 DAYS, but they were a big deal in the '50s before HDTV and cable. For that matter, gaseous spectacle can still win the day, witness the inexplicable choice of the godawful TITANIC a few years ago.
I'm with Steven on the DeMille. Forest Gump is the worst Oscar movie perhaps. It defines the word schmaltz. And American Beauty was a stinker-ten years on. I liked Ordinary People though. Maybe not the best choice that year, but not one of the worst ever. Crash-too manipulative.
If anything, the blogger is too kind to most of these, and Fred Blosser is utterly correct...the Oscar has always been a joke, and never more than when TITANIC won, even given Kate Winslet (ever sat through WINGS, that first winner, out of the typically large pile of nominees in the first decade? I tried to--the current ten BP noms is a return to tradition). CRASH wasn't just stupid and clumsily manipulative, but an insult to anyone's ability to observe human behavior...I didn't think BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN the film was a work of genius, but whatever NATIONAL LAMPOON-branded direct to video item that year would've been a better choice than CRASH, despite some of the cast managing to salvage two short vignettes there.
THE GREAYEST SHOW ON EARTH was the worst Oscar winner. THe Academy was giving Cecil B. DeMille a lifetime achievement award and gave this mediocre circus movie the Oscar over HIGH NOON and THE QUIET MAN as a bonus to DeMille.
11 comments:
I would take most of these over Cecil B. DeMille's The Greatest Show On Earth from 1952. Terrible movie on any level.
I totally agree with Todd on #5. I also agree on #4, #2 and #1. These just show how much the Oscar race has become a popularity contest and/or a way to pay someone back who lost the year before. I do like Shakespeare in Love, though.
I think the article would have been more interesting had it listed the other movies that were nominated each year when "the worst" won. I remember a hoo and cry when "Shakespeare in Love" beat "Saving Private Ryan." I'm sure there are others like that in each of the years covered.
Plus--"Around the World in 80 Days"--really??
I think that should be "hue and cry"--I was typing phonetically.
The presence of actually good films like "Ordinary People" (yes, it beat Scorsese's Raging Bull but it's still pretty good in its own genre) "How Green Was My Valley" and "Rebecca" (!!!!) keeps me from taking this list seriously, even though some of the items are indeed mind-boggling.
Danny Peary wrote a whole book a few years ago on what movies "should" have won the Oscar each year since the award began. The award is mostly a publicity stunt, circlejerk, and popularity contest anyway. With the number of "best picture" candidates doubled this year, the interminable ceremony will be even longer.
Some of the older champs like AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS and GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH won pretty much on showmanship rather than any intrinsic quality of script or concept. I doubt if many viewers can sit still anymore for those travelogue scenes in 80 DAYS, but they were a big deal in the '50s before HDTV and cable. For that matter, gaseous spectacle can still win the day, witness the inexplicable choice of the godawful TITANIC a few years ago.
I'm afraid all I'm getting is the header and an otherwise blank screen, but you already know what my #1 is: AMERICAN BEAUTY.
I'd put FORREST GUMP on the list too. Did CRASH win? Definite top 3 for that one.
Jeff
I'm with Steven on the DeMille. Forest Gump is the worst Oscar movie perhaps. It defines the word schmaltz. And American Beauty was a stinker-ten years on. I liked Ordinary People though. Maybe not the best choice that year, but not one of the worst ever. Crash-too manipulative.
If anything, the blogger is too kind to most of these, and Fred Blosser is utterly correct...the Oscar has always been a joke, and never more than when TITANIC won, even given Kate Winslet (ever sat through WINGS, that first winner, out of the typically large pile of nominees in the first decade? I tried to--the current ten BP noms is a return to tradition). CRASH wasn't just stupid and clumsily manipulative, but an insult to anyone's ability to observe human behavior...I didn't think BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN the film was a work of genius, but whatever NATIONAL LAMPOON-branded direct to video item that year would've been a better choice than CRASH, despite some of the cast managing to salvage two short vignettes there.
The English Patient left this American impatient.
THE GREAYEST SHOW ON EARTH was the worst Oscar winner. THe Academy was giving Cecil B. DeMille a lifetime achievement award and gave this mediocre circus movie the Oscar over HIGH NOON and THE QUIET MAN as a bonus to DeMille.
Post a Comment