?

Log in

 
 
22 February 2009 @ 10:42 pm
Why I think the Oscars are a load of crap  
According to which films won Best Picture, and which films were nominated:



The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is a better film than Lost in Translation

Gladiator is a better film than Traffic

Shakespeare in Love
is a better film than Elizabeth

Shakespeare in Love is a better film than Life Is Beautiful

Shakespeare in Love is a better film than Saving Private Ryan

Shakespeare in Love is a better film than The Thin Red Line

Titanic is a better film than L.A. Confidential

The English Patient
is a better film than Fargo

Forrest Gump
is a better film than Pulp Fiction

Dances with Wolves
is a better film than Goodfellas



That's only going back as far as 1990, and doesn't include the films that weren't even nominated (obviously the American establishment didn't go anywhere near Fight Club). Not to mention the travesties in the acting categories (I wish the name Helen Hunt was just rhyming slang).



And, looking at this year's most talked about nomination, don't get me wrong, I think that Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker was absolutely superb and deserving of recognition. But, does anyone really believe that he'd be the short-priced favourite for Best Supporting Actor for his performance as a comic book villain if he hadn't so tragically lost his life?



Saying that voting in the Academy Awards is "all political" is putting it mildly. Both self-congratulatory and deeply flawed, the Oscars measure neither a film's popularity, nor its artistic merit. Enjoy the party, Hollywood, but don't think it's any more than that.

Originally published at Prosthetic Cerebrum.

Tags:
 
 
Andrewdelwyn on February 23rd, 2009 12:02 am (UTC)
Ignore his death. His performance was amazing.

Look at it this way: before The Dark Knight there was a generally accepted definitive performance of the Joker, by Jack Nicholson. Ledger's Joker was so good that it surpassed Nicholson's Joker. That's something deserving recognition.
Jacobyak_boy on February 23rd, 2009 12:22 am (UTC)
I'm not saying he shouldn't win awards for it.
I'm just saying that the Academy Awards, in giving the Oscar to Ledger (which they almost certainly will), are being internally inconsistent.

Major Oscars (i.e. The Big 6: best film, director, actor, actress, supporting actor, supporting actress) are almost never given to any films that don't fit the standard drama mould.

In giving one of The Big 6 to a film that's based on a comic book, the Academy is really stepping outside its well-defined conservatism. This is a good thing, don't get me wrong, but its the exception that highlights the rule.
escarpeescarpe on February 23rd, 2009 12:19 am (UTC)
Return of the King is a better film than Lost in Translation.
I know it's not a popular sentiment but they forgot to have stuff happen in Lost in Translation.

And I have to say that Heath Ledger does deserve the Oscar, I watched Dark Knight last night and it's an amazing performance the first one that I've seen in ages that got an Oscar nod that I've understood.
Jacobyak_boy on February 23rd, 2009 12:29 am (UTC)
Well, I could go over a bunch of reasons why I think that Return of the King is not a very good film, and why I think Lost in Translation is. But, I think it would be quicker to just say that obviously this list is based on my own personal opinion, and yours may differ. However, whilst there are many films that didn't win Best Picture that I think were better than the ones that did, these are the ones that I strongly feel the Academy got very wrong.

You can see my response above for more on what I feel about Ledger's nomination. I think in saying that his is the first nomination in ages you've understood you actually strengthen my argument. However, I've got to wonder if you've seen Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men. He is superb, and deserved every accolade (in my opinion, of course).
Robet Éivaayvah on February 23rd, 2009 01:36 am (UTC)
Those up there that I've seen, I agree with (Lord of the Rings v Lost in Translation, Forrest Gump v Pulp Fiction).

Though when it comes to Pulp Fiction, I may be biased because I first saw it yesterday, having seen many of Tarantino's other films, and it felt like more of the same.
Jessjess2903 on February 24th, 2009 01:01 am (UTC)
I heard they were talking about him being nominated way before he died. So I don't think it really had anything to do with it. I think he deserved it for sure, I just hoped they didn't give it to him because it was expected or they thought they should because he's dead, you know?

Also, Shakespeare in Love is not a better film than Life is Beautiful. Though I'd agree with most of your other things. I don't see the big deal about Shakespeare in Love to be honest...