posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
connielane at 06:14pm on 21/01/2009 under oscars
connielane at 06:14pm on 21/01/2009 under oscarsA couple of weeks ago, Entertainment Weekly published an article called "Oscar's Biggest Mistakes." I groaned inwardly, because complaining about past Oscar results is probably the most written-about topic regarding the Academy Awards, aside from who is going to or should win in the future. Matt Damon, who is quoted in the article, says that films can really only be judged 10 years down the line, and that the Oscars should be done that way. I agree with the general idea that our opinions on films tend to become more sophisticated over time and less influenced by the cultural context. But I'm not sure you can or should divorce a film from its cultural context. That's another post for another time, though.
Whining about past results is a favorite pastime of Hollywood, and a lot of times it's giving the Oscars a lot more importance than they really should have. Possibly the most contested results in recent Oscar history are those of 1998, where the big winners were:
PICTURE: Shakespeare in Love
DIRECTOR: Steven Spielberg, Saving Private Ryan
ACTOR: Roberto Benigni, Life Is Beautiful
ACTRESS: Gwyneth Paltrow, Shakespeare in Love
SUPPORTING ACTOR: James Coburn, Affliction
SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Judi Dench, Shakespeare In Love
PICTURE:
This was the Elizabethan England vs. World War 2 year, and that battle was perfectly encapsulated by the notoriously aggressive (at the time) Oscar campaigns mounted by Dreamworks (who had produced Saving Private Ryan) and Miramax (who had produced Shakespeare In Love). That year's host, Whoopi Goldberg, even alluded to it in her opening monologue. But all five of the Best Picture nominees were set in one of those two worlds. Ryan's war buddies were The Thin Red Line and Life Is Beautiful, and Shakespeare's Elizabethan mate was, well, Elizabeth.
Personally, and I understand that this is only my opinion, I could not stand Saving Private Ryan, which is usually the pick of people who complain about this result. I had huge problems with the script, especially the bookend device, and felt it was almost unbearably manipulative (much more so than most movies, at any rate, which is saying something). Shakespeare In Love, on the other hand, was one of the greater supposition stories in recent memory. Anachronistic, yes, and not that historical at all, but as a supposition it works incredibly well and it's a very fine and self-aware love song to show business, which is something the Academy eats up with a spoon.
DIRECTOR:
Here's one that is not traditionally contested, and I'm willing to cede this one (how magnanimous of me!) to Spielberg, despite my abhorrence of the film for which he won. Despite the fact that the wonky logic of the framing story renders that amazing first 20 minutes rather useless, the opening is amazing nonetheless and is worthy of Oscar gold on its own. If I were voting, however, I would have cast my vote for Terrence Malick for his beautiful, expansive Thin Red Line.
ACTOR:
Entertainment Weekly's "industry elite" picked Edward Norton for American History X over the actual winner, Roberto Benigni. I can't comment on that particular pick, since I haven't seen that film. I was beyond pleased at Benigni's win, but I would have enjoyed seeing Ian McKellan win as well (for Gods and Monsters). Life Is Beautiful is a rather divisive film - I've heard people trying to make parallels between it and Jerry Lewis's infamous and extremely rarely seen The Day the Clown Cried - but for the people who love it, I think a good bit of that love has to do with Benigni's performance. He goes from lovable goofball to unlikely romantic hero to persecuted Jew to an incredibly heroic and protective father and there's not a seam in sight.
ACTRESS:
Yes, I adore Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth. She disappeared into that role, and made the Virgin Queen come alive in a way that I never could have comprehended. I would not have complained if she had taken home the prize. However ... despite not being the title character, Paltrow is the absolute heart of Shakespeare In Love. She - and Tom Wilkinson - tapped into my adoration of the theater and my wistful dreams of being an actor. She also had a fairly complicated job - not just playing a woman and a man, but playing a woman as a man. And she sells the heartbreak of having to fulfill her duty at the expense of her own happiness in an incredibly poignant way. My feelings on Gwyneth vs. Cate are pretty equally balanced on either side, and I won't deny that Gwyneth's win was an upset. I won't say that Paltrow deserved an Oscar over Blanchett for her Shakespeare role, but I do believe she deserved an Oscar for it.
SUPPORTING ACTOR
EW's pick was Geoffrey Rush, which I can only surmise is a makeup to Shakespeare In Love for virtually taking away the Picture and Actress awards. I can't comment on James Coburn's performance, as I haven't seen Affliction (though the clip they played was impressive and I think Coburn, like many, has been overdue some award show love). Personally, I was rooting for Ed Harris to win for The Truman Show, and I feel very strongly that every time he is up for an Oscar and does not win is a rank injustice. But I'm not - and I don't think Mr. Harris would want me to - question the worthiness of James Coburn's win.
SUPPORTING ACTRESS
EW had no complaints about Judi Dench's win, and like with Coburn's win, I'm not about to question the worthiness of it either. But if I had had a vote, I would have cast it proudly for Lynn Redgrave in Gods and Monsters. One of her best performances ever as James Whale's housekeeper, trying to reconcile her deeply felt religious beliefs with her affection for her openly gay employer. Simply marvelous.
In the end, I think it's rather ridiculous to argue about who should have won Oscars after the fact. We all have people we root for, and they don't always end up being the winner. An Oscar win *can* mean that more people see your movie, but it doesn't really help your career, because 1)it has a pretty short shelf life as six months later no one can remember who won, and 2)I could do a whole 'nother post about the post-Oscar slump phenomenon. Seriously, for a sterling example, take a look at Cuba Gooding Jr.'s work ever since his Oscar win for 1996's Jerry Maguire. Dude.
Whining about past results is a favorite pastime of Hollywood, and a lot of times it's giving the Oscars a lot more importance than they really should have. Possibly the most contested results in recent Oscar history are those of 1998, where the big winners were:
PICTURE: Shakespeare in Love
DIRECTOR: Steven Spielberg, Saving Private Ryan
ACTOR: Roberto Benigni, Life Is Beautiful
ACTRESS: Gwyneth Paltrow, Shakespeare in Love
SUPPORTING ACTOR: James Coburn, Affliction
SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Judi Dench, Shakespeare In Love
PICTURE:
This was the Elizabethan England vs. World War 2 year, and that battle was perfectly encapsulated by the notoriously aggressive (at the time) Oscar campaigns mounted by Dreamworks (who had produced Saving Private Ryan) and Miramax (who had produced Shakespeare In Love). That year's host, Whoopi Goldberg, even alluded to it in her opening monologue. But all five of the Best Picture nominees were set in one of those two worlds. Ryan's war buddies were The Thin Red Line and Life Is Beautiful, and Shakespeare's Elizabethan mate was, well, Elizabeth.
Personally, and I understand that this is only my opinion, I could not stand Saving Private Ryan, which is usually the pick of people who complain about this result. I had huge problems with the script, especially the bookend device, and felt it was almost unbearably manipulative (much more so than most movies, at any rate, which is saying something). Shakespeare In Love, on the other hand, was one of the greater supposition stories in recent memory. Anachronistic, yes, and not that historical at all, but as a supposition it works incredibly well and it's a very fine and self-aware love song to show business, which is something the Academy eats up with a spoon.
DIRECTOR:
Here's one that is not traditionally contested, and I'm willing to cede this one (how magnanimous of me!) to Spielberg, despite my abhorrence of the film for which he won. Despite the fact that the wonky logic of the framing story renders that amazing first 20 minutes rather useless, the opening is amazing nonetheless and is worthy of Oscar gold on its own. If I were voting, however, I would have cast my vote for Terrence Malick for his beautiful, expansive Thin Red Line.
ACTOR:
Entertainment Weekly's "industry elite" picked Edward Norton for American History X over the actual winner, Roberto Benigni. I can't comment on that particular pick, since I haven't seen that film. I was beyond pleased at Benigni's win, but I would have enjoyed seeing Ian McKellan win as well (for Gods and Monsters). Life Is Beautiful is a rather divisive film - I've heard people trying to make parallels between it and Jerry Lewis's infamous and extremely rarely seen The Day the Clown Cried - but for the people who love it, I think a good bit of that love has to do with Benigni's performance. He goes from lovable goofball to unlikely romantic hero to persecuted Jew to an incredibly heroic and protective father and there's not a seam in sight.
ACTRESS:
Yes, I adore Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth. She disappeared into that role, and made the Virgin Queen come alive in a way that I never could have comprehended. I would not have complained if she had taken home the prize. However ... despite not being the title character, Paltrow is the absolute heart of Shakespeare In Love. She - and Tom Wilkinson - tapped into my adoration of the theater and my wistful dreams of being an actor. She also had a fairly complicated job - not just playing a woman and a man, but playing a woman as a man. And she sells the heartbreak of having to fulfill her duty at the expense of her own happiness in an incredibly poignant way. My feelings on Gwyneth vs. Cate are pretty equally balanced on either side, and I won't deny that Gwyneth's win was an upset. I won't say that Paltrow deserved an Oscar over Blanchett for her Shakespeare role, but I do believe she deserved an Oscar for it.
SUPPORTING ACTOR
EW's pick was Geoffrey Rush, which I can only surmise is a makeup to Shakespeare In Love for virtually taking away the Picture and Actress awards. I can't comment on James Coburn's performance, as I haven't seen Affliction (though the clip they played was impressive and I think Coburn, like many, has been overdue some award show love). Personally, I was rooting for Ed Harris to win for The Truman Show, and I feel very strongly that every time he is up for an Oscar and does not win is a rank injustice. But I'm not - and I don't think Mr. Harris would want me to - question the worthiness of James Coburn's win.
SUPPORTING ACTRESS
EW had no complaints about Judi Dench's win, and like with Coburn's win, I'm not about to question the worthiness of it either. But if I had had a vote, I would have cast it proudly for Lynn Redgrave in Gods and Monsters. One of her best performances ever as James Whale's housekeeper, trying to reconcile her deeply felt religious beliefs with her affection for her openly gay employer. Simply marvelous.
In the end, I think it's rather ridiculous to argue about who should have won Oscars after the fact. We all have people we root for, and they don't always end up being the winner. An Oscar win *can* mean that more people see your movie, but it doesn't really help your career, because 1)it has a pretty short shelf life as six months later no one can remember who won, and 2)I could do a whole 'nother post about the post-Oscar slump phenomenon. Seriously, for a sterling example, take a look at Cuba Gooding Jr.'s work ever since his Oscar win for 1996's Jerry Maguire. Dude.
mellow