LotR:FotR Academy Awards Part 2

[Henry]

Re: true to the book

Dont get me wrong- I loved LOTR (book and movie) but when you say that it was more true than HP, you are wrong. Rowling had a hand in every aspect of teh production, so in that sense- it was as pure as you can get.

Sodalis - turn it around.

 

[Barendd Nobeard]

Anyway, here is a list of winner from the 1940s. Besides Casablanca, have you seen any of these? (OK, so Best Years Of Our Lives and Lost Weekend are good, but still...)

1949 22nd Academy Awards
ALL THE KING'S MEN - Robert Rossen Productions

1948 21st Academy Awards
HAMLET (1948) - J. Arthur Rank-Two Cities Films

1947 20th Academy Awards
GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT - 20th Century-Fox

1946 19th Academy Awards
BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES - 20th Century-Fox

1945 18th Academy Awards
THE LOST WEEKEND - Paramount

1944 17th Academy Awards
GOING MY WAY - Paramount

1943 16th Academy Awards
CASABLANCA - Warner Bros.

1942 15th Academy Awards
MRS. MINIVER - Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

1941 14th Academy Awards
HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY - 20th Century-Fox

1940 13th Academy Awards
REBECCA - Selznick International Pictures

OK, I've seen most of these (or at least most of them ). The two I have not seen are HAMLET and GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT.

The other eight, however, are all good films. GOING MY WAY is the "lightest" of the bunch, but it was a fun film (just saw it on cable a few weeks ago). Kind of a "puff piece" but enjoyable.

The rest I liked, all for various reasons, and I would call them great films. Not "the greatest ever" but certainly the greatest of the decade, with a few (like CASABLANCA) having no such time limitation.

REBECCA is really good, even if they toned down her death scene for the movie (she's dead at the outset, so no spoiler)--and Judith Evans is great as Mrs. Danvers. Not even Hitchcock's best, but the only Hitchcock film to win Best Picture.

ALL THE KING'S MEN is a great American history piece (Huey P. Long)--I saw this film in high school. Among the Oscar-winners here is Mercedes McCambridge (who did the devil's voice in THE EXORCIST).

THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES is a fascinating look at post-WWII America (specifically, three men from the armed services--of very different ranks--who return to civilian life in the same town).

THE LOST WEEKEND is just a classic--I'll drink to that!

MRS. MINIVER takes a look at Britain during WWII.

CASABLANCA needs no explanation (if it does, go see it! Love it or hate it, it's one of the most famous movies ever made).

I have not seen all of HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY, but what I have seen makes me want to see it all, including Roddy McDowell before he grew up and became an ape.

Since I don't really care for Shakespeare on film, I've never seen Olivier's HAMLET, and I've just never gotten around to seeing GENTELMAN'S AGREEMENT (a film about discrimination faced by a Jewish man, which was considered less 'objectionable' than the original idea of discrimination faced by a homosexual man).

I think the 1940's might be the best decade of Best Picture winners. I've seen more of the 1940's Best Picture films than the 1990s ones (or any other decade, for that matter).

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Well, I have seen most of 'em too, but my major in college was film. The average film viewer probably hasn't. The point I was trying to make was that most of these films were likely not the best films of their year, but were films the Academy traditionally likes. Best Years of Our Lives and Lost Weekend are great examples. Was Lost Weekend better than, say, Double Indemnity (they came out the same year, IIRC)? Lost Weekend was a - admittedly good - melodrama about a social issue. Double Indemnity was basically a crime thriller, not something the Academy traditionally thinks is important. Any given year, you could probably find films that have stood the test of time much better than many of these winners.

 

[RangerWickett]

I think your love for fantasy and sci-fi is clouding your judgment. Lord of the Rings as the best picture? I don't really think so. There was a lot of good in it, and I do think it deserves nomination, but considering a few of the cringe moments like Galadriel the Green-faced Goddess or "Let me walk within two feet and fire the last arrow for overkill," not to mention that honestly, there wasn't actually an ending, it can't qualify as best movie of the year. There wasn't enough closure at the end. I personally think the Academy should've waited to nominate the Lord of the Rings as an entirety, instead of one movie of the three.

I admit I haven't seen any of the other best picture nominees, but all non-fantasy fans I know (and a lot of fantasy fans too) say that while Lord of the Rings was good, Moulin Rouge, A Beautiful Mind, and In the Bedroom were better. Better acting, less reliance on flash, more emotion. If we'd only counted the Hobbit-based parts of The Fellowship of the Ring, I'd say it's a triumph of storytelling and acting, but the rest of the movie does much to clutter that.

Effectively, I think we shouldn't be so bent out of shape. We just think that because we had a contender, that we should've won. It should be more like going to the Olympics. Just getting in is an honor, because it means that people respect you, and acknowledge that you have worth in what you do. It doesn't necessarily mean you're best.

 

[Mortaneus]

A friend of mine is a media arts major at the local college, and she managed to call EVERY one of the awards, except for best actor. Her take on the awards is that there is a formula to them:

Best Picture: Always goes to one of the following subjects - Historical, War, or Male midlife crisis

Best Director: Based on best picture

Lead Actor/Actress: Whoever is most popular at the moment

Supporting Actor/Actress: Whoever is most unlike the winners for lead, as a buffer to make it look like they're not QUITE as predictable.

Visual Effects/Sound Editing/etc: Based on the nominees for Best picture

Score: Always won by the most popular animated movie of the year.


Before the awards, she went through and listed who she thought would win on all the major awards. Except for Denzel as leading role, she was totally accurate.


I've never liked the Oscars. I like them a whole lot less now.

 

[Desdichado]

What gets me is the people that whine and complain so much about the Oscars, but then pay so much attention to who wins and who doesn't. For most of my life, I couldn't care less about Oscars: I never watched the ceremonies, I never knew who won or even who was nominated: essentially it made no difference whatsoever in what I thought about movies. Later, because my wife's family are big Oscar watchers, I got more involved, and now I really enjoy watching them and seeing who wins. Now I think what they say matters in that at least I'm interested in movies that they nod at. Despite the complaints you hear on these boards, for the most part, I think the movies that are nominated (and selected) to recieve awards are worthy for various reasons. Very rarely does a truly awful stinker sneak through the ranks to take home an award.

 

[kenjib]

Very rarely does a truly awful stinker sneak hrough the ranks to take home an award.

...and then once in a blue moon that very rare example goes on to tie for most oscars ever. Ick.

 

[Squire James]

Well, I think it was to LoTR's misfortune that "A Beautiful Mind" happened to be directed by Ron Howard. All the awards seemed to be directed more toward him than to any other person doing the film. Why did Ron Howard win? Ron's been an insider in Hollywood literally since childhood!

If the 2 nominees for Best Senior Math Student at Huntingdon College in 1989 were: (1) myself, and (2) a math student who transferred in at the start of the year and beat my GPA by a narrow margin. The judges, whose actual identities are secret, all happen to be members of my family. Who's gonna get voted in?

Not that anything like that really occurred in 1989... I'm pretty sure my name on the plaque in the Wilson Center was due to the graces of a bunch of math professors that were not related to me!

 

[WizarDru]

Anyway, here is a list of winner from the 1940s. Besides Casablanca, have you seen any of these? (OK, so Best Years Of Our Lives and Lost Weekend are good, but still...)

Thank goodness we have an AMC and TCM to actually give us a chance to see these films. The odds of my seeing 'Gentleman's Agreement' on regular television or basic cable is pretty fleeting, at best.

Although I'm not sure how to react to AMC's recent 'reimagining' of themselves...I'm not sure if it's good or bad, yet. Some films from the 60s and 70s are virtually ignored today, and I'm glad to see these reaching the light of day (such as, say, the Friends of Eddie Cole, a film I'd never even heard about, but that riveted me when I actually stumbled across it).


But as the good Colonel points out, the Oscars have always been skewed toward a particular type of picture. The only comedies that ever win are usually ones with a much more serious bent to them, such as say Driving Miss Daisy, Annie Hall or Forrest Gump, that are really straight dramas with some comedic elements to them [the Sting being a rare exception]. The 70s had some pretty groundbreaking films for best picture (such as the Godfather I/II, the French Connection and The Deer Hunter, to name a few).

Ultimately, I think RangerWickett has the right tack. While _I_ consider it the best picture of the year, I don't consider that everyone would agree. They don't have my emotional investment in the movie, any more than I do in, say, Shakespeare in Love. Just remember, FotR has mainstream respectability, and just might clue folks in to what we love about the genre so much. That's something worth crooning over, alone.

 

[Hejdun]

Strange, I haven't heard of ONE person who liked Moulin Rouge. In fact, almost every single person who saw it (males and females) attributed it to torture.