Another (typically) unremarkable Academy Award year

I love films. No-strike that-I love MOVIES. As anyone who reads this blog with any regularity can attest, I look forward to films like no one else does. I track my favorite productions and decide on whether they will be "opening night" necessities or Saturday morning movies. I watch a lot of movies every year, and I think that I can trace my love affair with movies to my senior year in high school. That summer brought the first "Batman" film, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," "Lethal Weapon 2", "Parenthood," and "License to Kill." The previous year's Academy Award winner for Best Film was "Rain Man," a film that I did not see until the May after the Awards season. I still remember being blown away by Dustin Hoffman's performance as Raymond.

My move to college brought an even greater love of film. I discovered the wonders of independent cinema at the Vinegar Hill Theater in Charlottesville. I remember seeing EVERYTHING when it came out, no matter how bad ("Wired") or how good ("Born on the Fourth of July") they were. 1990 was also the first year that I started watching the Academy Awards. I had reached an age where I could see the films before they were released (Mom and Dad never allowed my brother and me to watch "R" rated films, so I had to wait until I was 17-seriously), and "Born on the 4th" was a great film for a kid who had just started college.

It lost to "Driving Miss Daisy."

Now, don't get me wrong, "Driving Miss Daisy" is a perfectly good film, but BEST PICTURE? Sure, if you were voting on the movie of the week. Thus, my love-hate affair with the Academy voters began. There were years where their selections made perfect sense ("The Silence of the Lambs" in 1991, "Unforgiven" in 1992, "Schindler's List" in 1993, and "Forrest Gump" in 1994. Even "Braveheart" in 1995 was acceptable, as it is a film that still stands the test of time (with my only beef being how the film plays fast and loose with the facts on William Wallace).

1996, however...YUCK. See, 1996 was where the great campaigns of the Weinstein Brothers, then the heads of Miramax, first began. For the Weinsteins, the film was secondary to the marketing. If you could market the film in a way to convince everyone (even those who had not viewed the film) to vote the film Best Picture, it was worth a few million dollars at the box office. 1996 was the year "The English Patient" won Best Picture. Huh? Yup, this piece of tripe beat out "Fargo", the film that deserved Best Picture. I blame Harvey Weinstein.

1997 gave us "Titanic," and I think that the Academy really had their eye on the world's reaction to this film. The Awards show that year set ratings records as the millions of fans who made the film the highest grossing film of all time tuned in to see it clean up in awards..but no in any of the acting categories. That would have been ludicrous. Sadly, the film beat out both "L.A. Confidential" and "As Good as It Gets" for Best Picture. The other 2 nominees were "The Full Monty" and "Good Will Hunting", thereby establishing one sad fact-the weakest of the 5 films won that year.

1998 was the year the fit hit the shan. That was the year that "Shakespeare in Love" won Best Picture. I guess that Harvey figured that he lost on "Good Will Hunting" the previous year because he had not spent enough cash to buy the votes. Here, the Miramax machine pulled out all stops to make John Madden's film the winner. Once again, the weakest of the 5 films won. Spielberg, the director of the best film that year, "Saving Private Ryan," had to be content with winning Best Director. The other 3 films? Roberto Begnini's film "Life is Beautiful", "Elizabeth", and "The Thin Red Line." I put it to you that, of these 5 films, only "Saving Private Ryan" stands the test of time.

In 1999, the Academy got it right. "American Beauty" won. 'Nuff said.

What I noticed over the years is that the Academy ebbs and flows with its Best Picture winners. For every deserving winner ("The Return of the King"), we are faced with films that are utterly forgettable ("Million Dollar Baby"). While the films that win may be OK in their own right, not all rise to the level of "timeless classics". Does this mean that filmmaking quality is going down? Does it mean that we, as an audience, are satisfied with less?

I mean, look at what audiences in the late 1960s and early 1970s had as their choices for Best Picture:

1967:
Bonnie and Clyde
In the Heat of the Night
The Graduate
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
Doctor Doolittle (OK, a weak one)

1971
The French Connection
A Clockwork Orange
The Last Picture Show
Fiddler on the Roof
Nicholas and Alexandra

1972
The Godfather
Cabaret
Deliverance
Sounder
The Emigrants

1974
Chinatown
The Conversation
The Godfather Part II
Lenny
The Towering Inferno (the only "huh?" movie of the bunch)

Do you see what I mean? Let us conclude this with 1975

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Jaws
Nashville
Barry Lyndon
Dog Day Afternoon

In one year, you had Lumet, Kubrick, Spielberg, Altman and Forman as the directors of the best films. Wow. What happened to years like that, where all of the films were destined to become classics. I predict that within a few years, few people will remember "No Country for Old Men." it simply is not remarkable to the same level as a masterpiece like "Chinatown", a film that LOST the Best Picture award to another masterpiece, "The Godfather Part II." Maybe we will see a return to the days when masterpieces, those films that stand the test of time, will fill every slot for Best Picture. I hope so. There is a reason why this year's awards had such low ratings-people just did not care enough about the movies. Has Hollywood lost touch with the audience? Stay tuned...

Note, of the 5 films nominated for Best Picture, I saw 4 of them. I do not consider any of them classics, but I enjoyed "Juno", "There Will Be Blood", and "Michael Clayton". I recognize "No Country for Old Men" as a technically amazing film that is incredibly well acted, but I still think it fails due to a weak final act.