“I’m sure it sounds like nothing to you, but it stuck with me…”
This weekend, I mentioned that I intend to embark on an unofficial Best Picture project. As of the moment I wrote it, there were 22 of the 84 films that I’d never seen, and I figured that I might as well start slugging away to get to them all.
The idea was in part inspired by my brother, who has far fewer than me to go (he’s down in single digits). It was likewise inspired by James Blake Ewing, who is constantly crowing in my ear to focus on watching the unseen. However, when James saw that this was what I had in mind, he expressed hesitation.
His comment didn’t say so in so many words, but he seemed to be expressing that watching a selection of films declared “the best pictures” might lead to malcontent and letdown. He’s not entirely wrong…but then again, I already knew that.
This past weekend, I scratched three off what was then a list of 23: THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA, CHARIOTS OF FIRE, and ORDINARY PEOPLE. In a neat co-incidence, all three are dubious BP’s. CHARIOTS OF FIRE and ORDINARY PEOPLE took the prize over films now seen as far more deserving. In the case of the former, it’s REDS (which took Best Director for that year). Heck, for CHARIOTS OF FIRE, one could even make a case for RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK – the film of the five that were nominated that has easily taken the highest perch in the lexicon some thirty years later. In the case of ORDINARY PEOPLE, the thought is that the film swiped RAGING BULL of its just desserts. Argue amongst yourselves.
For EMILE ZOLA, I have long contended that the film most deserving of Best Picture that year was one that wasn’t even nominated. It’s one that has become so much a part of the cinematic landscape, that it’s difficult to imagine movie history without it. But what can I tell you, back in 1937, The Academy wasn’t interested in talking about a cartoon for Best Picture. Thus, SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARVES was a non-factor.
So knowing this, how does one soak up these unseen winners, many of which are considered potentially inferior?
For me, the answer came not just by watching what was happening on-screen, but also by considering what was happening in the world.
CHARIOTS OF FIRE was released in 1981, a time where England was in a state of civic unrest thanks to the policies and decisions of Margaret Thatcher. Is it possible that the rather large British contingent of The Academy looked at a film about simpler times and were romanced by the way they were? Is it possible that they quietly yearned for a moment when their country was united and determined, rather than being torn apart from the inside?
Or, considering the way much of the western world had turned a corner by 1981 and was in the beginnings of an era of prosperity, is it possible that a large quotient of voters didn’t gravitate towards a story that challenges the system, and instead rallied behind the story of persevering for glory?
Hard to say.
One year prior, the rallying flag was being waved by ORDINARY PEOPLE (which is a fine film, even if it isn’t RAGING BULL). The funny thing about ORDINARY PEOPLE is that it would mark the third time in four years that Best Picture was given to a film about men and women sitting around and talking. Our lives as boyfriends, girlfriends, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters were suddenly of great interest to The Academy.
Why?
Is it perhaps because America was finally coming out of an era of great civic unrest, and the conversation had shifted to the state of our homes and families? Or was it a feeling that even though The West was going through an era of great prosperity, that we were dealing with great unrest within our own homes…and that a film like ORDINARY PEOPLE embodied the times?
Again, hard to say.
The fact of the matter is that Oscar gets things wrong about as often as they get things right. They take a straw poll based on track record and politics and seldom allow any film or performance to truly settle in, breathe, and establish its place in the cinematic landscape. There’s nothing wrong with this – every other awards body does the same thing, and most of them are wrong about as often. It’s the cost that comes when one benches legacy for immediacy.
For me, that will be what keeps me fascinated as I work through those final twenty-two. Not just a general curiosity about how these films are better than titles like HIGH NOON and DOUBLE INDEMNITY, but what was happening in the world around us that might have influenced voters and allowed these films to speak at a higher volume.
26 comments
Nostra says:
Jan 21, 2013
I haven’t seen any of those three movies, but they really don’t seem that interesting. These BP winners just show that you shouldn’t put too much weight on something getting an award (although I’m not saying that these are bad films)
Ryan McNeil says:
Jan 21, 2013
They’re all interesting when watched on their own. It’s only when one starts to think outside of what’s happening on-screen that things start to really unravel.
ZOLA and ORDINARY PEOPLE were especially interesting to soak up.
Squasher88 says:
Jan 21, 2013
Nice article. Will you be analyzing the social environment of other Best Picture winners? I’m quite fascinated by this. I remember when the bleak nature of the 2007 field (No Country, There Will Be Blood etc.) was a major talking point. I can’t remember exactly what the social context of that year was(I could probably figure it out if I thought hard about it).
Jess says:
Jan 21, 2013
We’ll be doing a lot of that at reelinsight.com starting Thursday. Our 30 Days of Oscar looks at lots of films and why they did or didn’t win Oscar.
Ryan McNeil says:
Jan 21, 2013
I wasn’t planning on it, but if I notice trends or patterns in the 19 I have left to watch, I’ll be sure to parlay my thoughts into a post.
2007 was a fascinating year for sure, felt like there was doom and gloom all around (and that was *before* the world economy began to crash!). It’s no wonder such grey subject matter was celebrated come Oscar time.
And yeah – for daily doses of Oscar perspective, click over to Jess’ work at R-I
Squasher88 says:
Jan 22, 2013
Cool! I’ll be sure to check it out.
James Blake Ewing says:
Jan 21, 2013
It certainly is important to consider the cultural climate surrounding the Oscar winners because the process can be just as political as anything else.
I think the Oscars also have tendency to pick less challenging films in general. Sometimes, what we now look on as the superior film is a title that may have been a bit controversial or complex at the time. Just look at Citizen Kane, a film most consider better than How Green Was My Valley, but it was a film that got stuffed and suppressed by studio politics at the time.
If you look at the last decade with titles like The Artist, The King’s Speech, Slumdog Millionaire, Million Dollar Baby and Return of the King, you get a lot of films that aren’t particularly challenging. I like some of those films, but I highly doubt we’re going to hold them with the same level of affection in 30 years because I think more complex and challenging films will surpass them in public acclaim.
Jess says:
Jan 21, 2013
“Just look at Citizen Kane, a film most consider better than How Green Was My Valley, but it was a film that got stuffed and suppressed by studio politics at the time.”
I agree that Kane is better than Valley (in many ways), but what does it say about our idea of “best” then? Obviously there were more people who voted for Valley that thought it was the Best Film of the year. Had they not seen Kane? Or like you hypothesized, there was most politics involved than we know. It seems like our definition of “Best” is what must be examined. If a film touches the most number of people because it connects with people in that time and place, then perhaps it is the best, if not the most challenging. It has achieved its goal as art. Just some ramblings.
Ryan McNeil says:
Jan 21, 2013
I’m specifically steering clear of KANE for the moment, only because I hope to get to VALLEY before this is all over. VALLEY has become a whipping boy of “How Oscar Gets it Wrong”, when in truth so few who lash away at it have seen it.
As for the last decade, it’s a little tough to say. You and I might call a film like SLUMDOG or SPEECH unchallenging, but to the masses they are “arty”. I’m content with Oscar coming down to the middlebrow. I don’t want to see THE AVENGERS up for Best Picture, but I don’t really want to see OSLO, 10/31 there either. I want it to be a happy medium that can act as a signpost for the year in film.
They might not seem massively compelling now…but given the passage of time they become more influential than we realize.
Squasher88 says:
Jan 22, 2013
I like your take on this Ryan. Slumdog is certainly an arthouse film when compared to most Hollywood fare. I personally think it’s very artful indeed. It’s got so much visual style. I agree that it should be a happy medium.
James Blake Ewing says:
Jan 22, 2013
I really, really like HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY, but it’s not on the level as CITIZEN KANE.
Ryan McNeil says:
Jan 25, 2013
Thanks Squasher.
James, I’m going to try to make Valley a priority over the next month, and something tells me I’ll have something to say about when I finally strike it off the list. I’m expecting good things from it for sure.
Dan Heaton says:
Jan 21, 2013
Ryan, I’ve also wondered if I should go back and check out Best Picture winners that I’ve missed (35 for me I believe), but there is a question if they’re really the most important ones to see. There is something to be said for discovering what Oscar voters picked in past eras.
Looking specifically at the movies you watched, I saw Ordinary People way back in high school and didn’t enjoy it. I’m guessing it might play differently now. I hadn’t see Chariots of Fire until last year, and I liked it. It’s so hard to say if it’s truly “Oscar-worthy”, but it’s a solid story at least. It does feel pretty standard and is hardly my favorite of 1981, though.
Ryan McNeil says:
Jan 21, 2013
I’ll bite: Which 35 have you missed?
Dan Heaton says:
Jan 21, 2013
Alright, thanks to the helpfulness of icheckmovies, this wasn’t too hard. Here we go:
Wings, The Broadway Melody, All Quiet on the Western Front, Cimarron, Grand Hotel, Calvacade, Mutiny on the Bounty, The Great Ziegfeld, The Life of Emile Zola, You Can’t Take It With You, How Green Was My Valley, Mrs. Miniver, Going My Way, The Lost Weekend, Gentleman’s Agreement, Hamlet, All The King’s Men, An American in Paris, The Greatest Show on Earth, From Here to Eternity, Marty, Around the World in Eighty Days, Gigi, Tom Jones, A Man for All Seasons, Oliver!, Patton, The Sting, The Deer Hunter, Kramer Vs. Kramer, Terms of Endearment, Out of Africa, The Last Emperor, Driving Miss Daisy, Chicago, The King’s Speech
It’s actually 36, and it’s really a lot of the ’30s and ’40s winners. I do have a few big blind spots in there, but it may be a while on some of them for sure.
Ryan McNeil says:
Jan 25, 2013
From what I’ve seen, the five I’d start with are
Chicago, Kramer vs Kramer, The Sting, Patton, From Here to Eternity
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on these!
Mette says:
Jan 21, 2013
I loved Ordinary People, and just later on found out about the Raging Bull issue. But as I haven’t seen that latter, I’m not in a position to judge.
This project sounds fun anyway. I still need to see 58 of the 84.
Ryan McNeil says:
Jan 21, 2013
58 is quite a lengthy list, so I don’t know if I’d advise going full-tilt on all of them in short order, perhaps just pepper them in to your regular viewing habits.
Given my deep appreciation for RAGING BULL (one of my very favorite films), I was sorta prepared to dislike ORDINARY PEOPLE on principle. As it unfurled though, not only did I find myself rather intrigued by it, but I also understood how it could have spawned entire legions of fans. In many ways, I wish Hollywood made more films like this now…instead they give us stories based on comic books, toys, and previously successful stories.
(Like the new profile pic btw)
Joel Bocko says:
Jan 21, 2013
I think you are definitely right – Oscar picks are not only more reflective of current zeitgeists than timeless artistic achievement, they are also more fun to discuss from that perspective because, let’s face it, a lot of Best Pictures feel like clunkers down the road. My pick for worst might be The great Ziegfeld which I found tedious in the extreme though sadly it has some tight competition. I actually think Ordinary People is pretty good – it’s just no Raging Bull.
Ryan McNeil says:
Jan 25, 2013
I haven’t seen ZIEGFELD yet, but my thoughts on a lot of those early ones is that they were swayed by where show business had come from. So while it might seem like an odd selection, if it celebrates the roots of live performance it makes for an easy connection.
Nick says:
Jan 22, 2013
I would say Raiders of the Lost Ark is “better” than Chariots of Fire but I also think Chariots of Fire is a really, really great film, and neither of those films were particuarly challenging. They were both just stories told extremely well, which, frankly, is what I most want from a movie. Reds is the least interesting to me of the three. I think Atlantic City (also nominated that year) is better than Reds.
So on one hand I think it’s cool that Chariots won because, as this post shows, it gets more people to check it out. On the other hand, it has that stigma attached – did it “deserve” it? It’s why as a massive Silver Linings Playbook fan I’d selfishly rather it did not win Best Picture in order to avoid the was it or was it not “deserving” argument.
Ryan McNeil says:
Jan 25, 2013
I don’t think you need to throw any quotes around that opening sentence.
While I can admire the craft and the intent behind CHARIOTS OF FIRE, it doesn’t capture the imagination as much as RAIDERS does. RAIDERS might have some flaws to it, and might be less weighty on the whole…but there’s no denying how it sticks with its viewers and endures as we age.
Nowadays I’m more fascinated by the BP nominee list than which one eventually takes the prize. The nine (or ten, or five depending on the year) make for an interesting snapshot of who we were. It also allows recognition for a wider array of tastes. So while STAR WARS, 2001, PULP FICTION, and E.T. might not have the little gold statue on the blu-ray box, at least we can see how they were a large piece of the puzzle for their year of release.
Sean says:
Jan 23, 2013
Art imitates life; life imitates art.
If the world around us is forever shaping how art is created, and what art embodies, it stands to reason that the observers will be just as affected and respond accordingly.
Think back to your art history class, Mav. I got the same dose in my music theory period.
Ryan McNeil says:
Jan 25, 2013
Well said.
I choose to see things that way instead of thinking about how a bunch of old white dudes were stuck in their ways. I also choose to remember how so many great artists weren’t fully recognized in their time!
Colin Biggs says:
Jan 23, 2013
Nostalgia is usually a pretty deciding factor when it comes to Best Picture. It makes years that The Departed, No Country for Old Men and Hurt Locker won all the more unusual.
With all that said, I think Lincoln winning best picture will probably be because we miss a time when parties could work together.
Ryan McNeil says:
Jan 25, 2013
Know what’s crazy? It’s four weeks until Oscar and I have no earthly clue what will take BP. I can’t even narrow it down to two.
They could recognize the decade we just came out of and award ZERO DARK THIRTY.
They could recognize what it takes to get tough social changes achieved and award LINCOLN.
They could recognize the delicate nature of faith and award LIFE OF PI.
They could recognize the benefits of international co-operation and award ARGO.
Or they could recognize wit, levity, and recognizing how damaged we all are and award SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK.
And you know what? I’d be alright with any of that!