In honor of the 89th Academy Awards ceremony (“the Oscars”) to be televised live tonight, rather than talking about the best Best Pictures I’d rather think about some of the worst—the least deserving winners. Here’s my list:
Cavalcade (1933)
Cavalcade is a sort of 1930s antecedent to Upstairs Downstairs. Maybe it had more reasonance in the aftermath of the Great War. There’s nothing particularly wrong with it but nothing particularly right with it, either. I believe that it suffers when compared with several of the other nominees that year which were 42nd Street, A Farewell to Arms, I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang, Lady for a Day, Little Women, The Private Life of Henry VIII, She Done Him Wrong, Smilin’ Through, and State Fair. Most of those are iconic in their way and half of them have been remade; Little Women and State Fair have been remade multiple times. Cavalcade is practically unknown now except among film buffs.
Out of Africa (1985)
I guess I just don’t get Out of Africa. I think you could have made just about as good a picture by taking a camera out to the veldt, turning it on, and walking away. Its competitors included the actual best picture, The Color Purple, and Witness.
Dances With Wolves (1990)
I’m sure that there must be fans of Dances With Wolves out there but I found everything about it wooden—direction, acting, and the screenplay which I found almost intolerably patronizing. If you are attracted to this subject matter, watch the 1931 version of The Squaw Man, a better picture in practically every way with a wonderful, touching performance by Lupe Velez.
Keep in mind that Good Fellas and Ghost were among DWW’s competitors.
It’s easy to come up with the best Best Pictures. Which winners of the Best Picture Academy Award do you think are least deserving or worst?
I’d add Titanic to that list. It was a well-made movie but the main plot was nothing more than melodramatic schmaltz that distracted significantly from the real drama of the true story of what happened on 15 April 1912. Fellow nominee L.A. Confidential was a far better movie, IMO
Two other possibilities:
1. The English Patient — although looking at the list of nominees that year (1996) one finds a particularly weak list of alternatives.
2. Shakespeare In Love — I would’ve picked either Life is Beautiful or Saving Private Ryan personally.
3.
“Melodramatic schmaltz” is often a bromide for everyday rigors of life. People leave the theater feeling “soothed” and temporarily “happy.”. That’s why such movies, as the ones named above, do well at the box office. And, the box office used to decide Oscar winners.
Today, though, emphasis seems to be directed at movies dealing with controversial social issues through polically correct lens. However, this year’s favorite, La La Land, is one I have no idea why it has gotten the acclaim it has
That’s easy. Hollywood is solipsistic. Its favorite subject is itself.
Of all movies that have been awarded Best Picture Oscars the largest single category is show biz movies. Those are perennial Academy favorites. In the first ten years of the Academy Awards two of the winners, the second (Broadway Melody of 1929) and the ninth (The Great Ziegfeld), were show biz pictures. That’s been the case ever since.
As to the changing character of nominees, the purpose of the Academy Awards has changed over the years. Originally, it was a party that Hollywood threw for itself. That was before TV and it wasn’t broadcast on the radio. In about 1934 and for the next thirty years (coincidentally with the growth of mass media), the Awards were a merchandising tool for the studios. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that such a high proportion of the winners during this period gained such an iconic status.
Now it’s a televised party that Hollywood throws for itself. We shouldn’t be surprised that the nominees and even more so the winners reflect Hollywood’s priorities and values. But it’s also an increasingly dreary awards show among dozens of other dreary awards shows. On very nearly a year by year basis its viewership is declining. I think it’s time for the Awards to go.
Goodfellas is such an obvious miss. Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction is another. Does anyone want to watch Forrest Gump again? It was schmaltzy but so is Shawshank Redemption (which I hate) but Shawshank Redemption seems to be loved far more than Forrest Gump; it also lost.
Braveheart over Babe was also wrong; they just could not give a movie about a talking pig an Oscar. Same with English Patient over both Fargo and Secrets & Lies. English Patient was absolutely terrible in every way imaginable.
The high point of the Oscars was the 70s. There’s a stretch of Best Picture winners (French Connection, Godfather, The Sting, Godfather II, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Rocky, Annie Hall, Deer Hunter, Kramer vs Kramer) which are all highly enjoyable.
I think it’s really hard to beat the streak from 1934 to 1947 and especially the five years 1943-1947, highlighted below:
It Happened One Night
Mutiny on the Bounty
The Great Ziegfeld
The Life of Emile Zola
You Can’t Take It With You
Gone With the Wind
Rebecca
How Green Was My Valley
Mrs. Miniver
Casablanca
Going My Way
The Lost Weekend
The Best Years of Our Lives
Gentleman’s Agreement
As a kid watching the awards was such an anticipated event — one that sometimes the entire family would enjoy together. Now, it seems boring, self-servicing to those who dress up for red-carpet camera shots, or win something so they can rush up on stage and gush about their own success or political proclivities.
I usually don’t even know the date of the Oscars anymore, let alone spend the time to watch a bevy of over-indulged people participating in them!
BTW, even thought they were before my time, I’ve seen every one of those movies listed by Dave in the era of the 30’s and 40’s. For some reason the elegance of actresses/actors, in those days, captivated me. So, I sought them out on off-beat channels.
I also like MM’s selections. The French Connection was spell-binding, and One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest was beyond memorable. Another I remember well was FX.
Oliver! in the same year that 2001: A Space Odyssey was not nominated for best picture, only best director and Kubrick lost that. Madness.
What about Happy Gilmour?
OK, OK. Not a big movie guy – I can’t even remember the name of this one – but the movie about the two brothers who go on the bank robbing spree should win. Bet it doesn’t. Lion was good for the first 3/4, then faded. Or maybe it was the adorable kid. I couldn’t bring myself to go see La La Land, but the resident movie critic says she found it disappointing.
Goodfellas was an obvious miss. I loved Pulp Fiction, but I think its appeal is niche-y. Ones feelings about Shawshank Redemption probably rest upon ones personal experiences.
“the box office used to decide Oscar winners.”
That certainly hasn’t been the case for the past forty years, of course, and it’s not really a defense for why Titanic won Best Picture in a year when it clearly didn’t deserve to. In this case, it strikes me that it was the fact that Titanic in fact was a massive worldwide financial success that led to it winning Best Picture. It was fortunate, at least, that neither Winslet nor DiCaprio won for Best Actress or Best Actor that year, though.
By the way, that brings to mind a fun bit of Oscar trivia.
Kate Winslet and Gloria Stuart are the only two people nominated for an Academy Award (Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress) for playing the same character in the same movie. Stuart played “Old Rose” in the scenes set in the present and, of course, Winslet played the character for the majority of the film.
It didn’t win, but just nominating Towering Inferno was pretty offensive. Also, let me heartily second you on Dances With Wolves. If you ever decide to do a list of over-rated actors, I think Costner has got to be on it.
Steve
Do we have to include La La Land now?
As fate would have it, I didn’t watch the awards ceremony last night except for the awarding of the Best Picture category which means that I saw the most dramatic moment of the evening. What a snafu!
In addition to “winners of the Best Picture Academy Award are least deserving or worst” there is now which “winners of the Best Picture Academy Award that lost”
There can be only one.
I didn’t watch it, but this seems to be a pretty good summary.