“And the Oscar goes to…” This five-word phrase is all it takes to catapult a movie to the forefront of the film industry. That same phrase is also responsible for one of two things: cementing a film’s legacy among the greats of cinema or leaving a film branded as overrated.
A film’s reputation is affected by one aspect of films that is not immediately clear or measurable: how well a movie stands the test of time. I am not so sure that voters are too concerned with this aspect. However, having the benefit of hindsight, assessing the merits of past winners has become an interesting practice.
One such assessment that is often made is the lament of many who think that “Shakespeare in Love” should never have beaten “Saving Private Ryan” for Best Picture of 1998. Since I hesitate to make that claim so definitely, I will present a few other moments from Oscar history that left me scratching my head.
Let us start with the 2008 Best Picture race. “Slumdog Millionaire” may be the “worst” (think least deserving) Best Picture winner of the past decade. It is not that “Slumdog” is a flat-out horrible movie. It is just that I have found only a handful of people (both professional critics and average filmgoers) who believe “Slumdog” to be a better movie than “Milk,” “The Dark Knight,” “Gran Torino,” “WALL-E,” and “Vicky Cristina Barcelona.”
I could just be making a hasty generalization, but even without my bias toward “Slumdog” as Best Picture, it sure seems as if the Academy dropped the ball for 2008.
1994 is another interesting year. Unlike 2008, the controversy surrounding that year is a result of what has been previously mentioned: the test of time. “Forrest Gump” was the favorite to win the award for Best Picture, which it did. However, time has elevated the status of fellow nominees “The Shawshank Redemption” and “Pulp Fiction” to two of the greatest films of all time. (Although, I’m partial to a fourth nominee, “Quiz Show.”)
In this case, the Academy’s decision did not seem so bad at first. The popularity of both “Shawshank” and “Pulp Fiction” soared after their theatrical runs (although “Pulp Fiction” became one of the highest grossing “indie” films of all time). Only years later did the general public jump onboard with the critical praise that met both films upon their release. Plus, “Forrest Gump” is a very endearing movie that seems to elicit much more merit from audiences than say a “Slumdog.”
It is just a little astonishing, looking back on things, that “Forrest Gump” is the one that carried the title Best Picture for the year 1994. In a year that brought about two or three of the best films of the past quarter century, “Forrest Gump” has the unfortunate pleasure of being the film that is second-guessed.
A list of grievances could go on and on. “Braveheart” over “Sense and Sensibility” and “Apollo 13” in 1995? “Raging Bull” and “Goodfellas” losing to “Ordinary People” and “Dances with Wolves,” respectively? Let’s not even get started on all the technical and acting categories. How “Citizen Kane” did not sweep the list of technical awards it was up for (Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Art Direction, etc.) is beyond me.
But for me, the biggest snub of all was Ingrid Bergman’s work on “Casablanca.” She was nominated for an Oscar, but the nomination was for another movie, “For Whom the Bell Tolls.” Although Bergman herself considers other performances to be her best, in a 2007 biography she was quoted as saying: “I feel about ‘Casablanca’ that it has a life of its own. There is something mystical about it. It seems to have filled a need, a need that was there before the film, a need that the film filled.” The same could be said of her performance.
To say hindsight is 20/20 for the Oscars is a little misleading. Voting is a subjective process, people’s opinions change, and my own objections are merely opinion. Over time, though, the Academy’s choices do face a type of scrutiny that is unavoidable whenever awards are concerned. However, it is this dialogue that is indispensable for the arts, particularly movies.
