It happens every year, one film wins for best picture and there are often groans of protest from detractors about what should've won. Unfortunately from looking at the complete list of nominees this has been going on for decades. Come up with a top ten list (or close to it) of which films were robbed the worst in the Oscars and list the film that actually won that year. The only rule is that you must choose from the list of actual nominees. So sorry while films like Empire Strikes Back, the Dark Knight or 2001 probably should've won, they weren't nominated in the first place. This is my list: 1. Citizen Kane, beaten by How Green Was My Valley (1941) 2. Star Wars, beaten by Annie Hall (1977) 3. Saving Private Ryan, beaten by Shakespeare in Love (1998) 4. Raging Bull, beaten by Ordinary People (1980) 5. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, beaten by A Beautiful Mind (2001) 6.American Graffiti or The Exorcist, beaten by the Sting (1973) 7. The Graduate, beaten by In The Heat of The Night (1968) 8. Raiders of the Lost Ark, beaten by Chariots of Fire (1981) 9. Up or District 9, beaten by The Hurt Locker (2009) 10. Apocalypse Now, beaten by Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
Sci-Fi/Fantasy films and animated films are simply no match for "topical" movies like Hurt Locker, sad truth. Plenty of folks refuse to believe that animated features, like anything Pixar puts out, are worthwhile as anything but kiddy flicks.
this is your opinion, most who voted on Oscars differ with your opinion. BTW 4 and 8 are brilliant movies, I loved Ordinary people.
It's a pretty good movie. Is it better than Scorcese and DeNiro in this instance? There's at least credible debate there, as there is with The Graduate and In The Heat Of The Night.
My question becomes what is meant by "Best Picture"? Obviously the Academy has it's standard (and I'm too lazy to look it up) - but does it always match what people expect by "Best Picture." Certainly lasting cultural impact isn't what is meant - mostly because it's impossible after all to know what a film's lasting impact will be! So while we can look back at Citizen Kane, The Exorcist, Apocalypse Now, or Star Wars and see how they've lasted, people then couldn't have known.
"Apocalypse Now" is boring and sucks. "Kramer vs. Kramer" was a beautiful movie and totally deserved to win. Movies that intelligent, moving, honest, and true-to-life without being boring rarely win anymore. It's an example of how more worthy movies used to win best picture. "Lord of the Rings" and "American Graffiti" are also boring, suck, and lost to better films. "The Exorcist" is fantastic, but there's no shame in it losing to "The Sting", another movie that is top notch on every level from writing, to direction, to performances. It's unrealistic to expect a horror movie to win best picture, even if it's a masterpiece. "Raging Bull" deserved to win best picture, but so did "Ordinary People"...it's an unforgettably touching and heartfelt movie full of masterful performances and dialog. It's not as intensely disturbing, innovative, and brilliantly shot as "Raging Bull" (Scorsese definitely should have won best director, at least), but it's certainly not vastly inferior and unworthy of the gold. "Star Wars", despite its popularity, originality, and historical significance isn't half the movie "Annie Hall" was. "Star Wars" is a shallow fantasy yarn for kids that is overrated due to nostalgia. It really has nothing of importance to say and not much going for it beyond some nifty special effects, costumes, production and design (superficial aesthetic qualities) and characters and dialog that resonated as they were endearing to some (but not so much to me). "Annie Hall" is a real movie with real insight, wit, and eloquence about adult relationships. "Star Wars" beating it would have been a travesty. The only choice of yours I agree with is "Shakespeare in Love". I majored in English literature, I love Shakespeare's work, and I've passionately taught his work in my career and I thought that movie was lame bullshit. "Saving Private Ryan" is an incredibly powerful movie. The stuff with the old man at the start and end is corny unnecessary melodramatic filler, but the rest of the movie is awesome and far more worthy of best picture than the flick it lost to.
My choices: 1) "Chicago" over "Far From Heaven", "Adaptation", and "The Pianist" (2002). 2) "Shakespeare In Love" over "Saving Private Ryan" (1998). 3) "Million Dollar Baby" over "The Aviator", "Finding Neverland", and "Sideways" (2004). 4) "Crash" over "Good Night, and Good Luck" (2005). 5) "My Fair Lady" over "Dr. Strangelove". I mean, "My Fair Lady" is cute and has a sweet ending, but it's also a cheesefest much of the time and not nearly as classic as the endlessly clever iconic comedy genius of "Dr. Strangelove" (1964). 6) "How Green Was My Valley". "The Maltese Falcon" and "Citizen Kane" are BOTH nominated and neither of them win? WTF? I haven't seen the movie that won, but I can't imagine it being better than both of those (1942). 7) "The Hurt Locker" - Tough choice, because even with ten nominees, I didn't think any of the movies were that great. "The Hurt Locker" was well-made, but I just couldn't be made to give a shit about any of its characters or anything that happened in it. I liked "Up" a hell of a lot more, but there's no way an animated movie could ever win best picture, and I guess that's understandable (2009). I looked through all 83 years of Academy Awards nominees and that's all I could come with. I guess the choices for best picture weren't so wrong that often after all. Also, just to get a few choices I'm sore about off my chest: - "Malcolm X" should have beat "Unforgiven" (overrated tripe), but wasn't even nominated. - And if I were voting for best picture "Star Trek: First Contact" would have won in 1996, although I didn't see "The English Patient". Okay, I'm kidding about that last one...sorta.
Because of the nature of a single award for 'best picture', there will always be lots of people each year who don't agree with the choice - which film is 'best' is incredibly subjective and quite naturally all the nominees are going to have their supporters. But in general, the final winner has normally been a fair enough choice. It may not have been the movie I enjoyed most (it usually isn't), but that doesn't mean the choice was wrong. Ultimately the Oscars are meant to be about the cinematic arts, and 'popcorn' movies like Star Wars (and to be meticulously fair, any of the Star Trek movies) shouldn't be winning 'best film'. Sometimes, the very popular films are also truly brilliant - Saving Private Ryan being the most obvious cited example - but it is often the case that the most outstanding films are not those which make the most money or get the most press coverage. It would in fact be a shame if that's what the 'best picture' award degenerated to.
I don't take exception to any of them except A Beautiful Mind and Annie Hall, neither of which I got. I didn't get American Beauty at all either.
I forgot to add in my OP that I don't think some of the winners are bad films (well Shakespeare in Love is utter crap) only that I thought what I picked were IMO the better films. For the record I really enjoyed Ordinary People and Kramer vs. Kramer, I just think that Raging Bull and Apocalypse Now were better films. Regarding some posts that certain films won't win because they are animated, sci-fi or horror, Silence of the Lambs is considered to be a horror film by some (that is open to debate) and Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is a bonafide fantasy film, so why not the other genres?
I think that Lord of the Rings movie won just because the trilogy had made so much money, the Academy felt they had to give one of the movies an award as a way of acknowledging the success of all three. Also, the other nominees in 2003 weren't very good. My pick for that year would have been "21 Grams", which wasn't even nominated for best picture. "The Silence of the Lambs" is another one of the most surprising and unusual winners. I think it deserved to win, but like Lord of the Rings, I believe the main reason it won was probably because its competition was so weak. "JFK" was a better movie, but was too unconventional (also nuts) to win best picture, "Beauty and the Beast" is animated (again, an animated movie will NEVER win), and the other nominees are already forgotten. So in conclusion, sci-fi, horror, or fantasy movies can win if they make a shitload of money and have weak competition, but if you're animated, you're screwed.
Like most people here I don't really disagree with any of the winners on this list. Citizen Kane probably deserved the Oscar and I am going to watch How Green Was My Valley to further my opinion on the matter. I suspect the choice was influenced by factors outside the actual films since the production and subject matter of Kane was a source of much controversy. A lot of the other movies you listed were good but not really better than the winners... especially Star Wars. It's a fun movie but hardly "great" cinema. 2009 is debatable but that was a crappy year for movies so it's hard to get worked up over it.
The Academy Award for "Best Picture" doesn't mean anything except it's the movie that the most members voted for that year. The choices reflect the feelings of the time, including politics, hype, popularity and public perception. Also, as an industry institution it reflects the values of the industry. A picture that comes along with a new and different cinematic or narrative style implies a break with the established values, and that makes some in the industry uncomfortable and leads them toward more conventional choices. It takes years for the impact of an innovative film to be fully appreciated, after its influence on other film makers becomes obvious. At first it's just different. Almost all Best Picture winners are pretty good or have some merits. What the "best" pictures really are is of course a matter of taste, but after years of evaluation and criticism a broad consensus can often be reached. But I gave up giving a damn about what is chosen for Best Picture a long time ago. It's just a spectacle to sell TV commercials. --Justin
Smacks of just how snobby the Academy is towards SCI FI/Fantasy, especially in how TDK or TESB never got a nomination and how LOTR didn't win best film till ROTK. Just sheer stupidity and poor taste here. ----------------------------------------------------- I also feel that Avatar was a better movie than The Hurt Locker just because of the overall package but again fantasy struggles to get any acclaim in Hollywood award shows. Crash was a good movie and maybe deserved the director award but not best film. American Beauty beating The Green Mile, I don't think so.
The Academy would not have embarrassed themselves by voting Star Wars as Best Picture in 1977, but the sequels? No way (TESB would have been up against Raging Bull, so no dice). That they finally gave one to a LOTR film was nothing more than commerce. Skiffy fans, understandably enough, often view these matters through the wrong end of the telescope. American Beauty and The Green Mile is another arguable one - obviously a good year for the movies in general.
1985- Out of Africa over The Color Purple, or Witness, or Prizzi's Honor, or Kiss of the Spiderwoman. All better than that snoozefest. 1998- Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan. Just wrong. 2005- Crash over Brokeback Mountain or Good Night and Good Luck. I wish Fellowship of the Rings had won Best Picture over A Beautiful Mind in 2001. Then the 2003 Best Picture could have been Master and Commander. ROTK was not the best film in the trilogy, and it was not better than M&C. Just MHO.
I'd pick Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan, personally. The latter is a technical marvel, but I find the story uninteresting; SiL is tremendously witty and engaging.