TrekBBS Academy Awards: #2 - Best Picture, 1989
- Thread starter Star Treks
- Start date
It should have been Glory, but that wasn't nominated. Field of Dreams, then. The sentimentality of the wish fulfillment shouldn't blind us to the bitterness of the regrets that inspire those wishes. In my opinion, that's the artistic merit of fantasy, letting us acknowledge tragedy by playing with daydreams about escaping it.
The only one I've seen is Dead Poet's Society. I hated it. I found it very emotionally manipulative. So I went with a blind vote for Field of Dreams, which at least is more feel-good-y. Plus, you can't beat a baseball film.
Eh, it wasn't that great, baseball or not.
Well, yes, though it's not just AMPAAS. There is a tendency to ascribe merit to the serious. Many don't see that doesn't mean drably faithful to the quotidian. Sadly, a few can't even see that doesn't mean solemn. Serious just means being honest and paying attention to what's important.
There are some people who just can't suspend their disbelief in fantasy tropes like ghosts or SF tropes like aliens. That's purely a matter of taste, like people who just can't enjoy animated cartoons or musicals where actors burst into song while an invisible orchestra plays. For no good reason, there are some people who imagine their distaste for the fantastic means they are more refined or mature in their preferences. Given the general prevalence of the second rate and the third rate they can find bad examples of the despised fantasy or SF to congratulate themselves about.
Doesn't make them right, it just makes them snooty.
Comedy also has trouble being appreciated because it's not manifestly "serious." So scifi's not alone in that respect.
Glory over Do The Right Thing? Preposterous.
You're read of the tendency of critics to look down on some genres regardless of content, quality, or ambition is spot on, though. That Robert Downey Jr. could walk away with a supporting actor nomination for a comedy is only possible due to (a) an incredible come-back year for the actor, (b) a great performance, and (c) relatively weak dramatic competition.
When is the last time a science fiction/fantasy or a horror film had a major nomination? Sigourney Weaver for Aliens?
Well, there was the whole Lord of the Rings thing... I would say that Best Picture is a fairly major award.
^^^The movie version of Lord of the Rings is something like the novel itself---a sport, a sort of monster that dwarfs the rest of its breed.
As for Do the Right Thing---well, I could see picking Do the Right Thing.
But sneering at Glory? Well, historical fiction (and drama) doesn't get a fair hearing either. Glory is constantly rated by historians as possibly the best historical movie ever made for a reason. It seems to me incredible that bringing to life a forgotten episode of such significance isn't in itself regarded as an accomplishment. If critical opinion has influenced such a wrongheaded disdain for the movie, just remember that Glory showed not one smidgen of idiotic fairness to the South. And that attitude still doesn't fly in lots of this country. Critics really hate to criticize their audience, even implicitly, much as they may like to tear into acceptable targets.
It's not just critics who look down on certain genres or types of literature and drama, after all. Don't we all know that guy who boasts of only reading nonfiction? And, when you get right down to it, one reason nonreaders are nonreaders is because they just don't value something that doesn't have practical value? (Usually meaning monetary reward.)
As for Do the Right Thing---well, I could see picking Do the Right Thing.
But sneering at Glory? Well, historical fiction (and drama) doesn't get a fair hearing either. Glory is constantly rated by historians as possibly the best historical movie ever made for a reason. It seems to me incredible that bringing to life a forgotten episode of such significance isn't in itself regarded as an accomplishment. If critical opinion has influenced such a wrongheaded disdain for the movie, just remember that Glory showed not one smidgen of idiotic fairness to the South. And that attitude still doesn't fly in lots of this country. Critics really hate to criticize their audience, even implicitly, much as they may like to tear into acceptable targets.
It's not just critics who look down on certain genres or types of literature and drama, after all. Don't we all know that guy who boasts of only reading nonfiction? And, when you get right down to it, one reason nonreaders are nonreaders is because they just don't value something that doesn't have practical value? (Usually meaning monetary reward.)
My disdain towards Glory, if you want to call it disdain, is mostly due to the film's centering on two white protagonists, and its authorship. The African-American characters are relegated to supporting roles--prominent supporting roles, but supporting roles nonetheless. The director, Edward Zwick, is white. The writer, Kevin Jarre, is white. The composer, James Horner, is white. The cinematographer, Freddie Francis (deceased 2007), was white.
The film's attitude towards the south doesn't bother me at all--it portrays the south for what it was at the time and (for once) doesn't give the northerners a pass on racism, either. Actually, it doesn't really portray the south that much at all. We have a few glimpses into it, but there are no important southern characters. The film is a story about the 54th Massachusetts (the 55th Massachusetts is omitted for narrative simplicity), and it doesn't wander from that center.
The film does make some historical compromises in its storytelling, which have been documented, but are most readily accessible via wikipedia. Nevertheless, it is pretty accurate (equivalent to the accuracy of the film Gettysburg, and more interesting in subject), and notable for this accuracy in the face of an industry that is steadily disinterested in true portrayals of history.
(I assume when you remark that historical fiction receives disdain, you are referring to historically accurate historical fiction, for the inaccurate kind is often widely represented, especially at the Academy Awards)
In the end, these are minor complaints--I enjoy the film very much (I don't buy into Pauline Kael's opinion that the black characters lack complexity, for example). But when compared to Do The Right Thing, which is Spike Lee's finest film, an honest and nuanced analysis of modern race relations, and a ground-breaking piece of African-American film achievement (creatively and financially), Glory doesn't compete.
The film's attitude towards the south doesn't bother me at all--it portrays the south for what it was at the time and (for once) doesn't give the northerners a pass on racism, either. Actually, it doesn't really portray the south that much at all. We have a few glimpses into it, but there are no important southern characters. The film is a story about the 54th Massachusetts (the 55th Massachusetts is omitted for narrative simplicity), and it doesn't wander from that center.
The film does make some historical compromises in its storytelling, which have been documented, but are most readily accessible via wikipedia. Nevertheless, it is pretty accurate (equivalent to the accuracy of the film Gettysburg, and more interesting in subject), and notable for this accuracy in the face of an industry that is steadily disinterested in true portrayals of history.
(I assume when you remark that historical fiction receives disdain, you are referring to historically accurate historical fiction, for the inaccurate kind is often widely represented, especially at the Academy Awards)
In the end, these are minor complaints--I enjoy the film very much (I don't buy into Pauline Kael's opinion that the black characters lack complexity, for example). But when compared to Do The Right Thing, which is Spike Lee's finest film, an honest and nuanced analysis of modern race relations, and a ground-breaking piece of African-American film achievement (creatively and financially), Glory doesn't compete.
Perhaps my disdain (and this can honestly be characterized as disdain) for the third part of that filmed trilogy allowed for me to forget it. Excluding the large take of Lord of the Rings (even Ian McKellan was nominated for supporting actor for the first part, although he didn't win), the question stands.
I voted for Dead Poet's Society. But Driving Miss Daisy was also a great film.
Similar threads
