TrekBBS Academy Awards: #7 - Best Picture, 1993

[Star Treks]

Seventh in a series examining how TrekBBS users think the academy should have voted, based on the original five Oscar nominees. Up next: Best Picture, 1993.

Comments encouraged.

Also, an update based on the first six polls. Here's how TrekBBS users agree - and disagree - with the original Oscar votes, so far:

1987 - Won: The Last Emperor.
-------TrekBBS Picks: The Last Emperor

1988 - Won: Rain Man.
-------TrekBBS Picks: Rain Man.

1989 - Won: Driving Miss Daisy.
-------TrekBBS Picks: Dead Poets Society.

1990 - Won: Dances With Wolves
-------TrekBBS Picks: GoodFellas

1991 - Won: The Silence of the Lambs
-------TrekBBS Picks: The Silence of the Lambs

1992 - Won: Unforgiven
-------TrekBBS Picks: Unforgiven

 

[Harvey]

I'm going to go out on a limb and vote for The Fugitive. It's a tense, well-constructed thriller that transcends its source material in every way. And anytime I can go out of my way not to present accolades to Spielberg's Schindler's List I will jump at the opportunity. The film relegates the Jews to secondary roles in what should be a film about them (yes, the same criticism I levy at Glory). Worse, the girl in the red dress cannot be described as anything other than shamelessly manipulative. These words have been overused elsewhere, but I'm at a loss how to better articulate the point.

I haven't seen the other three films, though, so, again, a partially uninformed judgment must be made.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

For comparison, the top-rated English language feature films of 1993 on IMDB are:

Schindler's List (8.9)
Groundhog Day (8.1)
In the Name of the Father (8.0)
The Nightmare Before Christmas (8.0)
Naked (7.9)
The Remains of the Day (7.9)
True Romance (7.9)
Carlito's Way (7.8)
The Fugitive (7.8)
Jurassic Park (7.8)
Bound by Honor (7.7)
A Bronx Tale (7.7)
Tombstone (7.7)
What's Eating Gilbert Grape? (7.7)
Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (7.6)
Gettysburg (7.6)
Philadelphia (7.6)
Dazed and Confused (7.5)
Falling Down (7.5)
King of the Hill (7.5)
The Piano (7.5)
Searching for Bobby Fischer (7.5)

The Academy absolutely made the right choice with Schindler's List in my opinion - a superb, searing film.

Groundhog Day should have been nominated for Best Picture (and Bill Murray for Best Actor).

 

[Spot's Meow]

And anytime I can go out of my way not to present accolades to Spielberg's Schindler's List I will jump at the opportunity. The film relegates the Jews to secondary roles in what should be a film about them (yes, the same criticism I levy at Glory). Worse, the girl in the red dress cannot be described as anything other than shamelessly manipulative. These words have been overused elsewhere, but I'm at a loss how to better articulate the point.

Would you mind explaining why you feel this way? It's been several years since I saw the film and I was pretty young at the time. I've since seen bits and pieces again but I wasn't aware of any criticisms towards the movie. And I remember seeing the red dress when I was a kid and thinking it was a problem with the film's color or something. Anyway, I'd be interesting in hearing your point of view.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Schindler's List wasn't the best film ever about the Holocaust, and it's not perfect, but it is powerful and it sparked a lot of debate.

I don't know, it's hard to find much negative to say about that film. Does every Holocaust film have to be about Auschwitz? Do you have to show the gas chambers and the ovens and starved people in grey-blue stripd clothes to explain to the viewers what happened? Schindler's List didn't need to do that, and stayed accessible for people of all ages despite the horrors.

Yes, the film is manipulative, maybe unnecessarily so (for example, from everything I've heard about him, the real Schindler was way more of a douche than it appears in the film), but that's a legitimate directorial decision, there's a limit to how unbiased you can be with a subject matter like this. And it is a Hollywood movie after all.

Schindler's List deserved that Oscar.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Schindler's List was the right pick.

Second would be Remains of the Day. Beautiful movie with moving performances by Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, and Christopher Reeve. Plus the added bonus of some early-ish Hugh Grant in a supporting role.

 

[Star Treks]

I, insanely enough, haven't seen Schindler's List yet, but I hope to soon.

I would like to second that Groundhog Day should have been at least nominated (perhaps in place of In the Name of the Father or The Piano). While I probably wouldn't have given it the award, I certainly think it's stood the test of time quite well. And call me crazy, but I might have nominated Jurassic Park too. With all the criticisms it seems to get these days, I still think it's one of the most amazing moviegoing experiences of my life.

 

[Spot's Meow]

I definitely would have nominated Jurassic Park! And I probably would have chosen it as winner too. I love that movie. And the music is great, that should get an award (did it?).

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

I definitely would have nominated Jurassic Park! And I probably would have chosen it as winner too. I love that movie. And the music is great, that should get an award (did it?).

Jurassic Park was nominated for three Oscars and won all three: Best Sound Effects Editing, Best Sound, and Best Visual Effects. It wasn't nominated for Best Score - John Williams was nominated for and won Best Score for Schindler's List.

 

[Hermiod]

Schindler's List, no question.

 

[Kira's Mom]

Schindler's List. Nothing even came close that year.

Would have loved to have seen Jane Champion win Best Director for The Piano in any other year....shame there are rarely ties in Oscars.

 

[Piper]

Gotta be Schlinder's. I don't rate the other films on the list particularly highly.

 

[Harvey]

Would you mind explaining why you feel this way? It's been several years since I saw the film and I was pretty young at the time. I've since seen bits and pieces again but I wasn't aware of any criticisms towards the movie. And I remember seeing the red dress when I was a kid and thinking it was a problem with the film's color or something. Anyway, I'd be interesting in hearing your point of view.

(1) The fact that Steven Spielberg, the most powerful Jewish filmmaker in Hollywood for thirty years, decided to make a film which exalts a gentile and relegates Jewish characters to secondary or tertiary roles. Even Ben Kingsley, who delivers a moving performance as Itzhak Stern, is delivering a moving performance of a character who receives little development. The other Jewish roles are even less developed. More annoying is Liam Neeson's performance as Schindler under Spielberg's direction (this is also a complaint about the writing of the character). Schindler is "canonized," to borrow language from an article of interest, instead of portrayed as a real and complex human being. The Jews are portrayed as faceless victims.

(2) The cinematography is beautiful. Beautiful to the point that it risks aestheticizing its subject. Spielberg chose black and white as his color palette, in collaboration with the cinematographer, in order to present a film that approximated cinéma vérité in presentation. The film's cinematography betrays this intention. Worse, the introduction of the red dress' color is intolerably manipulative, and itself betrays Spielberg's stated intentions. It is not the mountain of bodies in front of him, but the single body on top of the mountain of bodies that moves Schindler. In a film that is intended to ring true, melodrama prevails.

 

[Garak]

Schindler's List probably deserved it, but my favorite movie of that year without a doubt was In the Name of the Father. Just a fantastic movie.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

I find the criticisms of the girl in the red dress story device to be histrionic. It seems to me that Spielberg is obviously going for the idea that a huge number of victims can become faceless and numbing, a statistic, but that it's important to remember that each is an individual human life. Singling out the girl in the red dress is a metaphor for that idea.

One can criticize that as being obvious and somewhat simplistic, but berating it as shamelessly manipulative is over the top and ungenerous, and stating that it cannot be seen as anything other than shamelessly manipulative is narrow-minded.

Also, I think that the characters played by Ben Kinglsey and particularly Embeth Davidtz give the film a significant perspective from the Jewish point of view, even though the primary point of view is Schindler's. Anyway, presenting the Holocaust through the eyes of its perpetrators and those in a position to make the choice whether or not to help save people is a perfectly legitimate cinematic choice.

 

[stj]

As I recall, the first scene in Schindler's List is of a dinner table, festively decorated, covered with platters of---unrecognizable fruit. Not being used to B&W, I couldn't make heads nor tails of the picture. I have never thought B&W was superior, just that some B&W cinematographers were superior. My emotional reaction to the red dress was not emotiional at all---it was puzzlement at the random breaching of the color convention. The inclusion of crappy home movie quality color footage at the end was also puzzling. (Was it real home movie footage?)​

The subject of Schindler's List was Schindler. As such, his relationship with Amon Hoess was more important than some of his underlings. I didn't think Spielberg was under an obligation to make some uniquely Jewish Holocaust movie, much less such a thing were either possible or even desirable. What I thought when I saw the movie was that Spielberg had made a deeply felt movie about how a filthy rich self-made tycoon, i.e., morally dubious hustler, could still, in spite of everything, turn out to be a hero. I'm somehow sure it spoke more to Spielberg's life situation than Polish Jewry of the Thirties.​

There is some humanity to the movie, so I hate to rave about it being bad, when it's not. Looking at the list of Oscar Best Pictures, most are actually pretty well made and pretty entertaining, even when you wonder why anyone thought they were worth memorializing as the Best. Schindler's List in my opinion isn't among the exceptions. But as I say, on one level, it's a rich guy saluting one of his people's heroes. Didn't quite hit me as deep as it did Spielberg I dare say.​

The case for The Fugitive instead is strong. But for real world interest, In the Name of the Father. The movie is awkward, like real life, instead of smoothly structured like The Fugitive, though.

PS I missed the right button!​

 

[Orac Zen]

I've been following these threads with some interest but not participating since more oft than not I've not seen enough of the year's movies to make a proper contribution. I've seen four of the five from this year (I have zero interest in seeing In The Name of the Father, since I gather it's as much blatant and not particularly historically accurate anti-British ranting as anything else) so I feel more able to pitch in.

I was...unimpressed with Schindler's List. It was a...noble project on Spielberg's behalf but it struck me as over-long and manipulative. The sheer horror of the Holocaust ought to be patently obvious to any rational, thinking, even vaguely caring human being; as is often the case with Spielberg he went with sentimentality where the facts would have sufficed. Note that this is an impression that remains at a distance of several years; I haven't rewatched the movie and I can't offer specifics. It's the impression I gained at the time and it's remained with me since.

The Fugitive was a straightforward action movie. Not a bad thing, but not necessarily Oscar material.

The Piano wasn't anything like what I'd expected. At this distance I don't recall what I'd expected but I hadn't anticipated what I got. It's a marvellous movie but I was dragged out of the story at various times (the idea that the piano could remain perfectly playable after sitting on a beach for Lord knows how long broke the suspension of disbelief "rule" pretty thoroughly), but the performances are brilliant and made up for a great deal. The soundtrack is superb as well.

Which brings me to The Remains of the Day. It's one of my favourite movies ever. It was trendy at one stage to trash Merchant Ivory movies for various reasons but this (along with Howards End) was just exceptional movie making with brilliant performances (this is the picture for which Antony Hopkins should have won his Oscar - the fact one could sympathise with Stevens while simultaneously wanting to throttle him speaks volumes for Hopkins portrayal, IMO).

It gets my vote.

 

[Roger Wilco]

I've been following these threads with some interest but not participating since more oft than not I've not seen enough of the year's movies to make a proper contribution. I've seen four of the five from this year (I have zero interest in seeing In The Name of the Father, since I gather it's as much blatant and not particularly historically accurate anti-British ranting as anything else) so I feel more able to pitch in.

I disagree with that. I don't know much more about the Guildford Four than the wikipedia article (I've never had any particular interest in the Northern Ireland conflict), so I can't say much about historical accuracy, but it didn't strike me as anti-British. Or only insofar as the events that happened were an appalling miscarriage of justice that was supported by representatives of the UK.

Of course the film has a point of view, but it's is mainly that the character Daniel Day Lewis plays and his father were incarcerated innocently because of a confession made under torture by British police who were under a lot of pressure to show results after that terrible bombing and just grabbed some random Northern Irish guys they could get hold of - which apparently is pretty much what happened.
But the real IRA members who appear in the movie aren't shown as good guys either.

 

[btflash]

gettysburg should have been on the list. i just saw it the other day and its a powerful movie with some really good performances about that tragic day in american history.