The Oscars

[MillieDynamite]

They dug a hole in the floor to get the camera low enough to shoot those amazing shots up toward Joseph Cotton and Orsen Wells. It was an oddly effective way to turn the actors into bigger-than-life than what had been done before. My pops and I watched and told him after, "Don't like that one very much." He said, "Me neither. Let's watch Casablanca again next so we can laugh at those that think Kane is better."

We laughed at the critics' superior intellects.

LAC is a vastly underrated movie. Pearce was brilliant in it. As were all the cast.

Kane is weird. I find it kinda unfulfilling. We did it at college (nice way to boost my GPA and I love movies). People claim it introduced all sorts of visual language that we now take for granted in movies. I think it may have introduced some, but it certainly popularized things like zooming into a building through a window, even if earlier movies had already employed the same.

I can appreciate it as an achievement, but it’s not so satisfying as art. At least to me.

Emily

 

[OffNSFW]

I think Kane is a great story.

The enormously privileged man who doesn't realize he's engineering his own downfall, alienating everyone who might have loved him? Great stuff. You can see why Welles originally wanted to title it "The American."

I do think it's a victim of its own praise. It's virtually impossible just to experience it as a movie, because it's THE movie.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Just a few of my all time favorite Oscar Winners that hold up:
Dances With Wolves, (Possibly my favorite all time movie)
The Return of the King,
Ben Hur,
West Side Story,
My Fair lady,
Schindler's List,

 

[gunhilltrain]

Birdman didn't do it for me, for some reason, but I'll grant that it was different and bold and creative, so I don't mind that it won. I never saw Boyhood, but I may give it a go at some point.

Birdman raises an interesting question: How many movies have you seen that purport to be a continuous shot? I can think of that one and 1917, which I liked a lot. I'm trying to think of any others.

Edit: Hitchcock's Rope. I think that was the first movie I saw that was made to appear as a single, continuous shot.

I think it was close to one continuous shot. There is one edit visible, maybe there are a couple more. It's like a stage play in effect. You rehearse it a lot, and then it rolls out, for better or worse.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Just a few of my all time favorite Oscar Winners that hold up:
Dances With Wolves, (Possibly my favorite all time movie)
The Return of the King,
Ben Hur,
West Side Story,
My Fair lady,
Schindler's List,

The West Side Story exteriors were mostly filmed where Lincoln Center is now. In one scene a housing development, I think it's called Lincoln Towers, is visible when it was under construction.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Birdman raises an interesting question: How many movies have you seen that purport to be a continuous shot? I can think of that one and 1917, which I liked a lot. I'm trying to think of any others.

Edit: Hitchcock's Rope. I think that was the first movie I saw that was made to appear as a single, continuous shot.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-shot_film

 

[ElectricBlue]

I think it was close to one continuous shot. There is one edit visible, maybe there are a couple more. It's like a stage play in effect. You rehearse it a lot, and then it rolls out, for better or worse.

Rope was multiple 7 - 8 minute takes. The limitation back then was the length of a camera film reel.

 

[AllenWoody]

Rope was multiple 7 - 8 minute takes. The limitation back then was the length of a camera film reel.

Seven or eight minutes used to be my limit, too. Now that I’m older I can sometimes carry on for a whopping ten or twelve!

Wait… what rope are we talking about?

 

[SimonDoom]

Just a few of my all time favorite Oscar Winners that hold up:
Dances With Wolves, (Possibly my favorite all time movie)
The Return of the King,
Ben Hur,
West Side Story,
My Fair lady,
Schindler's List,

Those are all good choices in my book, although I have to confess sometimes I think Goodfellas should have won over Dances with Wolves, as much as I like Dances with Wolves. But there was no way DWW was going to lose that year. That movie had one of the best musical scores of all time.

Some others on my favorite Oscar Best Picture winners:

Casablanca
On the Waterfront
The Apartment
Bridge on the River Kwai
The Godfather
Annie Hall
Silence of the Lambs
No Country for Old Men

Another movie that SHOULD have won: Fargo over The English Patient.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Another movie that SHOULD have won: Fargo over The English Patient.

I love Fargo (and they finally got it right with season 5 of the TV spin off). But I’ve never cried as much at a movie (and afterwards) as The English Patient. Tearing up a little now…

 

[AllenWoody]

Those are all good choices in my book, although I have to confess sometimes I think Goodfellas should have won over Dances with Wolves, as much as I like Dances with Wolves. But there was no way DWW was going to lose that year. That movie had one of the best musical scores of all time.

Some others on my favorite Oscar Best Picture winners:

Casablanca
On the Waterfront
The Apartment
Bridge on the River Kwai
The Godfather
Annie Hall
Silence of the Lambs
No Country for Old Men

Another movie that SHOULD have won: Fargo over The English Patient.

This is the correct list, especially up through and including Annie Hall. The Apartment is a gem which few people seem to have seen compared to others from that era. Woody Allen is a divisive figure, but his collaborations with Gordon Willis (cinematographer) are incredible.

And yes, Fargo over English Patient and William H Macy over Cuba Gooding Jr.

 

[MillieDynamite]

William Randolph Hearst disagrees with you, even from beyond the grave!

I think Kane is a great story.

The enormously privileged man who doesn't realize he's engineering his own downfall, alienating everyone who might have loved him? Great stuff. You can see why Welles originally wanted to title it "The American."

I do think it's a victim of its own praise. It's virtually impossible just to experience it as a movie, because it's THE movie.

 

[OffNSFW]

William Randolph Hearst disagrees with you, even from beyond the grave!

Gore Vidal claimed that "rosebud" was Hearsts's nickname for his girlfriend's vulva. I have no idea if that's true or not, but the fact that Welles made it the most famous word in cinema is hilarious.

 

[SimonDoom]

Gore Vidal claimed that "rosebud" was Hearsts's nickname for his girlfriend's vulva. I have no idea if that's true or not, but the fact that Welles made it the most famous word in cinema is hilarious.

It's a good story, but I take what Gore Vidal said with a grain of salt. He had a great gift for words but an inflated idea of having the correct inside scoop on everything.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Kane is weird. I find it kinda unfulfilling. ...

I can appreciate it as an achievement, but it’s not so satisfying as art. At least to me.

I watched RKO281 (a movie about the making of Citizen Kane) before seeing CK. Not on purpose, just I was on a plane pre- choice of entertainment, and it was unexpectedly compelling. Highly recommended.

CK itself was less interesting in comparison, even though I could see why it was a leap forward in cinematography, despite having very little knowledge of cinema.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I watched RKO281 (a movie about the making of Citizen Kane) before seeing CK. Not on purpose, just I was on a plane pre- choice of entertainment, and it was unexpectedly compelling. Highly recommended.

CK itself was less interesting in comparison, even though I could see why it was a leap forward in cinematography, despite having very little knowledge of cinema.

The visual trickery is amazing. Just the story is somehow, meh!

Emily

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Fargo was great but English Patient was also a worthy winner.
Dances With Wolves had the wonderful score and landscape. Not sure how much I appreciated the rest of it because of Kevin Coster and sometimes minimal amounts of clothing.
Ben Hur, My Fair Lady hold up even now, but West Side Story, I dunno. I watched it last year for the first time and didn't know what to make of it. So stylised, I honestly wasn't sure if it was intending to be a parody of itself.

I never understood Forrest Gump winning in 1995. Maybe you had to be steeped in American culture or something, but my friends and I all found the film pretty vapid. And it was a strong year for Oscar nominees: Pulp Fiction. Three Colours: Red (my favourite), Quiz Show. Any of those nominees would have deserved Best Director.

Then you've got Shawshank Redemption and its outstanding performances, Madness of King George, Eat Drink Man Woman. I've not seen Bullets over Broadway but people still say it's good. And the Lion King! Even Four Weddings holds up as a well-structured film.

Hanks had won Best Actor the previous year for Philadelphia (reasonable). I'd have understood Gump picking up an Oscar or two, but six and 13 nominations?

 

[Voboy]

Fargo was great but English Patient was also a worthy winner.
Dances With Wolves had the wonderful score and landscape. Not sure how much I appreciated the rest of it because of Kevin Coster and sometimes minimal amounts of clothing.
Ben Hur, My Fair Lady hold up even now, but West Side Story, I dunno. I watched it last year for the first time and didn't know what to make of it. So stylised, I honestly wasn't sure if it was intending to be a parody of itself.

I never understood Forrest Gump winning in 1995. Maybe you had to be steeped in American culture or something, but my friends and I all found the film pretty vapid. And it was a strong year for Oscar nominees: Pulp Fiction. Three Colours: Red (my favourite), Quiz Show. Any of those nominees would have deserved Best Director.

Then you've got Shawshank Redemption and its outstanding performances, Madness of King George, Eat Drink Man Woman. I've not seen Bullets over Broadway but people still say it's good. And the Lion King! Even Four Weddings holds up as a well-structured film.

Hanks had won Best Actor the previous year for Philadelphia (reasonable). I'd have understood Gump picking up an Oscar or two, but six and 13 nominations?

Gump was a massive cultural phenomenon in the States, and it's tailor-made as an ode to the Boomer worldview. 1995 was when the Boomers were at their absolute peak, and Their Movie was going to be a tidal wave... including at the Oscars. There was no serious competition, either at the box office or at the awards shows.

Certainly Pulp Fiction was never going to be rewarded, despite the fact that it was probably the best film of the decade retrospectively: its significance wasn't yet established, and Tarantino was still a rebel auteur at that point. Shawshank had the best chance to unseat Gump, but Gump's momentum was simply too great. Every other film that year, however worthy, was seen as an also-ran.

 

[OffNSFW]

Pulp Fiction was also a bigger winner in the international awards, which tend to have a more predictive track record for movies that hold up when it's no longer their big moment.

Forrest Gump isn't a bad movie at all, but it's good in a way that won't offend your mom, and that's the sweet spot for the Academy. (At least, when it's not a year when they feel obligated to promote something topical, in which case they usually choose the worst possible movie to represent.) Your mom probably isn't going to turn up for Tarantino or Kieslowski, but she'll turn up for Tom Hanks playing a very nice man, set to a retro soundtrack. That's how I imagine the typical Academy voter, anyway.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Forrest Gump isn't a bad movie at all, but it's good in a way that won't offend your mom, and that's the sweet spot for the Academy. (At least, when it's not a year when they feel obligated to promote something topical, in which case they usually choose the worst possible movie to represent.) Your mom probably isn't going to turn up for Tarantino or Kieslowski, but she'll turn up for Tom Hanks playing a very nice man, set to a retro soundtrack. That's how I imagine the typical Academy voter, anyway.

I think you and Voboy are right - it's a movie for American Boomers. So my mom (American pre-Boomer gen) hated it, because she was as out of sync with the nostalgia-fest as my friends and I (19yo GenY Brits - GenY seems to have been erased recently), who didn't notice half the historical references and were wondering why the film was fetishising a guy who had learning difficulties in a rather creepy way. (Resists comparison to later US politics...)

Mum complained they got half the history wrong and she was there (she actually was, for a fair few. Worked with Yoko Ono a bit. Apparently anyone who got to Woodstock after the first afternoon and says they heard the music, must have had better drugs than she and her friends did!). She thinks Tarantino is a bit violent, likes Kieslowski and introduced me to him, and likes pointing out that she graduated high school the same year as the kids in Grease, only from a one-room schoolhouse where some kids didn't have shoes in the summer. But concedes Grease is a good film about rich kids.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think you and Voboy are right - it's a movie for American Boomers. So my mom (American pre-Boomer gen) hated it, because she was as out of sync with the nostalgia-fest as my friends and I (19yo GenY Brits - GenY seems to have been erased recently), who didn't notice half the historical references and were wondering why the film was fetishising a guy who had learning difficulties in a rather creepy way. (Resists comparison to later US politics...)

Mum complained they got half the history wrong and she was there (she actually was, for a fair few. Worked with Yoko Ono a bit. Apparently anyone who got to Woodstock after the first afternoon and says they heard the music, must have had better drugs than she and her friends did!). She thinks Tarantino is a bit violent, likes Kieslowski and introduced me to him, and likes pointing out that she graduated high school the same year as the kids in Grease, only from a one-room schoolhouse where some kids didn't have shoes in the summer. But concedes Grease is a good film about rich kids.

I enjoyed Forrest Gump as a fun fantasy, like Back to the Future, albeit with some additional poignancy and pathos. It never seemed weighty enough to me to be a best picture. I thought the same of Titanic--great entertainment, but not a great film.

 

[Voboy]

I enjoyed Forrest Gump as a fun fantasy, like Back to the Future, albeit with some additional poignancy and pathos. It never seemed weighty enough to me to be a best picture. I thought the same of Titanic--great entertainment, but not a great film.

I agree (not a Boomer), which is why I said a few posts ago that Shawshank was the only reasonable candidate that could have given it a run for its money at the Oscars. I cordially disagree with @Kumquatqueen above: it was NOT a strong year for Oscar contenders. I'm old enough to remember the coverage of films in 1995; nobody talked about anything except Forrest Gump. It was considered a shoo-in, just like Titanic was a couple years later on.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Speaking of Titanic, because y'all did, it seems to be a bit of a remake of two other films. Titanic 1953 and A Night to Remember 1958, both of which kick Cammeron's ass for accuracy and perhaps for the emotional love story. Despite it having better special effects and two of my favorite actors, Billy Zane and Bill Paxton, and the Misery mistress Kathy Bates, I like the others over it!!!!

I enjoyed Forrest Gump as a fun fantasy, like Back to the Future, albeit with some additional poignancy and pathos. It never seemed weighty enough to me to be a best picture. I thought the same of Titanic--great entertainment, but not a great film.

 

[SimonDoom]

I agree (not a Boomer),

I am a Boomer, though barely. I definitely chafe at the label. It encompasses people born from 1946 to 1964, and there's a huge difference between people born in the 40s and people like me born in the 1960s. My sensibility is much more 80s than 60s.

 

[Voboy]

Speaking of Titanic, because y'all did, it seems to be a bit of a remake of two other films. Titanic 1953 and A Night to Remember 1958, both of which kick Cammeron's ass for accuracy and perhaps for the emotional love story. Despite it having better special effects and two of my favorite actors, Billy Zane and Bill Paxton, and the Misery mistress Kathy Bates, I like the others over it!!!!

I remember the talk at that time was mostly about the CGI in Titanic. I've always believed that Oscar was largely about the cinematic and technical achievements, which really did advance the state of the art. Hollywood likes movies that prove concepts like that.

Sorta like with Gump, it wasn't that strong a year at the Oscars. LA Confidential was excellent, and it was a legit contender, but the other nominees were Good Will Hunting (which was also excellent, but wasn't going to conquer Titanic), then Full Monty and As Good As It Gets. And I think we can all agree that those two, while good movies, are not in the league of the other three.