Academy Awards Best Pictures Discussion

Starting off with 1976:

Best Picture Winner: ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST
Nominees: BARRY LYNDON, DOG DAY AFTERNOON, JAWS, NASHVILLE

What film do you think deserved to win?

Frankly, I think Kubrick's film was more technically elaborate and visually satisfying than all of the other nominees. I can recall a video where Spielberg whined about not getting a Best Director nod, too. BARRY LYNDON, today, still proves to be superior to any of the films in Spielberg's filmography. The Academy got it all wrong, as usual.

NASHVILLE, by far. Robert Altman's masterpiece. Visually, spiritually, emotionally, and intellectually more satisfying than the others. Though while I've still got a lot of love for BARRY LYNDON (need to buy that Kubrick book Harms mentioned) - I find it kind of affectless and aloof. Like a Morton Feldman or Brian Eno work.

Disagree that it's automatically "superior to any of the film's in Spielberg's filmography." CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, THE COLOR PURPLE, E.T. and A.I. (in particular) edge it out, at least. JAWS however, ain't one of his best.

I've only seen three of the flicks (CUCKOO'S NEST, BARRY LYNDON, JAWS). Of the three I think CUCKOO'S NEST was the most deserving. Still I would have given Kubrick the award for Best Director, at least the flick won for cinematography, that always had to be an easy win back in the day. I think the nod for JAWS is agreeable, but that's as much as it should get.

Why I chose CUCKOO's NEST? Jack Nicholson and the rest of the cast is what gives it the edge. As technically brilliant BARRY LYNDON is, the cast and especially Ryan O'Neal leave me cold.

Sharky wrote:

Disagree that it's automatically "superior to any of the film's in Spielberg's filmography." CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, THE COLOR PURPLE, E.T. and A.I. (in particular) edge it out, at least. JAWS however, ain't one of his best.

CLOSE ENCOUNTERS comes very close, but I don't agree with ET, and certainly not THE COLOR PURPLE. And I don't mean superior as in it's "just better". I still meant in terms of technical achievement and visual storytelling. After CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, the quality of technical work in Spielberg's works dramatically declines, ultimately leading us to the bland-looking shit that is SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, and THE TERMINAL.

Mr. Brown wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Disagree that it's automatically "superior to any of the film's in Spielberg's filmography." CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, THE COLOR PURPLE, E.T. and A.I. (in particular) edge it out, at least. JAWS however, ain't one of his best.

CLOSE ENCOUNTERS comes very close, but I don't agree with ET, and certainly not THE COLOR PURPLE. And I don't mean superior as in it's "just better". I still meant in terms of technical achievement and visual storytelling. After CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, the quality of technical work in Spielberg's works dramatically declines, ultimately leading us to the bland-looking shit that is SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, and THE TERMINAL.

Can't agree there.

If that's the criteria one uses for judging film - simply technical virtuosity, you'll sell short a lot of less flashy, subtler fare. SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and even THE TERMINAL, have a humanity and understanding of the human condition surpasses most of Kubrick's work (especially the later half). Reducing cinema to simply a film student's checklist of technical accomplishment (I'm not pointing my finger specially at you, rather the mentality many of these have). It's not seeing the wood from the trees.

I'd say none of Spielberg's Kamiński-lensed films are bland looking. CATCH ME IF YOU CAN hits a warmth and post-war optimism in its painting of America, and THE TERMINAL gives a depth of colour that puts it well ahead of any of its handheld contemporaries (i.e. Greengrass)..

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is only less impressive now, because of the host of countless lame imitators (i.e. Tony and Ridley Scott - I'm looking at you). It was ground breaking in its day, with its handheld camera, narrow shutter angle, no protective coating, and bleach bypass. It still stands up, and puts the rest to shame.

There's nothing bad or bland about the technical side of his later work. It's just not as distinctive as the the stuff he came up with when he was part of New Hollywood, which was in itself rivaling De Palma, and certainly beyond Lumet. That said, I find the subtleties of later Spielberg's technique are overlooked by nearly all cyber-cinephiles. They don't get it.

TBH, I'd have been much happier to have seen Barry Lyndon, Jaws or Nashville beat Cuckoo's Nest, as I love all three of those films pretty intensely, though for difffering reasons which make it hard for me to choose just one from those three; Visually it's Barry Lyndon, whereas in many other regards it's Nashville, but for sheer terrific entertainment, suspense, a fine score, a winning central acting trio and sheer iconography, not to mention a bloody great film from a barely started out director, it's Jaws.

Can't say I'd ever take Color Purple or AI over Barry Lyndon though, no chance. While I find AI underrated for sure, I just don't get the huge elevation around these parts of this film within the Spielberg canon over IMO far superior fare (nor it's huge elevation as a film in general, for that matter) basically ever since Harms started talking about it. An underrated film now seems to have become a rather largely overrated one, at least around here. IMO, every Spielberg flick on his run from Duel to Temple beats out AI (and comfortably at that), the only obvious exception being 1941.

Sharky wrote:

Mr. Brown wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Disagree that it's automatically "superior to any of the film's in Spielberg's filmography." CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, THE COLOR PURPLE, E.T. and A.I. (in particular) edge it out, at least. JAWS however, ain't one of his best.

CLOSE ENCOUNTERS comes very close, but I don't agree with ET, and certainly not THE COLOR PURPLE. And I don't mean superior as in it's "just better". I still meant in terms of technical achievement and visual storytelling. After CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, the quality of technical work in Spielberg's works dramatically declines, ultimately leading us to the bland-looking shit that is SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, and THE TERMINAL.

Can't agree there.

If that's the criteria one uses for judging film - simply technical virtuosity, you'll sell short a lot of less flashy, subtler fare.

Technical virtuosity and visual storytelling. Composition is key with any art form, and cinema is no exception.

Quote :

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and even THE TERMINAL, have a humanity and understanding of the human condition surpasses most of Kubrick's work (especially the later half). Reducing cinema to simply a film student's checklist of technical accomplishment (I'm not pointing my finger specially at you, rather the mentality many of these have). It's not seeing the wood from the trees.

I see where you're coming from, but I think all of that shows up when a director has composed the film properly. I've read that many consider Kubrick's work to be lacking humanity and feeling; although, I'd argue that that isn't true at all. Also, I think you're giving film students a bit more credit than they deserve. Judging by the ones I've met and/or studied with, a lot of them have a desire to "express their own individuality" (ultimately leading them to all churn out similar looking shit) or are dying to be the next "big name". If anything, I'd say film schools need to focus more on technical aspects of cinema; and with the digital format taking over, I only see more problems coming about in the future.

Quote :

There's nothing bad or bland about the technical side of his later work. It's just not as distinctive as the the stuff he came up with when he was part of New Hollywood, which was in itself rivaling De Palma, and certainly beyond Lumet. That said, I find the subtleties of later Spielberg's technique are overlooked by nearly all cyber-cinephiles. They don't get it.

I recognize the fact that Spielberg, after decades of directing, still takes risks with the types of films he makes. The outcome, however, isn't always desirable. I don't find anything satisfying about the look and feel of his recent films. Although I liked MINORITY REPORT, I still think it's an ugly film. MUNICH has its virtues, but I find few redeeming qualities in something CATCH ME IF YOU CAN. To me, it looked like a project to make a quick buck on. I'm not sure if it was supposed to be a drama, or a comedy, or a detective film, because it didn't strike a chord in any of those areas, for me. I could not relate to or sympathize with the characters. Actually, I didn't really care about any of them. I also hated those scenes in that prison. They looked as if anyone could have shot them while Spielberg and his DP took a vacation for a couple of weeks.

As for AI, I enjoy that quite a bit, but don't recognize it as 100% Spielberg. Had there been little work done by Kubrick and his collaborators prior to producing the film, I doubt it would have come out the same way. However, I know many hate the ending, but I think it works. It's not your typical Spielbergian happy ending, and is actually quite bleak.

Also, I made this a general Academy Awards Best Pictures thread. '76 was a good starting point.

Arent these the 1975 Oscars? Or ones for '75 films at the very least?

colly wrote:

Arent these the 1975 Oscars? Or ones for '75 films at the very least?

Yep, films from 75, but results from the 76 ceremony. Rocky was Best Picture of 76, which is why I'm reluctant to post further in the thread, as I'm probably the sole person on the planet who thinks Taxi Driver wasn't robbed. ;)

Dont worry Lazzers - I'll back ROCKY in for '76 glory. ;)

As for the films/ceremony year gambit, I always go with the year. :)

I haven't seen Nashville or Barry Lyndon which remains the only Kubrick outing I haven't seen but it's something I'll rectify soon.

From the other three, Cuckoo's Nest was definitely the most deserving. It was at a time when the 5 nominated films were great as supposed to some mediocre and sometimes horrible nominees and winners the Oscar's have had over the past few years.

Cliff Robertson deserved a Best Actor nomination in '77 (for OBSESSION, 1976).

And, I love Jerry Goldsmith, but THE OMEN didn't match Herrmann's TAXI DRIVER or OBSESSION.

Mr. Brown wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Mr. Brown wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Disagree that it's automatically "superior to any of the film's in Spielberg's filmography." CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, THE COLOR PURPLE, E.T. and A.I. (in particular) edge it out, at least. JAWS however, ain't one of his best.

CLOSE ENCOUNTERS comes very close, but I don't agree with ET, and certainly not THE COLOR PURPLE. And I don't mean superior as in it's "just better". I still meant in terms of technical achievement and visual storytelling. After CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, the quality of technical work in Spielberg's works dramatically declines, ultimately leading us to the bland-looking shit that is SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, and THE TERMINAL.

Can't agree there.

If that's the criteria one uses for judging film - simply technical virtuosity, you'll sell short a lot of less flashy, subtler fare.

Technical virtuosity and visual storytelling. Composition is key with any art form, and cinema is no exception.

Sure, but it's not the be-all and end-all .Just because you use the most portentous Kubrick-lite steadicam shots as humanly possibly (i.e. Joe Wright) - that doesn't mean you have much to say.

For me, conviction, self-confidence, humanity, wit, and a certain spiritual element - are more important. Technique and form are only the means to an end - not the end itself.

Spielberg's films can't all be dolly zooms, desaturation, lens flairs, deep focus, and all that shit. Or be constantly pushing boundaries. It's what lies at the film's hat counts, and how well the visuals convey that.

I agree that Kaminski isn't Vilmos Zsigmond, and sometimes produces a less remarkable, aesthetically pleasing look - but compared to most working the business today, he knows his shit.

Mr. Brown wrote:

Quote :

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and even THE TERMINAL, have a humanity and understanding of the human condition surpasses most of Kubrick's work (especially the later half). Reducing cinema to simply a film student's checklist of technical accomplishment (I'm not pointing my finger specially at you, rather the mentality many of these have). It's not seeing the wood from the trees.

I see where you're coming from, but I think all of that shows up when a director has composed the film properly. I've read that many consider Kubrick's work to be lacking humanity and feeling; although, I'd argue that that isn't true at all.

Not entirely, but I'm constantly reminded of it when I watch his films. It's the overriding sense of being a dispassionate spectator, than being invested in any of the characters or the story. At his worst, it's like being an art gallery, as opposed to watching film. A criticism I'd usually lay at some hack like Peter Greenaway.

Mr. Brown wrote:

Also, I think you're giving film students a bit more credit than they deserve. Judging by the ones I've met and/or studied with, a lot of them have a desire to "express their own individuality" (ultimately leading them to all churn out similar looking shit) or are dying to be the next "big name". If anything, I'd say film schools need to focus more on technical aspects of cinema; and with the digital format taking over, I only see more problems coming about in the future.

Definitely. But because a good deal of them tend to be hipsters, they tend to idolise place Kubrick as No. 1. - followed by the likes of Todd Haynes, Krzysztof Kieślowski, Werner Herzog, Martin Scorsese, Gus Van Sant, David Fincher, Charlie Kaufman, Darren Aronofsky, Woody Allen, Lars Von Trier, Dario Argento, Steven Soderbergh, David Cronenberg, Quentin Tarantino etc... The "hip" nihilistic crowd, when they should be studying Dreyer, Bergman, Griffith, Ford, DeMille, Lang, Lean, Hawks, Minnelli, Welles, Renoir, Bresson, Kurosawa, Teshigahara, Ozu, Hitchcock, Eisenstein, Cocteau, Goddard, Truffaut, Malick, Tartovsky, Schlesinger, Powell & Pressburger, Clouzot, Bertolucci, Boorman, Zinnemann, Frankenheimer, Spielberg, De Palma, Antonioni, Altman, Peckinpah, Leone, Demme, Lynch, Resnais, Polanski, Wong, Chabrol, Visconti, Fellini, Rossellini, Siegel, Leigh, Richardson etc...

Old school in other words. Individualism is fine, once you've got the fundamentals down pat.

Mr. Brown wrote:

Quote :

There's nothing bad or bland about the technical side of his later work. It's just not as distinctive as the the stuff he came up with when he was part of New Hollywood, which was in itself rivaling De Palma, and certainly beyond Lumet. That said, I find the subtleties of later Spielberg's technique are overlooked by nearly all cyber-cinephiles. They don't get it.

I recognize the fact that Spielberg, after decades of directing, still takes risks with the types of films he makes. The outcome, however, isn't always desirable. I don't find anything satisfying about the look and feel of his recent films. Although I liked MINORITY REPORT, I still think it's an ugly film.

I think its cold pallet didn't work entirely, but you've gotta admit - the overexposed mall sequence was beautiful. Dreamlike, in a kind of way Chris Nolan could never imagine. For all his flaws, it's choices like that puts Kaminski above 90% of his contemporaries.

Good article on MUNICH's cinematography here:

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/feb06/munich/page2.html#

Mr. Brown wrote:

As for AI, I enjoy that quite a bit, but don't recognize it as 100% Spielberg. Had there been little work done by Kubrick and his collaborators prior to producing the film, I doubt it would have come out the same way.

I don't, with the exception of the coda - 2000 years into the future. There's too many Biblical allusions, parallels, and ideas recurring in all of Spielberg's films - for the Kubrick involvement to have been as crucial as many of the pro-Kubrick/anti-Spielberg crowd claim. I understand he laid out a lot of the groundwork - but it was Spielberg who put his own final touch touch - as director.

Mr. Brown wrote:

However, I know many hate the ending, but I think it works. It's not your typical Spielbergian happy ending, and is actually quite bleak.

The bittersweet love at the ending ain't entirely alone in Spielberg's work. THE SUGARLAND EXPRESS is a good example, as is CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. Roy - while answering his call to the heavens, is also leaving his loved ones, and will return to earth in the future, while most of them have since passed on It's an ambiguity that lies under the celebratory music and Cecil B. DeMille sound and light show.

Sharky wrote:

I agree that Kaminski isn't Vilmos Zsigmond, and sometimes produces a less remarkable, aesthetically pleasing look - but compared to most working the business today, he knows his shit.

Can't argue with you there.

Quote :

Mr. Brown wrote:

Also, I think you're giving film students a bit more credit than they deserve. Judging by the ones I've met and/or studied with, a lot of them have a desire to "express their own individuality" (ultimately leading them to all churn out similar looking shit) or are dying to be the next "big name". If anything, I'd say film schools need to focus more on technical aspects of cinema; and with the digital format taking over, I only see more problems coming about in the future.

Definitely. But because a good deal of them tend to be hipsters, they tend to idolise place Kubrick as No. 1. - followed by the likes of Todd Haynes, Krzysztof Kieślowski, Werner Herzog, Martin Scorsese, Gus Van Sant, David Fincher, Charlie Kaufman, Darren Aronofsky, Woody Allen, Lars Von Trier, Dario Argento, Steven Soderbergh, David Cronenberg, Quentin Tarantino etc... The "hip" nihilistic crowd, when they should be studying Dreyer, Bergman, Griffith, Ford, DeMille, Lang, Lean, Hawks, Minnelli, Welles, Renoir, Bresson, Kurosawa, Teshigahara, Ozu, Hitchcock, Eisenstein, Cocteau, Goddard, Truffaut, Malick, Tartovsky, Schlesinger, Powell & Pressburger, Clouzot, Bertolucci, Boorman, Zinnemann, Frankenheimer, Spielberg, De Palma, Antonioni, Altman, Peckinpah, Leone, Demme, Lynch, Resnais, Polanski, Wong, Chabrol, Visconti, Fellini, Rossellini, Siegel, Leigh, Richardson etc...

Old school in other words. Individualism is fine, once you've got the fundamentals down pat.

And you're spot-on with this.

Haven't seen NASHVILLE or DOG DAY AFTERNOON.

Of the ones I have seen, I think BARRY LYNDON is probably the most deserving. It's a tour de force, and such a visual masterpiece that it's hard not to at least consider it. CUCKOO'S NEST is obviously great, too, I just think BARRY LYNDON is a little more deserving.

JAWS....a fun film and a classic adventure/thriller/horror (or whatever the hell it is), but it shouldn't be anywhere near an Oscar for Best Picture.

News today: The Academy has made some changes and the number of Best Picture nominees will now vary between five and 10 every year.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/another-oscar-shakeup-number-of-best-picture-nominees-will-vary/

Hm, that's a bit seedy, if you ask me.

They should pick a number and stick with it.

Nobody expects the Academy Award Best Picture nominees!

The amount of nominess doesn't matter, it's the quality. They need to cast their net wider and start nominating foreign films for BP and stop pandering to the campaigning by the likes of Harvey Weinstein.

Mr. Brown wrote:

Hm, that's a bit seedy, if you ask me.

They should pick a number and stick with it.

Good, now they can only pick movies with an agenda they support.

bondfan06 wrote:

The amount of nominess doesn't matter, it's the quality. They need to cast their net wider and start nominating foreign films for BP and stop pandering to the campaigning by the likes of Harvey Weinstein.

This is a very good point. I wish satires like Christopher Guest's FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION focused more on this side. The greedy nepotism of it all, the simultaneous pilgrimage to Hollywood, and the exploitation. Rather than just make fun of aging actors/actresses or C list stars. That's too easy.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Mr. Brown wrote:

Hm, that's a bit seedy, if you ask me.

They should pick a number and stick with it.

Good, now they can only pick movies with an agenda they support.

Paul Haggis is in the clear.

The next change should be to make Gary Busey the permanent host.