Undeserving Oscar Winners #2

With the latest Academy Awards ceremony on the horizon, here we look back at previous years. The Oscars have a history of, er, questionable decisions when it comes to their Best Picture winners, and this series of blog entries will look at some of the more glaring ones and argue which film should have taken home the statuette. Of course, there's no pleasing everyone, and this is mainly based on personal taste, but also takes into account how well certain films have endured compared to others.

Year
2002

Best Picture Winner
A Beautiful Mind

Why it won:
Ron Howard, despite his completely anonymous direction, has proven himself an Oscar favourite over the years. The film practically had "Look at me, Oscars!" stamped all over it.

Why it didn't deserve to win:
Who remembers it? I guess the people involved deserve some credit for making at least a watchable film based on a socially inept mathematician, but watchable is about the best that can be said.

What should have won
The Lord of the Rings:
The Fellowship of the Ring

Why it didn't win:
Mainly, it seems, because the Academy knew there were two more instalments, and saved most of the gongs (11 of them!) for the concluding chapter, The Return of the King, which in hindsight looks like the weakest. But still great.

Why it deserved to win:

It put a forgotten and derided genre back on the map in emphatic style, and began what is now routinely ranked as one of the best film trilogies of all time. Peter Jackson and his collaborators adapted what many called an unfilmable book with supreme skill and sensitivity, and made a brilliant epic action adventure with heart. In the words of one critic (echoing the sentiments of many), it raised the bar for film entertainment.

Other nominees:
Gosford Park
In the Bedroom
Moulin Rouge!

Undeserving Oscar Winners #1

With the latest Academy Awards ceremony on the horizon, here we look back at previous years. The Oscars have a history of, er, questionable decisions when it comes to their Best Picture winners, and this series of blog entries will look at some of the more glaring ones and argue which film should have taken home the statuette. Of course, there's no pleasing everyone, and this is mainly based on personal taste, but also takes into account how well certain films have endured compared to others.

Year
1999

Best Picture Winner
Shakespeare in Love

Why it won:
It had all of the Miramax marketing muscle behind it. Back in the late 90s, it seemed that the Weinstein brothers could just buy Oscar success; the trend thankfully hasn't continued.

Why it didn't deserve to win:
Shakespeare In Love isn't a bad film. It's a likeable, pretty well written but very lightweight romcom set in Elizabethan England. It's successful on its own terms, but Oscar winning material? I don't think so. Especially considering the competition it had.

What should have won
Saving Private Ryan

Why it didn't win:
Possibly because it's a bit dark and gritty for Oscar voters, but that explanation is countered by the fact that Schindler's List won in 1994. Maybe the very fact that Spielberg won it only a few years earlier put voters off, especially considering they're both World War 2 films. Spielberg deservedly look home Best Director for Ryan, but not Best Film.

Why it deserved to win:

What other war film has had more influence, ever? The impact of the opening D-Day landing scene alone is immense and rightly renowned, exhibiting a filmmaker at the very top of his form. The rest of the film is hardly a letdown, though. In terms of depicting war on screen, it remains unequalled. The less conventional The Thin Red Line, also nominated in the same year, was perhaps more daring and also a superb film, but the visceral force of Ryan is extraordinary. Filmmaking genius.

Other nominees:
The Thin Red Line
Elizabeth
Life Is Beautiful