May 3, 2018 at 5:26 pm #1202540168
Over in the theatre world, the New York Drama Critics Circle announced that no new musical would receive their Best Musical award this season. This not close to being the only time that has happened.
Some times the Pulitzers don’t give awards if they don’t feel nothing is worthy enough to win.
With that in mind, if film critics’ circles were so inclined, what year(s) would you choose that you felt were so weak or uninspired that you’d choose to not reward a Best Picture prize if we limit it to films that had American distribution and were screened in a theater following Oscar rules.May 4, 2018 at 3:16 am #1202540385
1963 is tragic.May 4, 2018 at 4:39 am #1202540409This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.May 4, 2018 at 4:51 am #1202540416
1929 and 1952 seem tempting, given that the pictures that won have less than 50% on Rotten Tomatoes.May 4, 2018 at 5:04 am #1202540423This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.May 4, 2018 at 5:10 am #1202540424This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.May 4, 2018 at 5:23 am #1202540426This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.May 4, 2018 at 5:26 am #1202540428
29th Oscars (1956) were disgraceful – such a tedious bunch of bloated period dramas and adventure films. If Around the World in 80 Days is the best film of the year, you know you are going through a troubled year. Also, Ingrid Bergman winning for Anastasia and Marilyn Monroe not even being nominated for Bus Stop while Don Murray is? Geez.
That said, Giant, La Strada and Baby Doll are immortal.May 4, 2018 at 8:13 am #1202540496
1963 is tragic.
The Oscar nominees for the top prize in 1963 are arguably lacking. That said, I do greatly admire Hud (Martin Ritt) and High and Low (Akira Kurosawa). Either classic film is deserving of a Best Picture Oscar. I love movies. The comparison of a year of released films to the limited output of Broadway musicals in a season is a poor comparison. There is simply too much product, too much great product each year for me not to unearth a film I revere.
I get what you’re saying, but with the Pulitzers prize for Drama, it’s not just limited to what’s produced in New York but the entire country. However, they have their own limiting standards. I was just looking at my Best Film lists in the past few years and was thinking that I wasn’t really THAT enthused with them and wouldn’t mind putting out a “No Winner”. I think I’m becoming a bit less enthused with film right now especially when I’m on a Criterion kick and been catching up on some titles I’ve been meaning to watch.May 5, 2018 at 5:31 am #1202540924
1929 and 1952 seem tempting, given that the pictures that won have less than 50% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Not 1952 for sure, since High Noon and The Bad and The Beautiful are BOTH genuine classics of cinema! Ironically, the Best Picture winning film that year The Greatest Show on Earth won just 2 Oscars including the big prize, while those 2 great films thankfully and deservedly won 4 and 5 Oscars respectively, the latter in spite of its undeserved Best Picture and Best Director snubs.
Don’t forget what may be the finest film musical Singin’ in the Rain was made in 1952. As for 1929, Un Chien Andalou (Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dalí) is a simply unforgettable silent film that features a series of unrelated, searing images including the classic moment of a man sharpening his razor, him holding the blade before a woman’s eye, a flat silver cloud drifting before a full moon, and the man committing the terrifying act.
Sure. And if those films couldn’t win, why should any have? I’m just going by the logic of the original post of this thread, where if “The Artist” is the best they could do, then there shouldn’t have been any award. Speaking of which, I actually disagree with the argument that “The Artist” didn’t deserve to win. I’ve seen it, and I can see why it won.May 6, 2018 at 4:14 am #1202541239
I don’t know about best picture but no best actress Oscar should have been given in some years. Like 1994 when Jessica Lange won. I don’t know what the general consensus was at the time, but now I’ve seen all nominated (and some un-nominated) performances and I just don’t see a really worthy winner among them. Lange is probably not even top 3 for me that year but this does not matter. The quality in that category that year was very low.
Another occasion – 2005. The year Reese Witherspoon won. Another awful year with plenty of average work being recognized by default.May 6, 2018 at 4:41 am #1202541245This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.May 6, 2018 at 7:14 am #1202541289
You sort of want to say that every year has to have a winner, that you will always find a worthy winner somewhere, but if we’re going by the actual nominees then yes, what the fuck with 2011?
I found issues with every single film, I think The Artist won very easily as there could never be a consensus for any of the other films. I have one truly favorite film there and it’s Moneyball, and I can’t imagine it being a BP Winner at all.
I have seem them all and if I remember correctly I actually liked them all, but each of them have plenty of things to criticize. Not an undeniable, amazing, great, perfect movie on that list.
I could replace many of these with films like Dragon Tattoo, A Separation, Bridesmaids, Drive, We Need to Talk About Kevin. And even then, I can’t see any of these getting votes to be a BP Winner. They don’t look like it. Which of course makes sense, they couldn’t even get nominated.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.