The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

[captveg]

I love how 20 years later we can call it a "safe" movie when all expectations before it was released was that it would ruin Costner's career. It wasn't mockingly called "Kevin's Gate" in pre-production for nothing.

For every safe choice Costner made in retrospect he made just as many risky ones in the moment, from the Sioux dialog to the length of the film. Without DWW there's no studios banking longer "epic" films such as Braveheart or The Lord of the Rings. Now, the pendulum probably has swung too far that way at this point, but go back to 1989 and one can see the complete lack of expectations.

The film was a gamble, even if 20 years later it's lost some PC ground.

[Gregory]

The reasons it was considered a gamble (such as budget, scale of production, length, Costner's lack of track record as a director, and the presence of Lakota dialogue) don't really have anything to do with my critique of the film, nor does "PC" and supposedly changing standards thereof.
The film was a gamble in ways that journalist-critics love to discuss ad nauseam before a film like this has been completed, released, and then brings in a bunch of money and awards—or doesn't. It can still be critiqued, then and now, on largely separate grounds as a film with a "safe," "comforting" message with respect to mainstream attitudes about its subjects. If it had not been, and had instead delved into more complex and difficult questions about the past and history leading up to the present, then it's highly doubtful that it would have won so many Oscars. I'm not holding the awards against it; it's really just a "feel-good" epic that ennobles white audiences by having them identify with the good exemplar of white civilization in a simplistic dichotomy that rather fatalistically relegates issues related to Native America to a distant and mythical past.

[mfunk9786]

Wait - wasn't it Waterworld that was dubbed "Kevin's Gate"?

[Mr Sausage]

Why would relevant posts in this thread be moved to a thread about a film's DVD release, and even then only some of those posts? Pretty unnecessarily confusing decision, mods, and it discourages future discussions in-thread. Posts in other lists threads don't get split like this

Yeah, and domino's and my initiating posts are still here, so the transposed discussion must seem a little abrupt, if not incoherent.

I agree. There really shouldn't be thread splits from List Project threads since they're here to discuss the films in question. I've moved the posts back.

[willoneill]

Wait - wasn't it Waterworld that was dubbed "Kevin's Gate"?

That's what I thought as well. I think "Fishtar" was also bandied about.

[knives]

Wait - wasn't it Waterworld that was dubbed "Kevin's Gate"?

That's what I thought as well. I think "Fishtar" was also bandied about.

You're both correct. DWW was considered a gamble, but not a mistake.

[PillowRock]

At the moment I'm feeling the need to mount a partial defense of Star Wars, especially when it comes to people such as domino who have only seen it since the 1997 "special edition" came out (and Lucas stopped allowing access to the original version).

That's because you're not seeing the same movie that we saw in theaters back in 1977, and I can't think of any of Lucas' changes that helped the movie. The vast majority of them actively hurt the movie.

All of the bits that get picked back up from the cutting room floor or got added as new digital effects bits in Mos Eisley mostly just served to screw up the pacing of the movie. Changing the "Han shoots first" bit both screwed up Han's character arc and made the bounty hunter look inept, and by extension de-fanged the threat of Jabba a bit. Having Jabba come to see Han, and letting Han get away with stepping on Jabba's tail, finished the job of de-fanging Jabba (while contributing to the screwing up of the pacing for no good reason). All of the digitally added buildings and flying robots and such mostly just serve to make Tatooine feel like a much less desolate place, and I don't think that is good for the overall movie either.

Star Wars is also a movie that really should be seen in a theater. I've always said that, of the movies that I've seen both ways, 2001 and Lawrence were the two where the "big screen experience" made that biggest difference. Well, I would put Star Wars right behind them in a fairly close third place. The opening with that star destroyer passing overhead is a game changer, and completely shifts the audience's attitude for the rest of the movie, when the screen is 80 feet wide and a theater's base / sub-woofers are vibrating your guts. It's just never the same at home (eve if you have the sub-woofers, the scale of what you're seeing doesn't match those vibrations). Also, a couple of the later space combat scenes are (like the Bullitt car chase) much more visceral experiences in a theater than they are at home.

Yes, it's ultimately pulpy serial material with a bunch of archetypes as characters; and Hamill and Fisher aren't the greatest actors. However, Guiness, Cushing, and Jones' voicing of Vader give some depth and weight to the proceedings; Hamill is mostly asked to be a dazed looking bumpkin (which he isn't that horrible at, even if it is debatable whether the dazed look was "acting"; I actually think that his acting is a bigger problem in Return of the Jedi when he is supposed to be projecting a sense of depth and gravitas); and Fisher spends most of her time throwing out snarky, sarcastic comments (which is pretty much her wheelhouse for line delivery). And, in its original version, it was a well paced ride.

[domino harvey]

1981
Atlantic City Burt Lancaster helps matters, but this just wasn't one of the Louis Malle films that deserved to be recognized here. Proof of how a little distance from the process sometimes makes a nominees' inclusion look all the more bewildering.

Chariots of Fire A polite film, but who needs or wants that? I do not understand for what reasons this Brit-boosting historical running pic won, as outside of its anachronistic but justly iconic score there's little to latch onto. The film is too removed and distant, with the plights of its two subjects too familiar and kept at arm's length. Director Hugh Hudson did a fine job trying to move things along, but stiff upper lip posturing for two-plus hours would sink even the most skilled of craftsmen.

On Golden Pond With the acting pedigree present, I remained optimistic while watching for upwards of minutes. "They're not both really going to be doing this doddering old coot act for the whole movie," he asked knowing the answer. In a film with Henry Fonda, Katharine Hepburn, and Jane Fonda, the sole good performance is given by Dabney Coleman, who inhabits the only character with a passing resemblance to a human being rather than a greeting card archetype. No offense to Coleman, but that I'm even mentioning him at all in relation to a film with these three headliners is damnation aplenty. "Bullshit" indeed.

Raiders of the Lost Ark I wasn't planning on revisiting this childhood favorite but once it became clear that this was another awful year where the Academy celebrated mediocrity, I knew I had nothing to lose. Having spent the spring revisiting dozens of similar such nostalgia films, Raiders of the Lost Ark stands out for moving along quicker than I'd remembered. Trust me, that is not the norm with these repeats! The film has such audacious non-stop pacing that it cleverly helps mask its flaws with its narrative efficiency and speed of execution. Surprisingly I didn't mind, though, and somewhere in the genius stretch where the bravura fist fight on and under the wings of a moving fighter plane is only one of the middle linking set pieces I willingly gave up all resistance and just smiled pleasantly as everything unfurled endlessly on-screen.

While we're here, I do regret the hardline anti-Spielberg stance I've taken here and elsewhere in the past, as this behavior was more a product of youthful arrogance than an accurate summation of an accepted auteur's work, however populist. I wouldn't say he's one of the greats or anything, but he has a more varied and full oeuvre than I've previously allotted. Sometimes I do a search and see my own foreign-looking words and I just have to chuckle and shake my head and go, "Oh Domino Harvey"

Reds Warren Beatty's epic stab at Oscar bait starts off well enough with interview inserts and a fine elliptical structure, but alas the allure of traditional narrative crutches overshadows the nascent pleasures of the second half. Restructure the film solely around Gene Hackman's cameo and it just might work, though.

My Vote: Raiders of the Lost Ark

[knives]

It's weird seeing you point yourself as a board Spielberg hater as I remember you defending a few of his lesser appreciated works like War of the Worlds quite strongly.

[domino harvey]

It's weird seeing you point yourself as a board Spielberg hater as I remember you defending a few of his lesser appreciated works like War of the Worlds quite strongly.

True, but I defended it as "The only good Spielberg film"

[knives]

Ah, I forgot that part.

[mfunk9786]

Time to watch Catch Me If You Can and Jaws again!

[knives]

I revisited Jaws for the horror list actually and feel that it doesn't hold up entirely. The great bits are still great, but the first act before they get on the boat could have been shortened considerably. There really is no reason for the movie to be over two hours. Once they get on the boat though (really even before that with Dreyfuss' introduction) it is a perfect piece of fun.

[matrixschmatrix]

The parts before they get on the boat are where the horror movie lives, though. Cut that out, and it's strictly an adventure. It feels like two very effective movies joined at the hip, to me.

[knives]

I agree with you and I wouldn't suggest cutting the start completely. Just that it needed a small amount of tightening.

[Mr Sausage]

I can't think of anything in the first half that needs cutting or that the movie would benefit from losing. It's a perfectly executed set-up. Unlike a lot of Spielberg films, the stuff between the set-pieces isn't just filler. Plus at 124 minutes the thing isn't much over two hours. So that was kind of an odd complaint, knives.

Are you sure you didn't see the longer version with a bunch of deleted scenes added in that occasionally played on tv? Now that certainly needed cutting.

I still think Jaws and Raiders are Spielberg's best films by far.

[colinr0380]

I still think Jaws and Raiders are Spielberg's best films by far.

A.I. for me, though I like those other two films very much.

(By the way watching Michael Mann's The Keep again last night made me think just how much the Nazi-exploding light show of that film must have been influenced by the climax of Raiders just a couple of years earlier)

[knives]

Are you sure you didn't see the longer version with a bunch of deleted scenes added in that occasionally played on tv? Now that certainly needed cutting.

Was that version released on DVD? I do remember the film being about ten minutes longer than what you say. It's a really minor complaint all things said for a film that remains great fun through most of its runtime though.

[Mr Sausage]

Are you sure you didn't see the longer version with a bunch of deleted scenes added in that occasionally played on tv? Now that certainly needed cutting.

Was that version released on DVD? I do remember the film being about ten minutes longer than what you say. It's a really minor complaint all things said for a film that remains great fun through most of its runtime though.

It could've been released on DVD. The theatrical release is definitely 124 minutes.

This is such a slickly paced movie tho' that saying it has even minor pacing issues is attention getting. I actually understand it less than if you said you outright hate it.

[knives]

I can't imagine anyone outright hating the film if just for Shaw's ridiculous performance.

[Mr Sausage]

I can't imagine anyone outright hating the film if just for Shaw's ridiculous performance.

Well, yeah.

[knives]

I do love how Spielberg winds up making Shaw a bit of an idiot for all of his bluff.

[Murdoch]

For all the scares Jaws is remembered for, it's display of comradery during the boat scene leading up to the battle with the shark is the highlight for me. I always found it strange that it's often held out as one of the scariest films since the film itself isn't particularly frightening and largely revolves around small town politics.

[flyonthewall2983]

I love the boat stuff, especially the scene Murdoch mentions. Spielberg does male bonding well, not just the father/son stuff that's all over his work. The best stuff in Saving Private Ryan are all the scenes where Hanks talks to Sizemore and the men in his platoon. Munich has it in spades as well.

[matrixschmatrix]

For all the scares Jaws is remembered for, it's display of comradery during the boat scene leading up to the battle with the shark is the highlight for me. I always found it strange that it's often held out as one of the scariest films since the film itself isn't particularly frightening and largely revolves around small town politics.

The child endangerment really hits home, I think, and the daylight fright of the both major beach scenes. It feels to me like Spielberg with the gloves off, really willing to push past good taste in terms of what might happen- can you imagine Jurassic Park era Beardo actually taking out a kid and a dog? Or the scene of raw grief with the kid's mother that followed?