It’s Oscar season. Last night I watched Martin Scorsese’s latest brilliant film The Departed and I thought, he should definitely win this year. I haven’t seen The Queen or Babel, but of the three best picture nominees I have seen (Letters From Iwo Jima and Little Miss Sunshine being the other two), The Departed is by far the most engrossing and consistently good film. Anyway, I thought, in my blog world, it’s time to set the Oscar world to rights. With no authority, I shall become a fanboy and tell you what I think are the great Oscar mistakes and how they should be corrected. It’s odd because lately, the Oscars and most awards have become less important to me. It’s not as if my tastes are validated simply because a film won awards. It’s become evident in recent years that winning Oscars is more about good campaigns than good films. You don’t have to care about these things, and probably shouldn’t, but these are the fun posts that we can debate without anything really mattering.
My first suggestion would be to get rid of the best director and best picture split. How can a film win or even be nominated for best picture without the best direction? For example, in 2001 Moulin Rouge! was nominated for best picture but its director Baz Lurman was not recognized for his part in the film. Who made the movie? Best picture should include the director with the producers. While we’re at it, let’s create best ensemble acting as well. That way films like The Lord of the Rings trilogy can be recognized for all the solid performances.
The second suggestion might be cliche and obvious, but it needs to be said. It’s a travesty that Citizen Kane only won one Oscar (best original screenplay). I say let’s give it the sweep it deserves and hand over the other seven Oscars for which it was nominated—especially best picture, director, and actor (the latter two were obviously Orson Wells). Gary Cooper was good in Sergent York, but Wells’ acting doesn’t feel a bit dated.
It’s time to go back and rip that best picture Oscar from Mirimax’s hands for Shakespeare in Love and give it to Saving Private Ryan, who deserves it. Seriously, which film left you speechless for the next week after seeing it, Shakespeare in Love or Saving Private Ryan? The one about D-Day, I imagine. That whole year is an Oscar mess. If Saving Private Ryan and The Truman Show were released in the winter instead of the summer, I think it is highly likely they would have received several more nominations, and would have likely won. Let’s take away Roberto Benigni’s best actor win and nomination and give the Oscar to Tom Hanks (we’ll talk about him more) and the nomination to Jim Carrey. Also let’s take away Judi Dench’s best supporting actress for Shakespeare in Love and give it to one of the other nominees. It’s not that she wasn’t good, but I think someone who is on the screen for more than eight minutes deserves the recognition. It’s not the performance, but the role that shouldn’t have been nominated.
I’m taking away Jack Nicholson’s Oscar for best actor in As Good as it Gets even though I love his performance a great deal and I’ll give it to Robert Duvall for his work in The Apostle. Nicholson was great, but Duvall gave the best performance I have ever seen. Ever. I’m not exaggerating.
I’m going back to 1965 and giving Dr. Stragelove some love. It deserves best picture, best actor (Peter Sellers gave probably the best three comic performances in film history), and best director for Stanley Kubrick. Did you know that Kubrick only won one Oscar and it was for the visual effects in 2001? A travesty.
For that matter, let’s give some gold to Alfred Hitchcock, who, worse than Kubrick, only won an honorary Oscar. My vote is to give it to him for Psycho.
This one is going to take some shifting. First, take away Art Carney’s best actor—one of those annoying legacy awards—and hand it over to Al Pacino for his brilliance in The Godfather, Part II. Next, take Al Pacino’s statue for Scent of a Woman and give it to Denzel Washington for Malcolm X. Finally, take away Denzel Washington’s award for Training Day in which all he did was play a character against type who doesn’t develop, but simply yells a lot, and give it to Russell Crowe for his great performance in A Beautiful Mind. Take away Russell Crowe’s statue for Gladiator (which we will discuss soon, too) and give it to Tom Hanks for Cast Away.
Okay, so far I’ve given Tom Hanks two more Oscars. Let’s take his back-to-back Oscars away, which is tough because both of the performances he gave were great. His first Oscar for Philadelphia should go to Liam Neeson for Schindler’s List. His second Oscar for Forrest Gump deserves to be in Morgan Freeman’s hands for The Shawshank Redemption. For those Tom Hanks lovers, he’s still got two Oscars in my recalculation, so chill.
Now let’s look at Gladiator. How was this film even nominated? It’s overblown with lame special effects. It tries to be Braveheart except it’s purely a revenge story. Braveheart worked because William Wallace, while spurred initially by revenge ended up fighting for something bigger than himself. Maximus never does. The larger changes in society are mostly accidental. Braveheart was genius in that the villain and the hero never meet and the movie doesn’t suffer. When Maximus and Commodus meet in Gladiator, it feels contrived. But who should get the Oscar? Two great films are in contention: Traffic and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Both of these films worked on levels Gladiator couldn’t even imagine. Steven Soderbergh won for his direction of Traffic, and Ang Lee won best foreign picture for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, so the Academy clearly recognized the value of these films.
Good lord, Francis Ford Coppola only won best director for The Godfather Part II and not for the original? He gets the best director Oscar for the first The Godfather, without hesitation.
I’m going to do it. I’m going to take away Annie Hall’s Oscars for best picture and Woody Allen’s for his direction of the film and give them to Star Wars and George Lucas, respectively. Say what you will of Lucas’ direction in the latter films, the original was like nothing ever seen in its day.
I’ll also take away Driving Miss Daisy’s Oscar for best picture and give it to Field of Dreams.
I could go on—The Royal Tennenbaums deserves nominations for at least Gene Hackman’s and Gwyneth Paltrow’s performances—but this is a long post already. So, what do you think?


That’s a lot of shifting of Best Actor Oscars, yet those changes make sense. Tom Hanks would have won for Cast Away if not for previous wins, I think. The only other change that I can think of this early in the morning is for the following to have happened. Cameron wins for Titanic for Best Picture, yet the moment he says “I’m king of the world!” in his speech, three thousand Hollywood hands go up, and they unanimously demand to change their Best Picture vote to L.A. Confidential, by far a better all-around film.
Comment by Timbo — February 15, 2007 @ 8:35 am
I’m okay with Titanic winning. I saw it in the first week, before the mounds of hype on both the film and DiCaprio created the backlash. It was a pretty amazing film experience. That said, I wouldn’t have minded if L.A. Confidential won. While Titanic was a great initial experience, L.A. Confidential is more enjoyable in repeat viewings. Of course, I have a soft spot for film noir.
Comment by Tyler Watson — February 15, 2007 @ 9:12 am
A few more Best Actor changes: Stewart should have won for Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and I’ve got to go against Mr. Watson and take Bogart in The Maltese Falcon over Orson Welles (who should have won Supporting Actor in 1949 for The Third Man).
Comment by Timbo — February 15, 2007 @ 9:59 am
It fascinates me that I can enjoy movies and be a fairly analytical person, yet be almost completely unable to enter this discussion. You seem to have a capacity for this that is beyond me.
I could not tell you which year most of the movies discussed were screened, let alone whether or not they won ANY oscar nominations or awards.
I also never considered the possibility nor the benefit of conflating best director and movie.
Comment by Bill Ekhardt — February 15, 2007 @ 11:20 am
That is really hard. I loved both of them.I don’t know how to evaluate Duvall’s role. He WAS a pastor, and a very good one. It was such a realistic representation of a spiritual experience and leadership that I thought, they aren’t acting here, they are creating spiritual experiences and filming it.
Comment by Bill Ekhardt — February 15, 2007 @ 11:26 am
No need for apologies. Fan boys with a take do good too :^)
Scorcese didn’t win for Raging Bull or Goodfellas. Too raw. Too bad.
I love both Godfather movies. Just watched ‘em with my son Andrew.
Godfather 2 is a better movie than the original. But both should have won best picture awards. The first one was too far out in front of its time.
LA Confidential and Titanic? Hmmmm. Probably a generational thing. Brilliant storytelling and character development vs. impressive special effects from this side of the generational divide.
I won’t even make a response about Braveheart (a cartoon) vs. Gladiator (an ancient myth on film) :^)
Comment by Tom Pratt — February 15, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
Lots of good things here, though Dennis Hopper should have won for Hoosiers over Michael Caine in Hannah and Her Sisters.
And Pratt is exactly right about Gladiator and Braveheart. Maximus could have had his revenge in the movie when Commodus first asks him who he is. He declines. He later attempts to escape so as to lead his army back into Rome and restore the Republic as Marcus asked him to in the beginning.
I do agree, though, about Robert Duvall. The Apostle is an amazing movie. In an almost related note, one of my childhood memories if watching the 1981 awards show when Chariots of Fire won best picture (sorry about Raiders Tim), but this is an example where the best director and best film got split. Beatty won for Reds . . .. I remember watching the show and my dad clapping his hands when Chariots won and exclaiming, “That’ll teach those pagans!” (granted, not the most evangelical sentiment).
Comment by Micah — February 16, 2007 @ 8:56 am
I’ll disagree with you two about Braveheart and Gladiator. Part of my issue with Gladiator (aside from my complaints above) was the film’s marketing. In television spots, there would be a shot of a tackle in football and then a shot from a gladiator fight, then a body check in hockey and then another gladiator shot. Fine. Then I get to the theater and there is the scene where Maximus dispatches several gladiators in just a few seconds and taunts the crowd, saying, “Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?” The question could be asked of the film’s audience (and I believe it was intended to do so). So the marketers draw people in with the promise of a violent film only to have the filmmakers question the audience’s taste for violence. Get on the same page, people. (A whole other post could be dedicated to marketing hurting good films. See: The Truman Show or Cast Away.)
Both films were rife with anachronisms and bad history, but for some reason, Gladiator’s mistakes took me out of the film. I’ve only seen it once and maybe I should check it out again. I just remember being rather disappointed. In an appearance on Inside the Actor’s Studio Russell Crowe admitted that the script wasn’t even finished when they began shooting and so the filmmakers made up a lot as they went along. It felt like it to me. I’ll shut up now and give it another viewing. So I may change my position, but don’t hold your breath. Regardless, I think Traffic and Crouching Tiger are much better films than Gladiator.
By the way, what “ancient myth” is Gladiator?
Comment by Tyler Watson — February 16, 2007 @ 9:14 am
I was living in Japan when I saw gladiator, so I was completely removed from the marketing. I loved it. I was sold on Russel Crow’s acting. He manifested charismatic leadership in a way I and those with me admired. His role in a beautiful mind was better.
Crouching Tiger was fantastic. One of the best I’ve ever seen. Traffic was good. I might have enjoyed it more if I weren’t with Tracy. She can’t take that kind of graphic violence, sex, or assault.
Comment by Bill Ekhardt — February 16, 2007 @ 10:40 am
Crowe’s performance was what saved the film at all for me. In another actor’s hands, those lines would have failed miserably.
Comment by Tyler Watson — February 16, 2007 @ 10:53 am
Joey, do you like movies about Gladiators?
Comment by Captain Over — February 16, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
My first thought when reading the post was LA Confidential. I couldn’t remember which film had won its year, but i was thinking it was American Beauty. I would have given it to LC over AB, but i can appreciate that there are arguments the other way. Now that i see that it was Titanic, which felt dated on the second viewing a week later, I don’t see any option except the Academy holding a press conference and apologizing profusely.
And i still think that Crowe’s best acting was from The Insider a year earlier.
Comment by mune — February 19, 2007 @ 8:39 am
Pagan myths are often revenge fantasies mixed up with truly honorable motives. Lots of tragedy and complexity on Olympus.
The Iliad, for example.
The Bush administration (and much of the religious right) is far more Homer than Jesus.
Gladiator is powerful pop paganism.
Pretty relevant in my mind. And pretty well done.
Evangelical Christian men’s groups love Gladiator.
I like it for different reasons.
But I understand why you don’t.
Comment by Tom Pratt — February 20, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
I’m an Evangelical Christian man and I’ve never seen Gladiator.
Comment by Timbo — February 21, 2007 @ 8:20 am