|
The Academy Awards Suck...
Published: March 9, 2003
Rating: No rating yet
Comments: 1
By Jason Chapman
Remember how the Academy was in love with epics during the 1990s? Dances With Wolves (1991) is 183 minutes long. Schindler's List (1993) is 197 minutes long. Braveheart (1996) is 177 minutes long. The English Patient (1997) is 160 minutes long. And Titanic (1998) is 194 minutes long. Well, Titanic was the clincher.
The establishment (booo!) had been critical of the Academy for overlooking some other brilliant movies, LA Confidential (should have won) and As Good as it Gets were both better movies all around in 1998. Even Good Will Hunting and The Full Monty could compete with Titanic. So, after they heard all this criticism, they went out and fixed the situation at next year's awards by picking Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan (170 minutes long.) Shakespeare in Love was sensationalism, with some humor and difficult love. People (well, me...) were shocked over that one, but the Academy, I guess, wasn't about to pick another epic movie. But, in 1999, American Beauty was definitely the right choice. Let's not even discuss Gladiator (154 minutes). That might well have been the worst movie of all the nominations. It lacked depth, quality dialogue, character development (we know who is good and who is evil right off the bat), etc. Plus, it goes right back to the epic theory.
But my friend Michael Ingrassia told me that he was actually happy that Gladiator won. He said, "At least now I know it's bullshit. Just take the most popular, loudest, extravagant, most "wow, you see those tigers?" movie and give it the award. Not the best, with the true best acting of all movies that were made, just the biggest." Ingenious. I hang out with some terribly bright people.
Interact
Read More
- View comments about this article:
- See Jason's profile.
- Read Jason's other articles:
|
