EDITORIALS
Is It Personal? No One Ever Likes the Best Picture Winner Anymore
by Alex Billington
February 3, 2012
Earlier today I got into a huge discussion on twitter about 3D, gimmicks, and how bad The Artist is (except that I love The Artist) and how much better Hugo is. It all started because @KrisTapley posed the question: "Which film will you remember more a year from now? The Artist or Hugo?" While I am not an awards blogger, I follow the awards season closely, and root for my faves. I'm on the side of The Artist this year, mainly because I really adore the film, but I've started to realize that no one really likes the Best Picture winner (for now I should say frontrunner) anymore. No one is ever happy, it's never the right film. Why?
I do not think this is a question that can be answered easily, but the first thought that comes to my mind is how personal the Best Picture winner is. I've heard from many people nowadays who claim they hate the Academy Awards, they don't like the nominees or winners or the show at all, they don't care about them. I don't believe them. If these individuals grew up watching the Oscars year after year, like me, they have a special connection to it. It's like the winners who talk about how it was a "dream" to one day be standing up there, because they've been watching the Oscars in their pajamas every year since they were a kid. It's true, we all have/had that dream, but since we're not up there, we all have to rant about who we wanted to win instead. And it's personal, it really is, you want your favorite film to win Best Picture no matter what it is.
I believe moviegoing is a very personal experience overall, not only with how subjective everything is, but in how much we connect with certain films for certain personal reasons. From the way you were raised, to the films you were shown growing up, to the kind of subject matter or stories that appeal to you. And when it comes to Best Picture, the ultimate best-film-of-the-year-that-everyone-knows prize, it's a very big, famous award, you want your favorite to win because it would justify why it's your favorite and why you think it's so much better than the ~300 other films released throughout a year. But that's the problem, it's too personal.
This whole backlash idea really picked up steam last year, when The King's Speech won over The Social Network. I was rooting for The King's Speech (the one everyone loved to hate) because I saw it before the buzz got out of control and totally loved it, it's a wonderful film (just like The Artist). Obviously I am not alone in thinking this or it wouldn't have won in the end. The most common complaint I was hearing was that The Social Network represented an achievement in capturing this time in history and would last longer and be remembered for that, while The King's Speech wasn't anything new and would be quickly forgotten. Now I'm hearing literally the exact same argument regarding The Artist vs. Hugo for Best Picture this year.
Honestly, none of this should matter in the end. Best Picture is just Best Picture. One of hundreds of awards given each and every year. The film you love, whether it's The Social Network or Hugo or Drive or Warrior, will still exist on DVD/Blu-Ray, viewable whenever you want. Your opinion is not going to be altered by who wins, you're still going to love the film (and prefer it over whatever does win). And if you're a journalist or blogger, you can still write a glowing piece about it and tell the world how great it is. But there's always that inherent, personal connection with Best Picture, the clout the award carries, that makes people want to lash out against it unless it's exactly the movie that they want or think deserves to win. And I think that's the root of this backlash. Movie bloggers, a very vocal group, seem pissed off that Hugo might lose to The Artist.
The most rational response to all this hoopla is that the "Best Picture" represents the highest honor given to any film in a year, and represents the best of film in that year, in every way. My point is that even this is subjective, even though some may think that is Hugo, others (and most importantly The Academy) likely thinks that is The Artist. Instead of backlashing against one film or another (for not being good enough), my suggestion is to take a step back and ask: why? Is there something in one film you're not seeing in the other? Or is it just your personal taste, or the way you perceive it and its impact on cinema? Maybe it's as simple as not liking the "easy" Oscar bait kind of films, preferring those that push cinema technology, like 3D, in new ways. Though if that were actually the reality, Christopher Nolan would have won something by now.
But again, why does that matter? The Artist is still a wonderful film. Just because it's not in 3D and uses its own "gimmicks" to entertain doesn't mean it's bad; and Hugo isn't a bad film either. In fact, I think both are deserving of Best Picture, but I'm rooting for Artist because I had a tremendous experience with it, and found more flaws in Hugo (pacing, story changing up midway through). But we always get back to that connection, and if you didn't connect with The Artist for whatever reasons, maybe because you've already seen enough B&W movies in your life and can't stand another one or thought the characters were dull, then it's really going to upset you when/if it wins. So be it. Is it really that bad? Or do you just think something else should win because it's not good enough, and Hugo had the Georges Méliès story, so why not that?
To sum up why I love Artist and why I think it deserves to (and likely will) win, from my Cannes review:
"There was just something truly magical about seeing Hazanavicius attempt, and succeed, at recreating a silent film that not only follows the same technique, but brings us deep into the world of Hollywood at the time. It's light and comical, and at times corny, but ceaselessly charming and entertaining to watch. I felt so many magnificent emotions, from delight to sadness to pure joy, and I never stopped smiling from start to finish. The Artist has a kind of wonderful, classic feeling that all cinephiles can and should love that also gives us the opportunity to revel in a time and place that we really don't see much of on screen nowadays."
Best Picture is truly the award of awards, and I recognize that opinionated cinephiles do want the best film of the year to be acknowledged. But as I've said time and time again, cinema is subjective, it's personal, and The Academy gets to vote, too. And if they choose The Artist, it's because they loved it fair and square; it's not a bad film, it's not cheating, in fact it's a great film, even if you don't agree yourself. But if it doesn't win, and Hugo does, I'm fine with that, too. I'm not going to complain that Hugo is terrible because I preferred The Artist. I think the film has some issues, and 3D is still somewhat of a gimmick, but I'll accept it anyway. Just like I have for the last 20 years I've been watching the Oscars, rooting for my favorites every year.
Those who claim that they don't care about the Oscars and who wins, then turn around and rant about how Hugo is better than The Artist, are taking it way too personally. What we will forget about years from now is who won Best Picture, because the films that truly last are the ones that had an impact and connection with audiences no matter what awards they took home. And if that's Hugo, it's Hugo. If that's War Horse, it's War Horse. If that's The Social Network, or There Will Be Blood, or American Beauty, so be it. Those films will last anyway (I could go on naming films that have lasted through history, but didn't win, and vice versa, winners we've forgotten). But just because it didn't win Best Picture doesn't mean it's the end of the world and The Academy sucks, it means you liked a different film more. Though a majority of The Academy didn't.
On the other hand, if The Descendants wins, I will be upset. Now that is a film that I, personally, believe is rather mediocre and doesn't deserve to win. However, as always, I am wrong, because obviously someone out there loved it, or it wouldn't have even been nominated to begin with. What else can I do besides sit here and hope for the best? In the end, the greatest films will live on in history no matter what, no matter the complaints, no matter what awards they win. Because no one ever likes the Best Picture winner anymore.
60 Comments
1
I think last year the Academy did good. "The King's Speech" was a worthy winner, and my two personal favorites of 2010 - "The Social Network" and "Inception" - were nominated. This year, the field seems much weaker. I haven't yet seen "The Artist" or "Hugo". But I did see the others, and I wasn't a big fan of any of them (except "Moneyball"). My favorite in 2011 were "Warrior", "Super 8", "Drive", and "The Ides of March" - none were nominated for Best Picture.
John on Feb 3, 2012
2
hahaha John.. my name is john as well.. and you posted quite literally, EXACTLY what i wouldve said. I might add that "Drive" and "Warrior" were my 2 favorites and another one that really got screwed over was "Shame".. Fassbender not getting nominated for Best Actor is an utter disgrace
Jrev on Feb 3, 2012
3
King's Speech was rubbish. Opinion.
Bobo_Vision on Feb 4, 2012
4
I loved both Hugo and The Artist and I am planning on buying both on blu-ray.
Tyban on Feb 3, 2012
5
How can you NOT like The Descendants? Such a phenomenal film and a career defining performance from George Clooney.
SeanJ8 on Feb 3, 2012
6
7
I just wanted to respond to your observation of 3D being a "gimmick". I could not agree more. However... I firmly believe that "The Artist" also has its own gimmicks, because let's face it: if the film wasn't in black and white and wasn't silent, NO ONE WOULD CARE ABOUT IT. Strip it to its core, you get a mundane story, annoying characters, and something that we have all seen before. PLUS, I would rather see the Best Picture Oscar go to an American movie, because this is America's reward season.
filmineeer on Feb 3, 2012
8
9
Watch it again in 30 years after a messy divorce. You might appreciate it more. Don't bring your daughter though. She might get the idea that it's okay to act like a shit face.
Quanah on Feb 4, 2012
10
11
I feel like an idiot for asking but I always seem to miss out cause I was unaware but....when are the Oscars and what network will it be shown on? (Btw, go War Horse!)
JBrotsis on Feb 5, 2012
12
I took my father to it. He lives in Hawaii, went through a messy divorce...He thought someone followed him with a camera crew and put it on screen.
Quanah on Feb 5, 2012
13
I'm with Alex on this. I didn't think Clooney really brought anything that great. On the other hand I was quite impressed by Shailene Woodley's performance. I enjoyed the movie but definitely don't feel like it was the best movie of 2011.
JC Tenney on Feb 3, 2012
14
I have to agree with the others, I didn't find the performance from Clooney to be anything special. Thought he was far superior in 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?'.
Julian B on Feb 3, 2012
15
We may as well just face up to the fact that Extremely Loud and Incredibly CLose is going to win Best Picture in one of the biggest upsets in recorded Oscar history.
Edward Douglas on Feb 3, 2012
16
17
I think there are more factors involved here than just good films and how they resonated with the Academy vs the Average movie go-er. I think money, marketing, studio pressure, just dues and probably a number of backroom deals and agreements have a large impact on what gets chosen for Best Picture. That's what ticks me off year after year "the stuff I don't know". Does that sound a little paranoid? Sure, but that's also what makes the Oscars and everything leading up to it fun!
JJ King on Feb 3, 2012
18
I think the Academy generally does a good job of nominating a broad swath of films to represent the Best Picture category. From there I think it is wholly up to them to decide their favorite. I know what my best picture is and yeah, its the Artist but if the Academy doesn't agree so be it. I'll still watch and I'll still have a great deal of respect for the prestige of winning an Oscar.
Alex Cinet5 on Feb 3, 2012
19
Interesting point... And all completely true. Although, I feel that I have to say, that the book Hugo was based off of ended the first part with the drawing, and the second was the story behind the movie with the moon and rocket. At the very end of the first part, it said something to the effect of, "And that is the story of what the automaton builds. However, with all stories, one ending leads into another beginning," which shows that it was meant to be two parts of sort.
GregDinskisk on Feb 3, 2012
20
I didn't find The Artist to be all that original or groundbreaking. Sure, it's incredibly well crafted and superbly acted, but what does it really have to say or represent other than some incredibly naive love for Hollywood? Honestly, all this praise for it from the insider crowd just makes me sigh; it's so self-indulgent and self congratulatory. I felt that besides being a love letter to classic Hollywood, the film brought nothing new to the table. And yes, there's the wonderful gimmick of it being a completely silent film. I'll admit, making a silent film in this day and age where people balk at just regular sound black and white is a bold move, however it's a move rendered irrelevant by a completely pointless and lame topic. Film thrives on conflict and a dialectic approach, not just in story but in concept and execution as well. The best film about that period in Hollywood, about that difficult move from silent to sound, was a freaking musical, for chrissakes (Singin in the Rain)!! Why does it work so well? Because the concept and execution had true conflict and balance, making for a beautiful synthesis on the topic. Making a silent film about silent films is just an exercise in redundancy; easy and pointless. I love silent films and I watch them on a regular basis, and those films work so well because they had to create all different kinds of worlds, stories, and characters that were indelible and engrossing. Metropolis, Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, M, Pandora's Box, The Man Who Laughs. All great films that managed to be and say more than just a silent film. When you make a silent film that's only about a silent film, what do you get? Only a silent film. Nothing more, nothing less. The Artist is a beautiful film, but great it is not, "Best Picture" worthy even less. I enjoyed watching it and found it very charming, but at the end found it painlessly digestible and easily forgotten. Why? Because as a film, it had nothing to say except "I love hollywood." Can't we be a little more original than that? In the words of Rudyard Kipling "the Devil whispered behind the leaves, 'It's pretty, but is it Art ?' "
Snaporaz on Feb 3, 2012
21
Thanks you for putting into words exactly how I feel. You helped me figure out what bothered me so much about The Artist.
Pt2akapd on Feb 24, 2012
22
Social Network and Kings Speech were both very well made. Black Swan and True Grit were much better in my opinion. Does that mean I hate the Oscars? No. Obviously the odds of anyone persons favorite of the year beating out every single last other film is unlikely to happen, just look at the odds, its like 1:350. And thats not even factoring in the likely hood that a mass of other people liked it. The point is, its just a group of people, just as you shouldn't get overtly excited if your film is the winner, you shouldn't be extremely dismissive of the organization if its not picked. Its just other peoples opinions, and I personally have a blast waiting to see who THEY like best.
Al on Feb 3, 2012
23
The Academy Awards lost me when Shakespeare in Love won over Saving Private Ryan. That's when I started to believe that politics and personal biases/grudges were shaping the results instead of just "the facts" in front of the voters.
racquetman on Feb 3, 2012
25
I think for a number of people, the frustration that comes with Best Picture at the Academy Awards stems from a tendency to reward films that are good or crowd-pleading, but not necessarily bold or, in the long run, memorable. This, of course, relates to the voting process, as bold films often divide audiences (e.g. 'Drive', 'Melancholia'). Key instances at the Oscars include 'Shakespeare in Love' over 'Saving Private Ryan', and 'Crash' over 'Brokeback Mountain' and 'Good Night, and Good Luck'. To further this point, the new Australian Awards - the AACTAs - modelled after the Academy Awards, recently gave Best Actor, Supporting Actress, Adapted Screenplay and Direction to 'Snowtown': a feature about the "Body in Barrels" murders in North Adelaide. Best Picture, however, went to 'Red Dog': the box office winner about a dog that helped bring the people of a mining town together (based on a true story). You also have the problem that mimicry is rewarded far more easily than anything original or in a contemporary setting. While this is often seen in costume design awards for period pieces, this has extended to acting awards. While some of them certainly deserve their wins, actors depicting people of the past - particularly in biopics - have faired quite well. Just take a look at the Best Actress nominations this year - while Meryl might be terrific as Maggie Thatcher, the ease in which she is winning some of these awards is baffling. Viola Davis, too. I have no qualms with 'The Artist' winning Best Picture, or any other awards, but I can understand why many people don't want to see it win - frankly, I just don't see it surviving against far better silent films or recent black-and-white efforts.
Julian B on Feb 3, 2012
26
While many times I hate the nominees and the snubs, and I admit that I am one of the ones who say they now "hate" the academy awards, I find myself not caring because, like you said, the movies I like still exist and I can like them and watch them whenever I want. The Academy can nominate whatever it wants, but I know what I like. Drive, 50/50, Shame, Ryan Gosling, JGL, Fassbender, etc etc. Amazing movies and performances, and in my opinion, the best of the year. Were they nominated, no. While I think they probably should've been, and initially it was frustrating, by now I don't care. I watch the movies myself and enjoy the heck outta them. And even though I legitimately thought this year was horrible in terms of snubs, I'll still watch the awards, I do every year. I love film too much to not watch them.
Chazzy on Feb 3, 2012
27
I agree. I haven't seen Shame yet but I loved Drive and 50/50. Another unrecognized performance imo is Elle Fanning in Super 8. She took my breath away during that scene at the train station, right before the crash.
Craig on Feb 4, 2012
28
I love the Oscar nominees, i think they have gotten way better selecting the winners then in past decades. But as last year goes The Kings Speech was the right choice it said everything The Social Network was saying and more. But i also think The Social Network was about 10 years to soon. We dont know how this whole social media thing is gonna play out, it was just to soon.
happy camper on Feb 3, 2012
29
I disagree. The future success or failure of Facebook, or of social media in general, has no impact on the movie. That's not what the movie was about. The movie was about a kid who built an empire. Social media was just the backdrop.
Craig on Feb 4, 2012
30
Very interesting topic. It seems to me the movies I truly love don't even get nominated or have very slim chances of winning. On one hand I think it makes me feel good about myself not going for "the mainstream" on the other hand I wish more people could appreciate the same movies I love, but you can't have both so I am contraddicting myself. I care about the awards, but I'm starting to think that it's all politics and it's easy to see that some movies deserving recognition are completely ignored, because they're not backed by their studio. Like Tim & Jeremy discussed on The Golden Briefcase in recent years the academy didn't take any chances on "bold" movies that aren't "oscar baits"/Harvey Weinstein productions and that's really sad and worthy of concern.
Davide Coppola on Feb 4, 2012
31
the year was 1968, the best picture winner was a film named "Oliver" there was another smaller picture at the academy awards that night that was a huge hit but was regarded as abstract and confusing it was called 2001 a space odyssey. Which film has had a greater impact on cinema? fast forward, the year is 2012 and whether "The Artist" wins or "hugo" wins i think we all know that 40 years from now people are gonna look at 2012 as the year "The Tree Of Life" was released. nuff said!
Chad on Feb 4, 2012
32
i agree with this!
happy camper on Feb 4, 2012
33
2001 may be a more technical marvel but not what I would call the average crowd pleaser. Most people who watch this film find it boring and or confusing where as oliver is a more easy going film to understand and the songs and music make people happy. Its not hard to see why this film won.
Gemme on Feb 4, 2012
34
and if you thought "tree of life" was good I dare you to watch what i think is probably the most real, visceral, life changing cinematic experience youll ever have and its called "ENTER THE VOID" will blow your mind and leave you in a trance for at least a couple of days. storytelling at its finest! Greatest film ever made as far as im concerned.
chad on Feb 4, 2012
35
i also agree with this, Gaspar Noe is absolute brilliant. Irreversible also will leave you in a trance for days. Harsh but genuine.
happy camper on Feb 4, 2012
36
I was so entranced with Irreversible I went out and buy it. Irreversible is one of the most life affirming movies I've ever run across. Think about it and you'll understand what I mean.
Archies_Leach on Feb 4, 2012
37
Alex, Clooney may have not had his best peformance but he definitely did an excelent job making his character believable and genuine. I really felt his struggle as a father, and the scenes where he talked about his wife, that was anything but emotionless. Also the way this story was excecuted and the way Alexander put you into these characters lives was phenominal. I saw this film in a quaint independant theater and the crowd was so into the movie and reacting to the situations as if they were actually there, it was probably on of the best theater experiences of my life, if not for clooney, Alexander Payne should get some recognition.
Zade on Feb 4, 2012
38
Well said... I've been discussing the awards with my friends since forever and feels the same thing about. Whether its Avatar vs Hurt Locker or Shawshank Redemption vs Forrest Gump... but you seem to have backed it with a better insight.
Nishit Mohan Singh on Feb 4, 2012
39
The Hurt Locker had far better story telling then Avatar which if had won would of went in the category of blockbuster audience pleaser over good cinema. But im with you on the Gump ticket.
happy camper on Feb 4, 2012
40
The Hurt Locker didn't deserve Best Picture, imo, but the only thing I liked about it winning was that it beat out Avatar.
Craig on Feb 4, 2012
41
I think Hugo will be remembered more than The Artist. Whether or not for the right reasons remains to be seen. When James Cameron's Avatar was unleashed it was hyped to the hilts as the future of 3D and it was no coincidence that it became the highest grossing film of all and had the most oscar nominations of it's year. It was certinally more remembered than Hurt Locker because since Avatar's nominations, others have tried to get in on the act. As a result we have witnessed 3D conversion botchjobs left right and centre. If Hurt Locker was so memorable, why didn't other film-makers get in on the Iraq War act in the same way that the Vietnam War got milked to death after the M.A.S.H film?
Spike on Feb 4, 2012
42
The Hurt Locker didn't make a gatrillion dollars like crap avatar did. You copy what makes that gatrillion over what makes the piddling few millions.
Archies_Leach on Feb 4, 2012
43
What I meant to say was that many 2D films got retrofitted into 3D at the last minute after Avatar's nominations. Coincidence? Definetley not. As a result we have witnessed on the cheap 3D used by the likes of Cats & Dogs 2: Kitty Galore and Clash of the Titans among others. The fact that Hugo was actually shot in 3D was something of a relief
Spike on Feb 5, 2012
44
This year I think this year it is clear which film will win Best Picture...that is, it will be clear to everyone AFTER it wins. Ever notice that? All speculation until a winner is announced and then suddenly EVERYONE knew that picture would win.
Quanah on Feb 4, 2012
45
I know what is happening with the oscars... they are the most viewed awards in movie making, when the hurt locker won against inglorious basterds clearly won because it was about soldiers, war and this help to americas way of thinking the movie wasn't that good, this year is going to win HUGO, i liked it, but i prefer another movies, the artist is my favourite inside that bunch of films.. but is not the best movie of the year, by far. HUGO is going to win because is 3D... its the moment to the film industry start supporting 3d... with avatar was something new.. so it didnt matter, but now we have 3d lcds tv bluerays... 3d glasses that you can order.. everything.. is a new technology that the industry wants to begin seling to people... and they are going to do it...
Nicodallib on Feb 4, 2012
46
I don't get too upset if my favorite movie doesn't win -- provided that it loses to a worthy competitor. For example, The King's Speech wasn't my top pick for Best Picture, but it was a great movie. I didn't have a problem with any of the 2010 nominations, for that matter. They were all decent movies, and most of them were great movies. The previous two years were an entirely different situation. For 2008, I felt like Slumdog Millionaire was very overrated, and I was convinced that most people who absolutely loved it were merely experiencing culture shock. And while I did enjoy The Hurt Locker considerably more than I enjoyed Slumdog Millionaire, I still felt that it was one of the weaker nominations of 2009. Inglorious Basterds, An Education, Up in the Air, A Serious Man, Up; I liked all of these movies better than I liked The Hurt Locker. But hey, at least The Blind Side didn't win. My money's on The Artist this year. As long as Extremely Close and Incredibly Loud doesn't win, I'll be happy.
Craig on Feb 4, 2012
47
Or is it Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close? I can never keep that title straight...
Craig on Feb 4, 2012
48
I think people don't like the best picture winner anymore just because they just don't pick the best films of the year period. Exhibit A, 2008, The Dark Knight was not even nominated and Slumdog Millionaire won, do you think in a couple of years, people will remember Slumdog Millionaire, no, they will remember The Dark Knight because it was the most memorable and the best movie of that year. Exhibit B, 2010, The King's Speech, don't think it's a bad movie at all, but to win a Best Picture against Toy Story 3, Inception, and The Social Network, it just should not have happened. Now, let's take a look at this year, The problem this year was, it was a year for critics, I mean look at the nominee list and try to tell me that this year wasn't just to suck the dick of every critic out in Hollywood. War Horse, Tree of Life, terribly boring movies ( to be fair, have not seen Tree of Life, and from hearing people say it's terribly boring, i'm not even going to try), War Horse was a movie that people would expect just to be nominated, nobody would've had to see it, they just knew it would get nominated, hell it was nominated for a golden globe before it even came out. A period piece, Steven Spielberg, just do the math. Also, when I look at this years list of movies, nothing seems Oscar worthy, it was more of a year for the general audience than for this kind of thing, I mean Xmen, Thor, Captain America, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Limitless, Mission: Impossible, Sherlock 2. But a year for award type movie, just none were there, there weren't really any movies that stuck out to me and said this is deserving of an oscar, and even the ones that did, ROTPOTA and Warrior, weren't nominated. Only one I see that I think does actually have the potential to get an Oscar is Midnight in Paris, only really really good movie I loved this year, but other than that nothing. And how the Oscar race is looking, It's not going to get it, that's my view so take it as you will.
Clocker910 on Feb 4, 2012
49
I remember when Shakespeare in Love won over Saving Private Ryan. I thought a demon possessed the awards show.
Quanah on Feb 5, 2012
50
exactly, another example of they just don't pick the best movies of that year, and Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas, what the hell?
Clocker910 on Feb 5, 2012
51
Bingo. Another good example in my opinion. Then 20 years later they re-released Dances With Wolves, used CGI to make everyone blue and called it Avatar...and then another Oscar nomination. Wait...what? Schwing!
Quanah on Feb 5, 2012
52
Honestly, for my money and time, I thought War Horse was the best film of the year.
Filmfan_1 on Feb 4, 2012
53
I was one of those guys you mentioned who thought it should have been Social Network last year over Kings Speech. However, I'm rooting for The Artist this year. I really enjoyed this article by the way. A movie doesn't need an award to be remembered.
Movieguyryan on Feb 5, 2012
54
So this is the perfect time to ask this (because you mentioned it in the article): why did you tweet "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" right after the best picture was given to King's Speech? I think I asked on twitter but got no response. Was it because you were rooting for Social Network? It was a tie for me for Social Network or KS, so I didn't mind who won. Just wondering. Good article.
Txsrangerfan08 on Feb 5, 2012
55
"What we will forget about years from now is who won Best Picture, because the films that truly last are the ones that had an impact and connection with audiences no matter what awards they took home." Completely agree. Let's see, I have never seen Annie Hall. No one I know has seen Annie Hall. Won Best Picture over another little film that was nominated that year: Star Wars. Cavalcade won in 1934. No one remembers it. King Kong, however, everyone knows, which was never even nominated that year like it should have.
Anonymous on Feb 5, 2012
56
I agree with dangeer. Hurt locker is alrealy gathering dust on the self, no one will remember it 30 years from now. 30 years from now The Artist will be mostly forgotten as well. Other films will be more remembered and bought from last year than The Artist.
Tonhogg on Feb 5, 2012
57
You are wrong. Annie Hall was an infinitely better made, acted, produced and conceived film than Star Wars. Don't get me wrong, I fucking love the OG trilogy. But to suggest that A New Hope should have won best picture over Annie Hall is laughable. Annie Hall is an incredibly funny, smart and sad film - A New Hope is a clunky scene setter that has a bunch of flat spots and some TV quality acting (everyone knows that Empire is the best one anyway). And finally, just because you don't know anyone who has seen it, doesn't mean it's bad. I don't know anyone who has driven a Ferrari, but I don't go around claiming my Hyundai is better than one.
Lebowski on Feb 5, 2012
58
The only reason I tend to not care about the "Best Picture" winner (hate would be too strong of a word), is because by the time the Academy Awards finally come around I have been so overexposed to those movies that I just don't wanna hear or see anything about them anymore, and start to lean towards another movie entirely.
Anonymous on Feb 5, 2012
59
I wasn't upset at all that "The King's Speech" won over "The Social Network". I was upset because it won over the true best picture of the year "Inception". The Departed was that the last film that I can remember liking alot that won best picture. Inception is a masterpiece and is so much better than "The King's Speech" & "The Social Network" put together.
Last Son on Feb 6, 2012
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.
FEATURED POSTS
FOLLOW FS HERE
Follow Alex's main account on Twitter:
Add our posts to your Feedly › click here
Get all the news sent on Telegram 
LATEST TO WATCH