DEEP FOCUS; Oscar has spotty record at picking best of the best
It's well known that the Oscars began as a publicity tool of the big studios and for years have been, to varying degrees, a popularity contest based upon such diverse considerations as box office success, standing within the industry, politics, past neglect, illness, comebacks and, more than anything else, a convergence of public acceptance and artistic respectability.
At a few years' remove, few people, even in Hollywood, would probably insist that "Out of Africa" and "Rain Man" were, in fact, the very best films of their years. Like so many other past winners, their artistic reputations and the successful auras surrounding them were adroitly designed to crest in just the right way to win, but their ability to stand the test of time looks dubious at best.
By the same token, it's incredible to remember that such landmark pictures as "2001: A Space Odyssey,""The Wild Bunch,""McCabe & Mrs. Miller" and "The Man Who Would Be King," to name just a few, were largely ignored by the Academy, in favor of such more palatable best picture nominees as "Airport,""Nicholas and Alexandra,""A Touch of Class" and "The Towering Inferno."
GOING BACK THROUGH THE DECADES, one can detect slight changes in the character of the Academy's voting, although they are subtle and occur very slowly. Despite the great number of exceptional films made during the era from the late 1920s through the late 1930s, the Academy managed to select best picture winners that are almost uniformly heavy, stodgy and nearly unwatchable today. Even if they may not have been the very best films of their years, certainly Frank Capra's "It Happened One Night" and "You Can't Take It With You" remain charming enough, and "Grand Hotel" is entertainingly starry, if awfully creaky.
Otherwise, the list is staggering for the sheer lack of cinematic qualities the winners possess -- I defy anyone to sit through "Broadway Melody,""Cimarron" (the only Western before "Dances With Wolves" to win), "Cavalcade,""Mutiny on the Bounty" (for all its reputation, it looks terrible today), "The Great Ziegfeld" or "The Life of Emile Zola" without squirming or wanting to reach for the fast-forward button.
It's hard to take serious issue with such all-time popular classics as "Gone With the Wind,""Rebecca" and "Casablanca," but the 1940s set a style for rewarding self-congratulatory, high-minded filmmaking that remains with us to this day. "Mrs. Miniver,""The Lost Weekend,""The Best Years of our Lives" and, especially, "Gentleman's Agreement" were socially conscious pictures the industry could feel "proud to have made," even if most of these films now seem more interesting for how they reflect attitudes of the era than they do for their lasting artistic merits. In 1948, the Academy allowed, for the first time, a foreign-produced film (Olivier's "Hamlet") to take home the Oscar, although that award, too, now seems like a snob gesture.
From roughly 1951-1970, it helped if your film was long, a musical, a spectacle, or all three. At least two of the best picture winners from the 1950s --"The Greatest Show on Earth" and "Around the World in 80 Days"-- seem like jokes, acknowledgements of showmanship and all-star casting ability rather than anything resembling art. By contrast, two small New York-set films --"On the Waterfront" and "Marty"-- also broke into the winner's circle.
During those years, six of the winners were lavish musicals, and seven of the others were epic-sized historical, biographical or adventure pieces such as "Ben-Hur,""A Man for All Seasons" and "Patton." One of these, "Lawrence of Arabia," arguably deserved its best picture Oscar in 1962, as did the melancholy comedy-drama "The Apartment" two years before.
After seeming precariously out of touch in the late 1960s with such knee-jerk musical nominees as "Doctor Dolittle" and "Hello, Dolly!" and with "Oliver!" actually winning in 1968, the Academy began looking a little hipper and more adult in 1969, when "Midnight Cowboy" prevailed.
Through the 1970s, the Academy was able to find several ideal films, such as the two "Godfather" epics, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,""Annie Hall" and "The Deer Hunter," that were both popular and artistic enough to stand as legitimate winners. Commentators talked about how the Academy's membership had been infused with some new blood, that it didn't seem as arthritic as it used to.
BUT THINGS DRIFTED BACK into the safe respectability in the 1980s, unquestionably the worst decade for American movies since sound came in. From "Gandhi" and "Terms of Endearment" to "Out of Africa" and "Driving Miss Daisy," middle-brow seriousness and stylistic conventionality translated into gold, the only exceptions being the more individualistic "Platoon" and "The Last Emperor."
But if "Unforgiven" (or, for that matter, "The Crying Game") wins, it will, after "The Silence of the Lambs," mark two victories in a row for dark, disturbing, tensely made (albeit very popular) dramas. It would place the Academy more in line with critics' groups than usual, and would cut against the mushy feel-good aesthetic of the 1980s. Only time will tell if this is just an aberration, in which the right film might be honored for a change, or if one of the Academy's slow-motion ground shifts is taking place.
