1994

Winner:

This was a year of controversy regarding the Best Picture, among certain circles. While I think the winner leaves room for debate, it is not for the reason most people think. Forrest Gump was the winner, and ultimately I do not disagree. It is a nearly flawless movie that manages to be both sweeping and incredibly personal at the same time. It tugs at your heart, if you have one, and the only detraction I can find is that it could arguably be seen as overly sentimental. To me, that does not detract from the movie, because its sweetness is not sappy, and it’s the rare movie I would grade as a classic. It’s an extremely well-produced film, though from a cinematography perspective, nothing is particularly special except how characters are inserted into historical events through the editing, which was a mild novelty at the time (it won for editing and visual effects and was nominated in pretty much every other technical category). Other aspects of the production are superb. The original music is sweet and sleepy like the Southern story it tells. The previously recorded music is a nostalgic look through American history like the rest of the story. Indeed, the whole film is an interesting way to reflect on recent American history, or at least the Baby Boomer generation. Tom Hanks was perfect for the role, or maybe the role helped turn him into the kind of actor that would be perfect for the role, though his Southern accent is less than stellar. He was not the first choice. That was John Travolta, which would have been a mistake, for this film and for Travolta, who was clearly made for Pulp Fiction. All of the roles were perfectly cast, and it’s a career highlight for many of them, like Gary Sinise who is pretty much still synonymous with Lt. Dan decades later. Those two were the only Oscar nominees of the cast, with Hanks winning, but the entire cast was perfect for what was asked of them, capturing a certain sweet nostalgia and goodness. It was a highlight for director Robert Zemeckis too, who has otherwise done some solid films but nothing else that remotely approached Oscar greatness. He won for Best Director. Some of the criticism of the film decries it as a conservative message. I read that in 2020, looking up the Wikipedia page while watching it for what was likely the twenty-somethingth time. In all the previous times I watched the film, I never once thought of it as conservative. I don’t really know even how someone could think that, unless they see it as a repudiation of 1960s counter culture, which I don’t entirely buy. It does explain why critics see it as more average (70%) and audiences give it an A+. Hollywood critics have always been tone deaf to average Americans. Regardless of the fact it is sweet and harmless rather than a conservative vision of history, the film is often profound and actually quite wise for a film about a simpleton. It won for the adapted screenplay, and if you’ve ever read the Winston Groom novel from which it is adapted, you’d know that’s quite a feat. Only the general theme was kept, and both the characters and plot are much more sweeping and wholesome and sentimental in the film. Even the themes and tone in the film are much more of a reflective and nostalgic look back on life. It’s a fantastic look at the debate about how much of a role fate or destiny plays in our lives versus how much we command our own destinies. It’s deceptively good storytelling also. It seems to mawkishly meander between bus stop conversations (which might not have been the best way to frame it) until he seamlessly speaks at Jenny’s grave and you realize he is lovingly retelling the story to her. Like the rest of the film, it bounces around in bubbly happiness until all of a sudden you realize its depth. It’s also highly quotable, and meme worthy (something I could not have previously imagined writing in a film review), even after 25 years. It has aged extremely well and is highly rewatchable. While there was another good choice this year, I really don’t see how someone would see it as a tragedy that Forrest Gump won. It’s one of the best films of the entire decade in the public imagination and showed up on several AFI lists right about where it belongs, solidly among the classics but not particularly high.

Nominees:

Four Weddings and a Funeral was a cute movie, but the complete opposite of memorable. It seemed like every year for a decade or so Hugh Grant starred in the same romantic comedy, where he is charming and awkward and falls in love despite himself. While this is an exaggeration, as each film had a mildly different plot, the film feels like it has been done many times over and nothing makes it stand out against similarly themed movies of the era. Sure, the framing technique of using successive weddings is unique, and works well, but it does not save the film from being overly familiar. Furthermore, the chemistry between Hugh Grant and Andie MacDowell is sketchy. I was not convinced they loved each other, or rather that she loved him, and thus the ending was not completely satisfying. None of the cast was nominated for any Academy Awards and that’s fair, though they’re all good enough. It was directed by Mike Newell, who’s done some notable films through the years though this is his only Best Picture nominee or film to even come close. The film received no technical nominations either, and that’s also fair. In fact, the only Academy Award nomination outside of Best Picture was for the screenplay. It did much better in British award shows and shows up in lists of great British films, though not lists originating in America that include all films regardless of origins. Well, the film is decidedly British. In the end it blends into all the other forgettable romantic comedies of the decade. Before I watched it again to write this, in fact, the only part I really remembered was the recital of the W.H. Auden poem at the funeral, which was a powerful scene and made the film worth seeing if only for that. I enjoyed it, but I don’t even see it as deserving of a nomination.

Most people who see the triumph of Forrest Gump as a travesty believe that Pulp Fiction should have won. It’s a clever and funny movie, I admit. If Quentin Tarantino has a strength as a filmmaker, it’s his skill with dialogue. He creates memorable lines that seem as natural as they are clever, and this film might be the best example of his ability. People have been quoting this film since it was released, and still are today. It’s still cool all these years later. But in most Tarantino films, some of the memorable dialogue makes you scratch your head. Do people realize he misquoted the Bible in the famous scene? Sometimes he’s profound, but sometimes the profundity is misguided. And there is the racism, not only including the N-word. Check out the references in the very first scene in the diner. It seems people give Tarantino a free pass today, but if he was just starting out in this climate, I don’t think he would make it. His skill as a director is solid too and he deserved to be nominated for Best Director as he was, though the only other technical nomination was for editing. Most of his movies look outstanding, in a retro way. They even feel that way with the soundtrack, but sometimes it can seem like he’s stuck in another era. He also seems to get the most out of his performers. Hell, any director who can get John Travolta to give even a decent performance deserves some consideration. This film made Samuel L. Jackson, but maybe he was just playing himself all these years, in hindsight. I would even argue that Bruce Willis gives the best performance of his career here. Travolta, Jackson, and Uma Thurman were nominated for their performances but none of them were a threat to win. Ultimately I am not a Tarantino fan, though this is the one movie of his I thought was better than good. Do I have a problem with vulgarity or violence in movies? No, unless it serves no purpose in the story. Tarantino’s brand of violence exists only to serve itself, it seems, and his movies seem self-indulgent. Do I understand his appeal? Of course, but it’s not for me. So this is my argument for people who think the greatest ripoff in Oscar history was Pulp Fiction not winning. These things and the glaring fact that if you told the story with a linear timeline, it becomes very average and the violence seems even more of the only point. I watched it that way once and it didn’t work as well. Some of the things that are absurd (like shooting Marvin in the head) seem even more so this way. It is one plot device away from being quite average, and it does lag in places once you’ve seen it a few times. The one Oscar category it did win was for screenplay though. It did win the Palme d’Or at Cannes, though they tend to reward edgier, violent films such as this. Even if it’s not a personal favorite of mine, it definitely deserves to be in the conversation, but it’s not remotely the best picture of this year.

Quiz Show was a good movie, about a real scandal in the 1950s in which a popular television game show was found to be fixed. It was a show that tested intelligence, or at least the ability to recall trivia, and it fixed the outcome so a handsome, more charismatic man would win over a more homely looking one. In some ways it’s about the eroding trust in public institutions in America in that era, though any aspects of that are mostly subtly implied. It’s an interesting bit of history, or trivia, though ultimately not that gripping. The screenplay was nominated but wasn’t particularly stirring. The acting was strong, but nothing exceptional. John Turturo and Ralph Fiennes played the two contestants and they were both solid enough, though the only cast member nominated for acting was Paul Scofield. The film was directed by Robert Redford, who was nominated for Best Director. It didn’t receive any technical nominations, however, and nothing about the technical aspects of the film really stood out. The production was decent, but for a movie set in a very specific era, the 1950s, it might have been good to give it a more authentic feel. It felt as if it could have taken place at any time in modern American history. I see it as a borderline nominee. Must a movie be grand or epic to win an Oscar? I would argue no. But if you are going to make a movie based on a true story, it would help.

I did say there was room for debate with this year’s award. The Shawshank Redemption is a slight notch below Forrest Gump for me. It is a magical story, one that so rarely comes along. It’s a story of hope, regardless of where it’s set. It’s the story of emotional triumph in the middle of a dire situation. Indeed, Tim Robbins’ character finds moments of joy in odd times, like watching his friends drink beer on top of a prison roof, or listening to opera in a warden’s office. To his character, hope is “something inside that they can’t get to, that they can’t touch, that’s yours.” “Hope is a dangerous thing,” Morgan Freeman’s character replies, but he never loses that hope and is rewarded in the end. On top of the uplifting theme, the film is perhaps best for its storytelling. Even the dialogue is crisp and clever. Stephen King’s true gift is as a storyteller, more than a writer. With all of his wonderful tales, this is only one of two films better than the book (The Green Mile is the other, both directed by Frank Darabont), and Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption is one of my favorite King tales. The screenplay was nominated for an Oscar and I’m torn as to whether or not it was better than Forrest Gump, which won. Morgan Freeman may do an impeccable job of narrating the film, and certainly deserved his Oscar nomination, but if you’re familiar enough with Stephen King books, it feels as if he is the one telling it. The film matches his style, told at a leisurely pace but still gripping. It’s more than an hour before the plot even begins to come into focus but it doesn’t matter because the storytelling is still entertaining. Along the way are memorable scenes, for example, on top of the prison roof. The story cleverly unfolds and the final twists are some of the best on film, even if you know precisely what is coming. I can imagine they are jaw dropping to someone who knows nothing about the story. The moment of triumph with Tim Robbins in the rain is uplifting even by itself. The production is superb, as it seems to transport you to the world in which the story takes place. While there was no Best Director nomination, it did find its way into the categories of cinematography, editing, sound, and score. The cinematography is solid, for a film that is mostly shades of harsh gray and has a limited set. And even with the limited sets, it has the feel of a solid period piece, taking place in the mid 20th century. Two of the few filming locations became famous from the film, the Ohio State Reformatory and the oak tree under which one of the last scenes occurs, which sadly succumbed to a storm in 2016. The soundtrack is stellar but you don’t even realize it (it was nominated for an Oscar). The acting is flawless, and even the minor characters are perfect and all the actors work well as a group, which is not always the case. It’s a bit surprising Freeman was the only nominee. Most of all, it has a sense of voice, a feel that makes the movie more than believable; it makes you almost a part of it. It makes you believe that “hope is a beautiful thing.” The Shawshank Redemption is truly storytelling at its best, and that is what movies are all about. Is it a Best Picture? In seven or eight out of ten years it would be. But not this year. Without hesitation I would place it in the best five to ten movies of the decade, as most reassessing critics would. It just came in a year with a better choice for Best Picture. Most years you don’t get a winner that feels like a classic. When they do come, they are almost always accompanied by movies nearly as good. You might watch To Kill a Mockingbird, for example, and wonder why it did not win Best Picture. Well, it came in the same year as Lawrence of Arabia. Both could arguably win in any given year. Only one could win in that particular year. Only one could win in this year and the best film was Forrest Gump.

Other Notable Films - Before the Rain is a well-constructed story and solidly produced film about the conflict in the Balkans, and both the humanity and lack of humanity in times of national stress. While it was a solid year for nominees, perhaps it might have been worth more than just a Best Foreign Language Film nomination. / Legends of the Fall is a gorgeous adaptation of one of one of my favorite works of literature and was widely loved at the time. It’s surprising it didn’t get more acclaim at awards time. / Leon: The Professional is a personal foveate of mine but not the type of film that gets nominated for Oscars. It has more heart than most films dream of though. / The Lion King in retrospect is one of the Disney classics from one of their best eras. For that matter, it’s one of the best Disney films ever made, and I would argue it’s easily one of the best films of the year. It’s also in the top ten highest grossing films ever, or at least when it came out. It was cultural phenomenon and I’m surprised they didn’t give it consideration. / The Madness of King George is an immaculately produced film, from the costumes and set to the cinematography to the music score which plays on the music of Handel. While the story starts out slowly, it’s an emotionally powerful and satisfying film that should have found its way into the final list. / Natural Born Killers was a phenomenon when it came out and it’s one of Oliver Stone’s most underrated films. / Once Were Warriors is a New Zealand film about domestic violence among Maori families. The directorial debut of Lee Tamahori, it’s hard to watch but features superb directing and acting and a powerful story that draws you in and shakes you to the core. The commanding production energy is something to witness as well. At one point it was the highest grossing film in New Zealand history.

Top Five: Forrest Gump, The Shawshank Redemption, The Lion King, Legends of the Fall, Leon: The Professional