1997
Winner:
I remember the cultural phenomenon that Titanic was. I avoided seeing it because I thought I would not enjoy it, that it was the thing of teenage girls. After all, it is the story of a love affair on a doomed voyage, a combination of a disaster film and love story. One funny take on the plot is that it’s about a rich girl who sleeps with a homeless man and then lets him die. Where’s the lie? I remember being mildly upset when it won Best Picture, thinking that the Academy wrongfully rewarded popularity. Maybe a decade later, I broke down and saw it. It was not as bad as I had feared. In fact, I found it to be a pretty good film, though far from flawless, and the disaster part of the film was much better than the romance. The production was grand and elegant, though it better have been, as it was the most expensive film ever made at the time. On a smaller scale, it recreates the feeling of the era very beautifully. It was directed by James Cameron, who won Best Director. You could argue this is his masterpiece, though he’s directed surprisingly few films for a career spanning so many decades. The film won nine of the ten technical categories in which it was nominated, all deserved. The acting was good enough for what was required. I thought Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance was underrated and Kate Winslet’s overrated, though neither are outstanding. The supporting performances are functional, but nothing stands out either way, except for the cartoonish villain horridly played by Billy Zane. One interesting side note about the cast: Bernard Hill, who played the ship captain, is the only actor to have appeared in two of the three films that won eleven Academy Awards (He played Theoden in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. The other film to win eleven Oscars was Ben-Hur.). Another piece of trivia: Kate Winslet and Gloria Stuart were both nominated for acting awards for playing the same character, the only time it’s happened in Oscar history. They were the only cast members nominated for an Oscar. The larger story is interesting enough, simple and universal, yet still unique. My main problems with the movie are in the details of the script. For me, it was too syrupy and melodramatic, especially the scenes that are now considered the most memorable. The dialogue is often cliched, and besides the “king of the world” quote, there are little memorable lines. There is a reason, after all, that the fourteen Oscar nominations included none for writing. They might have snipped a good hour from the film and created a grander movie. I might go a step further and say the most compelling part of the film is the sinking of the ship in the background, and not the love story in the foreground. Still, Titanic is a pretty good film, and deserving of a nomination, if only for its grandeur. In former decades when they frequently gave the award to the grandest production, it would be a deserving winner. Indeed, if I considered the production only, I would give it the award. But it is not the film I consider best of these nominees. For many reasons, it is well worth seeing once (and even twice, as I watched it a second time when I started this project) but I fail to see how it shattered box office records because of people seeing it again and again and again. And I fail to see how it is one of three films to win eleven Academy Awards. It fared well on many of the AFI lists as well, but a little too high for where it belongs in most of the categories.
Nominees:
As Good As It Gets was likely made in one of the last years it could have been successful. A movie about a person so openly misogynistic, racist, and homophobic would probably not be popular with more politically correct audiences, especially since the movie asks for a measure of sympathy for him. When I sat down to watch the film, I looked up some basic information about it. I saw that James L. Brooks directed it and wondered how it might be. He was known primarily as a television writer who also did Terms of Endearment and Broadcast News. Terms of Endearment is one of my least favorite winners ever, since it reminded me so much of a soap opera. This one was nothing like a soap opera, which would imply the plot is fantastical. Brooks was not nominated for his directing this time, which is fair. Nothing about the production or technical parts of the film was excellent but it was still nominated for the editing and score, which was by Hans Zimmer. My main problem with this one is that the characters seemed overdone and unlikeable, and not just Jack Nicholson. I just didn’t like them and therefore it was hard to care what happened to them. The dialogue, while snappy, feels far-fetched, even if the screenplay was nominated for an Oscar. I didn’t think the acting was as good as others did. Why reward Jack Nicholson for playing a caricature of himself? This was just one in a long string of movies where Jack Nicholson played a grumpy old man who somehow redeemed himself. Maybe his performance was the best of the lot in his category, but it was nowhere near worth a nomination. Helen Hunt won for Best Actress and that was a better choice, but it’s puzzling she didn’t have the staying power of other actresses since she was so critically acclaimed in these years. Greg Kinnear was also nominated for his supporting role. In the end, the film had a lot of appeal because a lot of people enjoy films about caustic or abrasive people. Lots of playwrights and directors have made careers on just such things and they have their fans. I’m not one of them. I wouldn’t have nominated this for Best Picture.
The Full Monty is the story of six unemployed men in Sheffield, England who decide to become strippers in order to raise money for one of them to see his son. It raked in over $250 million against a budget of $3.5 million, and was the biggest grossing film in UK history, at least until Titanic unseated it later that year. In 1999 the BFI named it number twenty-five on its list of 100 greatest British films. The film is undoubtedly funny in a dry, British way, but it’s also quite tender in its treatment of the characters as humans with their own struggles. Indeed, the social issues it addresses - unemployment, father’s rights, homosexuality - are still relevant today, as many pockets of the world look like an economically depressed Sheffield of the time. The acting is solid and you cannot help but cheer for the characters as the story unfolds. It’s surprising no one was nominated for an Oscar, though no one would have been a threat to actually win. The film was directed by Peter Cattaneo, who was nominated for Best Director. It was his feature length directorial debut, and quite a good one. Since then he’s done surprisingly few films for someone still in the business, and none of them reached the heights of this one. The production is solid in some ways, especially with the soundtrack. The only technical nomination was for the score. But a film like this will succeed or fail based on the script, and the delivery of the script, and this one is quite clever and rightfully deserved to be nominated for the screenplay. Consider the line: “Anti-wrinkle cream there may be, but anti-fat-bastard cream there is not.” The film is a surprisingly tender comedy, though I fail to see why it was so popular. I remember thinking that even at the time. I suppose pop culture takes on a life of its own at times, as Titanic did later in the year. It’s a film worth seeing, for those who like British comedies, but if a surprising wildly successful American comedy of the same type had been released that year, it would not have been nominated. It’s not a bad choice, but is now largely forgotten, with reason.
Good Will Hunting is one of my favorite movies of the decade, which encompassed the years I transitioned from a teenager to an adult. To be fully transparent, I was in the Army when I first saw it, and I was instantly drawn to the movie because the friends I had in those days were precisely the friends depicted in the movie. They might not be the smartest, but if you asked them to fight by you, they would not hesitate. Every man should be blessed with such friends. Often, the things that are your cultural favorites in these years stay your favorites for life. I have seen this movie many times since I first saw it in the theater and I am still as engrossed as I was the first time. The film was written by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck and won for original screenplay. It was a superb choice. Yes, the movie is about, on some levels, intelligence, but even the minute details of the script are brimming with sharpness. Even the most quotable parts of the movie are clever. It is an intricate, beautiful story about intelligence, loyalty, love, life, and so much more, and the telling is masterful. It captures the feeling of how working class people live expertly. It’s the rare movie about psychology, at least partially, that does not solve the issues by talking about them to death. Not a single moment of the film is superfluous, and that is a remarkable feat. The acting is underrated. Yes, Robin Williams did deserve his nomination and win, but much of the rest of the cast did as well. Sure, Matt Damon and Minnie Driver were nominated for their performances but they felt under appreciated at award time. They are asked to play incredibly complex characters, full of complex emotions, and without fail they do. The film was directed by Gus Van Sant and I’d argue it was this masterpiece, though he did other films for which you could also make a strong case. On a technical level, it wasn’t a masterpiece, but it didn’t need to be. It was only nominated for editing, score, and original song. This movie has no weaknesses, though if you are not drawn to the depiction of working class Boston it might not pull you in quickly. Still, it is easily one of the best of a generation, and easily the best of this year.
L.A. Confidential is a crime drama considered one of the best of the era. I do understand there is a large number of people who love these dark crime stories of the 1990s and 2000s. Such people cannot be dissuaded from believing Pulp Fiction, for example, is one of the best films in history. Such films may be technically great, but I find them empty. On a technical level L.A. Confidential is incredibly well done. It was directed by Curtis Hanson, who had a decent career though this was his only Best Picture nominee. He was nominated for Best Director and the film was nominated for cinematography, art direction, editing, score, and sound. The overall production is magnificent and matches the noir feel of the story, though I did not think the voiceover by Danny DeVito was appropriate; it gave a light, comical air to the film. The acting was solid and I am surprised it did not get more nominations, especially for Russell Crowe, who was a relative unknown at the time. The only cast member to be nominated for an Academy Award was Kim Basinger, and she won for her supporting role. Then there is the story, which is fresh and anything but formulaic. It won the award for adapted screenplay, based on a contemporary novel by James Ellroy. As I was watching, however, I wondered if there was too much happening. I am no simpleton. I enjoy being intellectually and mentally stimulated during a film. I do not mind having to keep track of an intricate plot. There comes a point, however, when too intricate of a plot interferes with the enjoyment of the film. This is not quite an overwhelming story, but it flirts with it. It is intricate enough that a second viewing would help solidify the understanding of the film, but not excellent enough to justify that second viewing. So I did give it a second viewing a few years later. As intriguing as the story might be, it turned out it was very forgettable. It did not stay with me, having no memorable lines, or scenes, or even an unforgettable story. Compare it to this year’s winner, Titanic. I have seen both films the same amount of times. I remember quite a lot about Titanic, which is far from one of my favorites. L.A. Confidential just doesn’t demand that same regard. It deserves a nomination, but I fail to see it as the classic some do.
Other notable films: Amistad was easily better than some on the list, even if it had a few weaknesses. / Eve’s Bayou oozes with a Southern gothic feel in every aspect of the production and tells a richly complex story about African-American life in Louisiana. It features superb acting and a fantastic directorial debut and yet somehow was completely overlooked at the Oscars. / Gattaca works as a thriller, but even more so as an ethics conversation starter, and is a dystopian film that holds up better than most. / Seven Years in Tibet is a beautiful film on many levels. / I’m not the biggest fan of The Wings of the Dove for the same reason I am not the biggest fan of the novel. Ultimately, it’s unsatisfying. But this film version features solid acting and superb production, as reflected by the Oscar nominations. It’s an exquisite period piece, as good as many of the similar adaptations of very early 20th century British literature that found their way to screen in the surrounding years, and probably better than a few of the other nominees in a weak year.
Top Five: Good Will Hunting, Titanic, Seven Years in Tibet, Gattaca, Eve’s Bayou