Random Oscar thoughts

With Oscar night only days away, my head is now swimming with various Oscar-related thoughts from years past, and I'd better get them down now before my head explodes.

1963: I would have chosen To Kill a Mockingbird for Best Picture over Lawrence of Arabia. I've been told that Lawrence of Arabia is a movie that you can only see on the big screen, because the experience of seeing it on the big screen is vastly superior to watching the DVD. That may explain my general indifference to Lawrence of Arabia (I only saw it on DVD), but no matter how many times I see To Kill a Mockingbird, I can't help but feel like my world has been touched. (And yes, I do think Gregory Peck rightfully won Best Actor that year over Peter O'Toole.)

1972: I've already given my spiel about The Godfather at the Oscars.

1973: I must confess, I'm still a bit saddened that The Exorcist lost Best Picture, but at the same time, I won't argue with The Sting bringing home the gold, because that's one of my favorite movies. I can't quite understand why Robert Redford got a Best Actor nod for The Sting (if anyone should have gotten an acting nod from that movie, it should have been Paul Newman or Robert Shaw), but Jack Lemmon seriously deserved his Oscar that year for Save the Tiger. His tormented performance as the out-of-step, living-in-the-past hero Harry Stoner was just incredible.

1974: The Best Picture competition for this year still sends chills up my spine: The Conversation, Chinatown, and The Godfather, Part II. As in the case of 1973, I'm glad The Godfather, Part II won, but at the same time it still kinda saddens me that the other two films couldn't take home any glory. Chinatown is probably the classic noir film of our time, setting the standard by which all other noir films would follow. And The Conversation is a superb masterpiece by Coppola (and with both pictures of his up for Oscars, 1974 was a damn good year for Coppola!). Though I think I need to see Harry and Tonto to see if Art Carney's Best Actor award (over Al Pacino) was justified. And I'm still somewhat perplexed by Ingrid Bergman's win for Murder on the Orient Express. In an otherwise mega-ensemble cast (Sean Connery, Vanessa Redgrave, Wendy Hiller, Michael York, Albert Finney, Lauren Bacall, just to name a few), her part in that film was so small, and she played heavily against type (no longer the femme fatale from such films as Casablanca, but a somewhat mentally-deficient, God-fearing social worker). So part of me wonders if she was awarded for going against type?

1976: This was one hell of a year for nominations, I have to admit! With such landmark films as Rocky, Network, All the President's Men, and Taxi Driver competing for Best Picture, I can only imagine how much viewers were salivating in suspense. I may not make any friends for saying this, but I do believe that Rocky was the right choice for Best Picture, inching ahead of Network by only a hair. Network I think rightfully took the lead acting awards (Faye Dunaway, and an amazing Peter Finch screaming his now-legendary, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"), but given the beauty of Rocky, I must admit to being a little saddened that Sly and Talia didn't take home the lead acting awards. And like the rest of the cinematic world, it still doesn't make sense to me why Beatrice Straight got an Oscar for only a single scene in Network.

1980: I'm amazed at all the anger that still remains over Raging Bull losing Best Picture to Ordinary People. I've seen both films, and while both were quite good, I honestly agree with the call made by the Academy that year. I thought Ordinary People was the better of the two, with Mary Tyler Moore giving one hell of a dramatic performance (I'm actually surprised that Donald Sutherland wasn't nominated that year, because he was quite a presence, too!), but I do think that Martin Scorsese should have won the Best Director award over Robert Redford. While Ordinary People might have been the more powerful of the two, I think Raging Bull was the better-made film. And Robert De Niro's Oscar was truly deserving for his performance of the self-destructive Jake LaMotta.

1981: I wish Raiders of the Lost Ark would have won Best Picture over Chariots of Fire.

1986: I must admit, I don't quite understand why Platoon won Best Picture, as it didn't strike me as anything spectacular. Though I did think Tom Berenger should have won Best Supporting Actor. And Paul Newman in The Color of Money, he definitely deserved that award!

1988: I would have given Best Picture and Best Actor to Mississippi Burning and Gene Hackman, respectively. Rain Man didn't really speak to me the way Mississippi Burning did. And I also would have added Michael Rooker to the Best Supporting Actor category, for he overpowered every scene he was in in Mississippi Burning.

1989: This was another good year for Best Picture nominees: Field of Dreams, Born on the Fourth of July, My Left Foot, Dead Poets Society. So how is it that Driving Miss Daisy won Best Picture? (Though Jessica Tandy rightfully won Best Actress.) For Best Picture, I would have chosen Born on the Fourth of July, followed closely by Field of Dreams and then Dead Poets Society. And you may want to sit down for this bit of news, but I would have given Best Actor to Tom Cruise. For as ballyhooed as he is today for his whole Katie Holmes schtick, he has proven on more than one occasion that he can act—and this is no exception. He gave a powerhouse to end all powerhouses in Born on the Fourth of July, and it saddens me that he lost. This year also marked the first Oscar win for Denzel Washington, who took home a Supporting Actor award for his incredible performance in Glory.

1990: Like ten years before, the anger that Dances With Wolves won Best Picture and Director over Marty and Goodfellas still amazes me. I don't really feel one way or the other about Dances With Wolves winning Best Picture, and I didn't really care for Goodfellas (sorry, but I'm a Godfather loyalist). What I don't understand is why The Godfather, Part III was in the running for any Oscar at all. As much as I love the first two films, the third just shouldn't have been made, and part of me wonders if it got nominations just for being a Godfather film.

1991: Oliver Stone should have taken Best Director for his phenomenal recreation of Dealy Plaza in JFK. That was one hell of an achievement, and all the details that he nailed down amaze me still.

1992: Unforgiven still puzzles me. Maybe I'm just a John Wayne fan at heart, but I didn't find anything special to Unforgiven, so I can't quite figure out why it took Best Picture.

1994: Like 1976, this was another banner year for Best Picture—and Best Supporting Actor! As much as I love Pulp Fiction, I grudgingly admit that Forrest Gump was the rightful Best Picture winner (if only by a hair). On the flip side, though, I would have awarded Best Director to Quentin Tarantino instead of Robert Zemeckis. As to Best Supporting Actor, I've seen all the performances except Chazz Palminteri in Bullets Over Broadway, and I can honestly say that, in my opinion, it's a three-way tie between Martin Landau, Gary Sinise, and Samuel L. Jackson. Martin Landau gave an unbelievable rendition as Bela Legosi in Ed Wood, so I support his win. But I can't overlook Gary Sinise's Lieutenant Dan or Samuel L. Jackson's Jules; hell, Samuel's diner scene at the end of Pulp Fiction was one of the most incredible performances I've ever seen. Paul Scofield's nomination didn't quite make sense to me, though. From Quiz Show, I would have chosen John Turturro or Ralph Fiennes.

1995: I'm still angry that Heat didn't get a single Oscar nomination that year, and I can think of at least 7 awards for which it should have been nominated.

1997: Call me what you will, but I thought Kim Basinger's Oscar win was deserved. And I beg you, please don't get me started on Titanic. Good Will Hunting and L.A. Confidential were much more worthy. I can accept James Cameron's Best Director win (because the sinking of the ship was extraordinary), but Titanic was completely overrated, and the whole love story turned the greatest maritime disaster of all time into a chick flick. I'm sorry, but the sinking of the ship is not supposed to be secondary to a love story. And thank God that Leo has resurrected his acting career, because he was annoying as hell in Titanic.

1999: No matter how many times I see American Beauty, I just don't get it. I did enjoy Kevin Spacey's coming-of-age, as it were, but the rest of the film seemed very disjoined to me, and the fact that it damn near swept the Oscars leaves me puzzled. This year, I would have given Best Picture, Director, and Actor to The Insider, Michael Mann, and Russell Crowe, respectively. And for as much as I dislike Hilary Swank, she did give a surprisingly worthy performance in Boys Don't Cry, fully deserving her Oscar win.

2000: I would have given Traffic Best Picture that year over Gladiator (sorry, Dad), and I really didn't find Russell Crowe's turn in Gladiator that award-worthy, either. I honestly didn't have a problem with Julia Roberts winning Best Actress, though I was surprised to find a number of people angry that Ellen Burstyn didn't win for Requiem for a Dream.

2001: Let me get this out of my system now—Naomi Watts was completely robbed for not getting nominated for Mulholland Dr. But having said that, I wasn't bothered by Halle Berry's win for Monster's Ball, nor by Denzel's for Training Day. So why do those wins generate all the anger it does?

2004: The Best Picture win of Million Dollar Baby made me mad as hell. I honestly thought The Aviator, Sideways, and Ray to be far superior. And speaking of Ray, I think it goes without saying that Jamie Foxx was outstanding as Ray Charles. I just wish Paul Giamatti would have been nominated for Sideways, and I would have given Best Supporting Actress to Natalie Portman rather than Cate Blanchett. Cate did a respectable Kate Hepburn (though I think the best-ever Kate impression came from, of all people, Jennifer Jason Leigh in The Hudsucker Proxy), but Natalie was just outstanding in Closer (not to mention hot!).

2005: Again, I may be in the vast minority on this, but it totally made my night to have George Clooney win Best Supporting Actor and Crash win Best Picture. I didn't care what Clooney's politics were; I thought he was brilliant in Syriana. I was also cheering for Matt Dillon to win for Crash, but felt happy with George's win. As to Crash vs. Brokeback Mountain, I genuinely felt Crash to be one of the most powerful movies I've ever seen, daring in its premise, and flat-out in-your-face honest about people and their often-incorrect preconceptions of others unlike them. I thought Brokeback Mountain featured lots of good acting (and I would have given Best Actor to Heath Ledger rather than Philip Seymour Hoffman), but the movie didn't strike me as the masterpiece it was hailed as. So I think the Academy made the right decision last year.

Phew, that took a lot out of me! But all that being said . . . bring on Sunday night's ceremony!!!