Tuesday, December 06, 2005
The Test Of Time: First Of A Series
Entertainment Weekly recently did a piece on "The 30 Greatest Sports Movies of All-Time." What caught my eye, however, was a little side-bar highlighting a few famous sports movies that didn't make their list for various reasons. Among them: "Chariots Of Fire," which won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1981. EW felt that "Fire" just didn't stand the test of time, and noted that Warren Beatty's "Reds" probably deserved the Oscar that year.
This got me thinking, because it seems that every year when I watch the Oscars, there's always at least one head-scratcher, sometimes several. So I thought it would be fun to go back and look at past years and see how well some of the Academy's choices have aged over the years. I'll do this over the next few weeks, covering one year's awards each time. Maybe I'll even get enough mileage out of this to carry me through to this year's ceremony.
Since EW's comment about "Chariots Of Fire" got this whole thing going, I guess I'll start right there in 1981. And guess what? The magazine was right. In my humble opinion, "Chariots Of Fire" certainly did not deserve the Best Picture Oscar that year. But I sure as hell don't think "Reds" did, either.
A quick side-note before I reveal which of the other nominees I feel was not given what it so richly deserved. For some bizarre reason, I saw both "Chariots of Fire" AND "Reds" that year. IN THE THEATRES. Why is that so strange? Because I was 10 FUCKING YEARS OLD (making my younger brother, who also went to these flicks, only 8). For some reason, my Dad thought "Chariots of Fire" would be a great movie to bring two little kids to, with Mom apparently feeling likewise about "Reds." I remember both experiences being pretty horrific, with the torture of "Reds" made even worse because it was so damned long there was an intermission. That's right, an intermission. Anybody else ever experience this kind of unique hell?
Back on topic now. There was a quiet little picture also vying for the honor of being named Best Picture that year that you may have heard of. It's called "Raiders Of The Lost Ark." Test of time? Yeah, I'm pretty sure it passed. Sorry, Oscar, I think you missed the boat on this one. Steven Spielberg probably should have won the Director Oscar also, losing out to Warren Beatty.
Check back soon for an exciting look at Oscar '82.
This got me thinking, because it seems that every year when I watch the Oscars, there's always at least one head-scratcher, sometimes several. So I thought it would be fun to go back and look at past years and see how well some of the Academy's choices have aged over the years. I'll do this over the next few weeks, covering one year's awards each time. Maybe I'll even get enough mileage out of this to carry me through to this year's ceremony.
Since EW's comment about "Chariots Of Fire" got this whole thing going, I guess I'll start right there in 1981. And guess what? The magazine was right. In my humble opinion, "Chariots Of Fire" certainly did not deserve the Best Picture Oscar that year. But I sure as hell don't think "Reds" did, either.
A quick side-note before I reveal which of the other nominees I feel was not given what it so richly deserved. For some bizarre reason, I saw both "Chariots of Fire" AND "Reds" that year. IN THE THEATRES. Why is that so strange? Because I was 10 FUCKING YEARS OLD (making my younger brother, who also went to these flicks, only 8). For some reason, my Dad thought "Chariots of Fire" would be a great movie to bring two little kids to, with Mom apparently feeling likewise about "Reds." I remember both experiences being pretty horrific, with the torture of "Reds" made even worse because it was so damned long there was an intermission. That's right, an intermission. Anybody else ever experience this kind of unique hell?
Back on topic now. There was a quiet little picture also vying for the honor of being named Best Picture that year that you may have heard of. It's called "Raiders Of The Lost Ark." Test of time? Yeah, I'm pretty sure it passed. Sorry, Oscar, I think you missed the boat on this one. Steven Spielberg probably should have won the Director Oscar also, losing out to Warren Beatty.
Check back soon for an exciting look at Oscar '82.
Comments:
<< Home
Great idea. I think Raiders is certainly a great film and probably more deserving.
Also, when I was five, my family went to see the Towering Inferno. It had an intermission, and all I remember was the funky seventies purple screen during the intermission. That and OJ saving the cat. This was of course before he was an alleged murderer.
Also, when I was five, my family went to see the Towering Inferno. It had an intermission, and all I remember was the funky seventies purple screen during the intermission. That and OJ saving the cat. This was of course before he was an alleged murderer.
Great post! I looke forward to the rest of the series.
Sadly the Academy seems to be completely out of touch. It's criminal that Hitchcock never won an Oscar for his directing efforts and Scorsese (perhaps the greatest director of the last 25 years) has yet to be recognized.
Sadly the Academy seems to be completely out of touch. It's criminal that Hitchcock never won an Oscar for his directing efforts and Scorsese (perhaps the greatest director of the last 25 years) has yet to be recognized.
I have never seen Reds or Chariots of fire, but I have seen Raiders of the lost ark like 25 times. I remember going to see Clash of the titans at the theater in '81.
I remember wanting to see Clash Of The Titans really REALLY badly, and Dad took us to see Raiders first instead. I was pissed at first, but not so much afterwards.
Post a Comment
<< Home
