The Shallow End of the Pool

No, it's not a Dr. Seuss tale. It's the true story of the 1994 Academy Awards. Somehow, a large group of voters decided that "Forrest Gump" was a better film than "Pulp Fiction." Not fucking likely. Hell, "Gump" wasn't even second best that year in my opinion, as "The Shawshank Redemption" was also nominated. "Pulp Fiction" was a nearly perfect film, brilliantly written, directed, and acted. Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avary took home the film's only statue, for the screenplay, although I believe that was only because "Gump" was in the other screenplay category ("Pulp" was Original, while "Gump" was Adapted). Even more criminal was Tarantino losing the Director award to Robert Zemeckis. I've seen "Gump." Once. I just don't get it. I actually spent a period of a few years being pissed off at Tom Hanks after these awards. With hindsight being 20/20, I admit that my rage towards Mr. Hanks was misdirected (and disappeared anyway after "Saving Private Ryan"). So, I hereby offer a public apology to Tom Hanks for my behavior. It doesn't change the fact that "Pulp Fiction" was robbed.

Also that year, in the only category that "Pulp" lost that didn't tick me off, was Martin Landau ("Ed Wood") winning Best Supporting Actor over Samuel L. Jackson. Classic performance. Tom Hanks' second consecutive Best Actor trophy should have gone to Morgan Freeman for the afore-mentioned "Shawshank Redemption."

Let's put this sorry episode behind us and move on to 1995. Ah, yes: "Braveheart." No complaints here. Easy choice for Best Picture, as the other nominees were "Apollo 13," "Babe," "The Postman (Il Postino)," and "Sense and Sensibility." "Braveheart" is fantastic, and Mel Gibson also took home a well-deserved statue for Directing. "The Usual Suspects" also came out that year, and took home Best Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor (Kevin Spacey). It actually should have been nominated for Best Picture as far as I'm concerned. "Suspects" (along with "Se7en," which was also released this year) is one of those movies that make me wish I would get amnesia so I could see it again for the first time. One other note: nice to see Nicolas Cage take home Best Actor.

I'll do another 2 or 3 years next time.

I don't have a heck of a lot of comments on the Academy Awards in either '91, '92, or '93.

1991 was the year that "Silence of the Lambs" hit a grand slam, snagging statues for Best Picture, Actor (Anthony Hopkins), Actress (Jodie Foster), and Screenplay. Really tough to argue with this, as "Lambs" is a great film that holds up under repeated viewings. The only real competition for the Best Picture award was "JFK," which I'm sure Craig will argue should have won. I'm sure its loss is part of a greater conspiracy. Other notes: "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" took home 3 well-deserved technical awards, and was probably my favorite film of that year. Also, Disney's "Beauty And The Beast" was a surprise nomination for Best Picture; years later the Academy would institute a Best Animated Feature category to recognize the quality of these films. I have mixed feelings about that, and I will elaborate further when we get to that year.

Oscar did good work again in 1992, honoring Clint Eastwood's masterpiece "Unforgiven" with Best Picture, Director, and Supporting Actor (Gene Hackman). However, I believe Eastwood was robbed of the Best Actor statue as well, which went to Al Pacino for "Scent of a Woman." Much respect for Pacino, but his performance here was bloated and hammy. Seems like the Academy was awarding him for his entire career, rather than this particular role. Disappointing.

Let's move on to 1993. "Schindler's List" was considered a lock going in. It delivered, winning 7 awards, including Best Picture, Director (Spielberg), and Screenplay. Again an easy choice for the big award (the other noms were "The Fugitive," "In The Name of the Father," "Remains of the Day," and "The Piano"). Tom Hanks won his first Oscar this year for "Philadelphia." I still feel Hanks' greatest moment came in "Bachelor Party" years earlier, but apparently the Academy feels differently.

So, the Academy Awards have passed the test of time for 3 years in a row. Will 1994 continue the streak? I think we all know how that one turns out. Tune in next time for a giant fucking travesty.

It's Two-Fer Tuesday....shit, wait...never mind, it's Wednesday. Either way, I'm going to cover two years of Oscars again this week. First we'll finish off the '80s with 1989, and then move on to 1990.

1989 saw the release of my favorite film of ALL TIME...the movie I love so much, I named my first born after it 15 years later. Oscar apparently didn't love it as much as I, however, because "Heathers" didn't get any nominations. Certainly Christian Slater's finest hour, "Heathers" AT LEAST deserved a nod for best screenplay. Absolutely brilliant from start to finish. Ah, well. As sung in the film itself, "Que sera, sera...whatever will be, will be."

The actual awards? Best Picture went to "Driving Miss Daisy." I would have picked "Born On The Fourth Of July," but Oliver Stone did pick up the Best Director Statue. I didn't actually see "Daisy," though, so I guess I can't judge whether or not it stands the test of time (which was the whole point of this experiment to begin with, remember? Me neither).

Before we leave the '80s behind, one final note. Last week, when mentioning some of my favorites from 1987, I left out "The Lost Boys." So a big shout out to "Lost Boys," a really great movie with superb performances all around. If you MUST watch one Corey and Corey effort, this should top the list (although if, like me, you don't really consider this a Haim/Feldman vehicle per se, than "License To Drive" is a pretty good second choice).

Onward and upward and forward. 1990...ugh. "Dances With Wolves." I saw it. Once. It was actually pretty good. Would I ever watch it again? Hell, no. Life's too short. "Wolves" is a prime example of a really good film that you never want to see again (a more recent example? "A Beautiful Mind"). I certainly don't think it stands the test of time. So what else deserved the award? "Goodfellas" was also nominated. Folks, I'm sorry, but I need to come out of the closet here. I just don't get it. Maybe I'm not a mob guy. For the record, I also didn't like "Casino," "Scarface," or "The Godfather." Borderline sacrilege, I know, but I calls 'em likes I sees 'em. I know I'm WAY in the minority on those, so for all of you I will concede that, at the very least, "Goodfellas" was more deserving of the award than "Wolves."

Oh, looky over here..."Total Recall" also came out in 1990. I give Arnold an Honorary Oscar for that one. See you in 1991.