To be fair, Star Wars did win seven Oscars and just being nominated for Best Picture was quite an accomplishment for a science fiction film. Nowadays, Hollywood frowns on ambition and simply rewards what's lobbied the hardest.
Also, today's Academy would have hated Woody Allen for not attending the ceremony. Returning to modern-day, I'm willing to bet that the nominated Joaquin Phoenix (who deserves to win but won't because the Academy didn't take kindly to his comments on the awards) doesn't attend on Sunday.
35 years have passed. I remember watching that show too. In (my own) hindsight though, nothing's changed in those 35 years, for me. At the time as well as now, my favorite film of the five nominees was and remains 'JULIA'. And, what was awarded the years Best Picture, 'ANNIE HALL', remains the best of those five nominees. The Academy was right.
To be fair, Star Wars did win seven Oscars and just being nominated for Best Picture was quite an accomplishment for a science fiction film. Nowadays, Hollywood frowns on ambition and simply rewards what's lobbied the hardest.
Star Wars deserved to win those technical awards, that's for sure. Williams, of course should have won. I think that year's Academy Awards were even handed and fair in most every category. "Nobody Does it Better" was robbed, though! As for the actors, Dreyfuss absolutely should have won, Keaton, Redgrave, and Robards all deserved their Oscars, though Alec Guinness was wonderful as Obi-Wan.
I haven't seen JULIA in a number of years, Dave, and I appreciate that time period a lot more than when I last saw it. The Turning Point is the least of the nominees and I could never take Shirley MacLaine in anything but small doses.
Also, today's Academy would have hated Woody Allen for not attending the ceremony. Returning to modern-day, I'm willing to bet that the nominated Joaquin Phoenix (who deserves to win but won't because the Academy didn't take kindly to his comments on the awards) doesn't attend on Sunday.
There's always knee-deep politics to wade through and I love that Woody wanted nothing to do with it or any other awards show. His use of the word "nice" in describing Annie Hall's success is hilarious and very Woody.
He said he preferred his track & field medals . . .
It's much clearer in THAT game, who deserves to win.
Of course, his decision not to attend when he was nominated made THIS appearance at the ceremony much more meaningful and special.
I'm still waiting for his film about the foot fetishist.
Thank you for posting this (second) video. I was in New York that night and I remember that terrible day he's speaking of - it's never left me even moving to Montana. Listening to Woody speak lovingly about his city, in those affectionate terms, brought a tear to my eye.
To be fair, Star Wars did win seven Oscars and just being nominated for Best Picture was quite an accomplishment for a science fiction film. Nowadays, Hollywood frowns on ambition and simply rewards what's lobbied the hardest.
Star Wars deserved to win those technical awards, that's for sure. Williams, of course should have won. I think that year's Academy Awards were even handed and fair in most every category. "Nobody Does it Better" was robbed, though! As for the actors, Dreyfuss absolutely should have won, Keaton, Redgrave, and Robards all deserved their Oscars, though Alec Guinness was wonderful as Obi-Wan.
I've always disliked what I consider the somewhat dismissive term "technical awards" when applied to the awards of the sort Star Wars won. I've always gotten the impression of an intent to diminish the creative cachet associated with those roles (compared to writing, directing and acting), but I can't get behind the idea things like costume design, production design and so on aren't equally demanding of creative ability as those "top" jobs that most people pay the most attention to (presumably people at this site will agree, at least with regards to score composition).
Alec Guinness was indeed great as Obi-Wan Kenobi, but I have to say that not only was he indeed not the best supporting actor of '77, I don't think he was even necessarily the best supporting actor in that movie. Obviously he was a talented, highly regarded Serious Master Thespian, of the sort for whom simply casting him in the role helps define the character even before his performance is actually seen, but it seems to me a lot of Alec Guinness' performance as Obi-Wan Kenobi is simply Alec Guinness being Alec Guinness... which is of course perfect for the character, but probably not exactly an achievement of the sort that many of the other actors in the movie had to realize. If anything, I'd say at least three other actors from the original Star Wars - Anthony Daniels, Harrison Ford and Peter Cushing - were each at least equally deserving of that nomination for their work, and possibly more so. Alec Guinness was the safe choice for the Academy, though, as far as SW acting nominations went.
Similarly, I think Star Wars was a much greater achievement than Annie Hall, at least at that time. Nowadays, in the environment that SW itself did so much to create, it wouldn't be a big deal at all, but right up until it was released it was an audacious, risky, daring work - much more so than Annie Hall was then, actually (today the reverse would be true, of course). I know I'm a fanboy, but I'll go on record here as saying I do honestly think Star Wars was the better Best Picture choice of those two, and not just because I love it so much.
Come on, guys, the STAR WARS/ANNIE HALL dichotomy is simply the umpteenth demonstration of the absurdity of an artistic competition such as the Academy Awards. There isn't one single thing which STAR WARS set out to accomplish which ANNIE HALL was trying to do, too -- and vice versa. And both films accomplished their individual, incompatible goals supremely well, and each was immensely satisfying for its intended audience.
I was not the intended audience of either, apparently.
Forget the "apparently"! In all the years I have been at this board, I have never known you to offer the title of a film or the name of an actor or director that you LIKE.
it seems to me a lot of Alec Guinness' performance as Obi-Wan Kenobi is simply Alec Guinness being Alec Guinness... which is of course perfect for the character, but probably not exactly an achievement of the sort that many of the other actors in the movie had to realize.
That goes for every so called great acting talent, and it shows once again: there's not good acting there's just bad acting and good casting. Put the holy trinity of male performers, DeNiro, Pacino, Nicholson (NOT my choice by any means) in something else than what they did since their birth, and they fall through straight away. That's why I couldn't care less about the Oscars even if I had to. The only fun thing about the Oscars, besides Stewart's and Colbert's opening skits, was Walter Mathau's spot on conclusion about the academy: "If you embarrass them by being alive too long, they give you an Oscar for your whole oeuvre".
Disco, your ignorance and arrogance leave me staggering. I don't know what you do for a living, but I assume you work hard at it and do the best you can. What would you think if someone were to say to you, "You're not a good teacher/plumber/lawyer/whatever, you're just the guy who got hired."?
If you have such condescending contempt for actors, then I advise you from now on to see only movies that have no actors in them. That way, obviously, you'll be much more moved and entertained.
Disco, your ignorance and arrogance leave me staggering. I don't know what you do for a living, but I assume you work hard at it and do the best you can. What would you think if someone were to say to you, "You're not a good teacher/plumber/lawyer/whatever, you're just the guy who got hired."?
If you have such condescending contempt for actors, then I advise you from now on to see only movies that have no actors in them. That way, obviously, you'll be much more moved and entertained.
One thing that frequently makes this board so bothersome is the holier than thou attitude. I could make an effort and try to explain to you where and how you misread my post but since the opening line of your reply makes you come off as someone who is so full of himself and whose eyes are too blocked to take in the message, I'm not going to bother more than this.
I agree with Disco. Most "movie stars" are actors being themselves. This is why I always felt they should eliminate "Best Supporting Actor" and put them in with "Best Actor". Because nine out of ten times, it is the supporting actor whom really takes on a "fictional character".
Regarding who should win the "Best Picture" Oscar I guess it depends on what it means to be the "Best Picture" of the year. Should it be something though provoking or something that simply entertains? I don't think a film as highly entertaining as Star Wars should be considered any less of a good film.
Okay, so I thought you were arrogant, and you thought I was full of myself. I suppose there's always the possibility that we were both right.
Seriously -- I'm sorry for flying off the handle and getting so personal. That's usually not my style, and it's never my intention to offend. In my fallible way, though, I was trying to make a reasoned case for a profession I genuinely felt was being maligned. If I misunderstood or otherwise mis-read your post, then I apologize for that, too. But if you just dismiss me and don't try to reason with me, how will I ever learn? Feel free to write again and set me straight. I've had a good night's sleep, now, so I promise to be much calmer if you'll give me another chance to read your thoughts on the matter. We may even find we have areas of agreement -- such as on the importance of character actors, for instance.
Peace,
Preston
PS to Solium:
Speaking of agreement, I hope you noticed earlier on this same thread where I've discussed the folly of the Academy Awards' entire premise, that there can be "competition" between two totally different and distinct works of art. I think you and I, also, might find much we can agree with if we met at the Cantina to hoist a couple of cold ones together.