Techtite.com Editorial : My Two Bits, V2

This year is Oscar's 75th time at bat. Not much different in 75 years, is there? It's nominees this year are one big snub-fest of forgotten movies and roles, many of which far superior to over half the nominees. Is this any different than what happened 5 --or even 25-- years ago? Not really. However, it seems customary when a show reaches "75" to wax nostalgic on its shortcomings, so allow me to offer my insight in the matter for February, the very week after the nominees have been revealed. To keep a captive audience, let's limit the retro look to the past 25 years, shall we?

25 years ago ---1978-- the biggest news was how Star Wars clobbered the box office in the prior year. Yet Oscar gave Star Wars' deserved Best Picture trophy to Annie Hall, a romance comedy. Woody Allen fans claim that this was great, because the "brainier" film won. Personally, I'd worry my brain would rot if I ever said a romance comedy was "brainier" than science fiction, so let's just say I fervently disagree. In truth, Annie Hall was simply awarding one "fad" in pace of another "fad"; in this case, the short-lived fashion trend where women wore men's ties. This "fad" ending around the time feminists realized that not even men enjoyed wearing ties, so it was hardly "liberating" to do so. As for the Globes' choice for Best Picture of 1977 --Turning Point-- it was clear that it would be quite a few more years before people took The Golden Globes seriously at all.

20 years ago, it was 1983. The big news was how ET: The Extra-Terrestrial creamed Star Wars' box office record that year; the first film to even come close, in over half a decade. However, the problem with E.T.'s possibility of earning an Oscar was far more serious than some over-rated comedy; E.T.'s rival in the awards was a little film called Gandhi. When Oscar night began giving awards to Ghandi for Best Screenplay, Lead Actor, Cinematography, Art Direction, Costume Design, Editing, and even Best Director, it would have been a crime to not give it The Best Picture nod as well. As for the Golden Globes; they were still struggling to earn respect, which in this case meant giving the Best Dramatic Film award to E.T. The problem? They forgot to so much as nominate Ghandi at all. D'oh!

15 years ago, it was 1988. How bad of a year was it at the Oscars? Let's put it this way: Chevy Chase was the evening's host. Not much to say about the prior year except that it was a pretty lackluster year at the movies. Not that The Last Emperor wasn't a worthy winner of the evening's top honor; it just wasn't something people waited with baited breath to see until 1 AM the next morning. if memory serves, I went to bed early that year. Many others did the same.

10 years ago, it was 1993. The best part of the evening was the fact that Billy Crystal was host, for the 4th year in a row. The winner of the evening was Unforgiven, with Clint Eastwood losing a possibly deserved Best Actor nod to Al Pacino's less-than-stellar Scent of a Woman, yet Clint would still go home with a Best Director Oscar. Not much to say about this win except that it was little or no surprise.

Now, we get to 5 years ago, where you know what won: Titanic. In fact, it won over what every critic under the sun said was the better film: L.A. Confidential. 13 year old girls were giggly with glee, yet critics were absolutely livid. Petty retaliations online were immediate and unforgiving; the rating of the film at the Internet Movie Database, pre-Oscars, was as high as #8 in the Highest-ranked movies list. Just one week after the Oscars, it had already plummeted to number 20; by fall, it would drop well below #151. The truth is; if Oscar had snubbed it nose at teen pop-culture favorites in the past, why did they give no less than 11 Oscars to Titanic? Of course, what do you expect from 1997; a year so feminist, that even a ridiculous, half-witted comedy like The Full Monty could be nominated as Best Picture of the Year(!), if only because it had male strippers in it.

In the years since, one thing is certain; The Academy is tickled pink whenever handing out awards to feminine favorites. Yeah; "tickled pink"; that sums it up nicely. The late 90's had a gaggle of feminine favorites win against the far superior, Y-chromosome-friendly fare. In 1997, far superior films like Fargo and Jerry Maguire would lose to The English Patient. In 1998, there was the whole Titanic/L.A.Confidential fiasco. In 1999, there would be the magnum opus of The Academy's myopia, when Shakespeare in Love won over Saving Private Ryan...even after Ryan's director, Spielberg, had already accepted the Best Director Oscar!

However, slowly and surely, the millennium is showing a new Academy. Forget feminist epics like Chocolat and Erin Brockovich in 2000: Gladiator was the deserved winner, and that was the film to win that year. Last year, A Beautiful Mind came home with the evening's top prize, with Ron Howard coming home with a long-overdue Best Director honor. I'm not saying that The Hours isn't likely to go home with the Best Picture award this year; I'm just saying it would reek of myopic ignorance if it did. So, Oscar, you can stand proud this year; you've come a long way, baby. Just be sure to give the award where an award is actually due, and everything will be fine.

Agree? Disagree?

...or perhaps just agree to disagree? Feel free to give your own "two bits," via Techtite's Letters page. Editorial Submissions are also allowed. Editorials do not have to agree with the views of critics at Techtite.com. Entertainment topics are preferred.

This page's entire content, except for thumbnail photos of products mentioned, was created by Techtite, copyright 2003; all rights reserved. Pictures of product(s) are only for the purpose of review, and by no means are meant to imply any association with Techtite.com and the distributors of that product. For further legalese, click here.

Oscar's 75th: The Obligatory Retrospective...