A friend was shocked to learn, about ten years ago, that I
hadn’t seen all of the Academy’s Best Picture winners. Like the IMDb 250, it’s a benchmark of
quantitative substance to many but means absolutely nothing to me. I’m not here to gripe about snubs or give
tiresome arguments about who should have really won. I’m the sort of rare pretentious populist who
not only thinks the Academy was correct in selecting Annie Hall over Star Wars,
but also thinks Rocky is better than Taxi Driver.
No, my beef with the Academy isn’t that a group of insiders
rarely pick the best movie of any given year (by my count, this has happened
once ever; odds so poor it must indicate we’re simply not judging the same
merits), it is that the barometer by which they judge is rarely film for the
sake of film. This is not the same as
films about film (which they love), or films which emulate an air of prestige
(something they love even more).
Only this year have I seen every Best Picture winner and,
trust me, the last few films I begrudgingly got to like a tattered honey-do
list I’d correctly judged sight unseen.
These aren’t all great films.
Hell, I’d only call about two-thirds of them decent, but that’s not
really a fair point. The first Academy
Awards, held in 1929, might indicate why this is.
That year, two different “Best Picture” awards were handed
out, though neither was called such. The
first award went to box-office hit Wings
which won the award intended to honor “the most outstanding motion picture
considering all elements that contribute to a picture’s greatness.” The second award, given to F.W. Murnau’s Sunrise: A Story of Two Humans, honored
“the most artistic, unique and/or original motion picture without reference to
cost or magnitude.” This states, in no
uncertain terms, that artistry, uniqueness of vision, and originality apart
from box-office success or in-house production are not really considered “elements that contribute to a picture’s
greatness.”
Both of these films find their way onto my rankings, and we
will see where my metric and the Academy’s might not jibe. The more I see these films (as the fact I
continue to follow the awards every year might indicate) the more I understand
how the intention to honor films which make statements about the human condition
get confused with films that make statements about the industry’s
condition. Film has, from its inception,
been relegated to the kiddie table at the banquet of the Seven Arts despite
incorporating all seven into its recipe.
The Academy would do well to honor its medium’s fluidity rather than continuing
to fall into the trap of dressing up in big sister’s clothes, failing to
recognize it reached maturity long ago.
On rare, inspired evenings, it’s done this at least a dozen
times. Bear with this doggedly
unabridged list which is more cultural pastiche than cinematic milestone. These titles are by no means essential
viewing. Many would not be remembered
were it not for the catch-22 of the Academy both handing out these awards and,
worse, by the template the Academy has created which suggests these are the
type of films deserving of them. A toast
to when the snake doesn’t eat its own tail!
Click Here, Nimrods...
Summary only...