rocketpig said: I meant to type "usually" in the Best Picture sentence because I know foreign language films are technically eligible, they're just rarely nominated. Part of it is that many people just don't see them but you're right, there is an obvious bias in the Academy against those films. I also agree that movies shouldn't be given a pass because of their subject nature (though I disagree with you on Ghandi, I really like that film) because I thought Crash was a heavy-handed piece of trash that dealt with racism with an iron fist (actually, I have the same complaints about Avatar). I disagree about The Hurt Locker. I think it's a great film. You have a point about previous award winners (The English Patient, anyone?) but overall, the nature of the Oscars is going to pick some less-watched films for Best Picture because, frankly, American taste in movies is pretty fucking terrible. The most-watched films are often some of the worst and it's rare to see a movie make a shitload of money and still possibly be the best film of the year (I'd say Titanic deserved what it won). |
Ya, usually the movie that wins Best Picture has a fairly low revenue because most us Americans have no taste in good movies or biased on their beliefs(is anyone thinking about Brokeback Mountain?). Few movies that deserve to win it actually do. There are exceptions like American Beauty, No Country for Old Men, Return of the King, Ghandi, Silence of the Lambs, Braveheart, Schindler's List, Rain Man, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, The Godfather Part 1 and 2, Lawrence of Arabia, and the Departed. But recently ther have been alot of movies winning Best Picture that don't deserve it's worthy title. This year, I think Inglourious Basterds is a worthy addition to that list. Avatar would destroy it.