The Noughties and their Best Picture winners...
By Joe Boden
11th February 2010
So, we come to the last ceremony of this, the first decade of the twenty first century, and so I reckon it’s the perfect time for us to take a look back over the last ten years and discuss the films that were deemed the best of the year by America’s major awards body. The Academy Award for Best Picture is looks upon in one of two ways. By the general public, and probably by people within the industry too, the award is looked upon as the highest honour that can be bestowed upon a film. Most of the time, the winners are pretty much accepted as being artistically or technically better than the other films in the field, and those that win are guaranteed a place in history for decades to come. Would anybody still have interest in watching “How Green Was My Valley” or “Around the World in 80 Days” if they didn’t come with that ‘prestigious’ tag of being the best films of their respective years? Maybe not… or, at least, they wouldn’t be deemed as ‘essential’ as they are now.
But there is another viewpoint that just as many people take. Critics and film fans alike will look on the Oscar ceremony as a self-indulgent mess, and just an excuse for the biggest names in Hollywood to give each other a pat on the back. This cynicism is hardly unfounded; this is an awards ceremony that picked “Rocky” over “Taxi Driver” and “Kramer vs Kramer” over “Apocalypse Now”. I’m one of these people who dismiss the Oscars as political and pretty much wrong, and yet I still find myself staying up to watch them most every year, and talking about them so very, very frequently in the weeks leading up to the big night. Why is this? Is it some misguided hope that they will finally reward the right films and shun rubbish like “Precious” and “Avatar”? Or is it because I love the chance to have a good moan? Who knows. Probably both.
But let’s get a little bit more focused and talk about the noughties, which have been a mixed decade at best for the Academy. The year 2000 brought with it a surprise amongst the nominations; “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”. Not that it’s a bad film, but that it’s very strange to see a foreign language film nominated (“Chocolat”, which features French interludes, was also nominated). Neither of them won, though, with the more traditional, more conventional “Gladiator” winning out the day over those two films as well as “Traffic” and “Erin Brockovich”. I can’t argue with the Ridley Scott film being the better of the English language ones that were recognized, and so I’m hardly too annoyed about the film taking home the award. It may be an Oscar-friendly film, but I would argue that it’s a better one than most, with some beautiful cinematography, beautiful set design, and a sweeping, epic scope. The Scott film may not have been perfect, but it’s very entertaining, and one of the better winners of the decade so far.
What is more disappointing is when you look at the films of 2000 that were snubbed altogether. There are many better films than “Gladiator” from that year. Some of them are, indeed, films that never stood a chance of being recognized by the Academy (“A Time for Drunken Horses”… “Little Otik”…), but some are ones which you would hope that such a major awards body would take note of. “American Psycho”, “Dancer in the Dark”, and “Requiem for a Dream” are all English language films with important themes that were overlooked. Perhaps Psycho was too violent, Requiem too unflinching, and Dancer too anti-American, but the content does not restrict their quality; a quality which far exceeds that of Ridley Scott’s enjoyable but overblown epic.
2001 is one of those rare years when three genuinely excellent films received a nomination. “Gosford Park” is, and I’m going out on a limb here, probably amongst my top five Robert Altman films. It has mystery, atmosphere, and intrigue on its side, not to mention some fine social commentary – social commentary that is just as relevant now as it was in Renoir’s heyday – and a fine cast and what you have is one of the best films of the year. “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” would have walked away with the award if it was set in the real world; it is an epic tale of self-discovery and hope, a film that the Academy would have been rushing to honour if it wasn’t a fantasy film. And then there’s “Moulin Rouge!”, a film which very much could have won, especially when you take into account the film that won in 2002. But, of course, none of them did, and the award went to Ron Howard’s tame biopic “A Beautiful Mind”.
Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly in Ron Howard's "A Beautiful Mind".
“Mulholland Drive” picked up a major nomination further down the field, in the form of David Lynch’s recognition as one of the five Best Directors of the year. We all know that these two awards, director and picture, tend to go hand in hand, and so it’s slightly odd that the film wasn’t put into the Best Picture field too. It’s even more disappointing when you consider that “Mulholland Drive” is probably the best English language film nominated to the seventy fourth Academy Awards. It’s a fine de-construction of the American dream and the misconceptions about Hollywood, and perhaps those themes are what restricted it from being appreciated by Hollywood itself. However, its unflinching atmosphere, its fine performances (particularly by Naomi Watts), and its stunning direction makes its omission in only one of these categories really quite odd.
“Chicago”, the winner in 2002, is a poor film. It’s poorly performed, poorly directed, and un-cinematic, and even if it is expertly choreographed I don’t think its effect is truly translated onto the screen. It beat two excellent films to win its prize, too, in “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” (which may just be my favourite of Pete Jackson’s Tolkien trilogy) and “The Pianist” (which is a genuinely heart-breaking film with a stunning, and deservedly recognized, performance from Adrien Brody). It’s probably the worst film nominated, which is really something, and not a week passes by when I wonder if this was the darkest day and the biggest blunder in Oscar’s history. Even more shocking is when you consider that “Chicago” succeeded when “Moulin Rouge!” – a much finer example of a noughties musical (“Dancer in the Dark” would be an even better one) – failed. It just doesn’t really make much sense.
2003 is an odd year. I don’t think “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” is the best of the Rings films. I don’t think it is the best film of the year. I don’t even think it was the best film of the five that were nominated. However, I am still fine with its victory, because the series as a whole certainly deserved at least one Best Picture award. Yes, it probably went to the worst of the three films (it’s still excellent, mind you), and it meant that films like “Master and Commander”, “Lost in Translation”, and “Mystic River” came up just short, but Jackson deserved some love for his efforts on Tolkien’s trilogy, and I don’t think many people will begrudge this particular undeserved victory. Maybe I should be more hostile to these ‘apology awards’ (much like Darren is in his “81 Oscar Blunders” list), but what can I say…
The mumakil march in 2003's winner, "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King".
2004 is a bad year for Academy nominated films. “The Aviator” is lesser Scorsese by anyone’s definition, whilst “Sideways” is a good-but-not-groundbreaking Indy comedy that started the trend of these type of films being recognized. The winner, “Million Dollar Baby”, is a film I liked a lot when I first saw it, but it’s gone down in my estimation with every re-watch. Even on first viewing, it’s not a film that the Academy should have recognized. It’s a movie that strays towards melodrama on numerous occasions, and one that introduces characters and plot devices simply to coax as much cheap emotion out of the viewer as possible. Let’s fact it, it works, but that’s not what makes a good film. It probably doesn’t help that all the films I love from this year never stood a hope in hell of being recognized; “I Heart Huckabees” is too quirky, “Howl’s Moving Castle” is too animated, and “Moolaade” is too African. I don’t think 2004 was a particularly strong year, but even Salles’ and Anderson’s relatively Oscar friendly films were overlooked in favour of mid-range Eastwood.
The less said about “Crash”, the better.
2006 saw Scorsese finally win the Academy award that he was snubbed for on many occasions. He should have won Best Director for “Taxi Driver”. He didn’t. He should have won Best Director for “Goodfellas”. He didn’t. He finally did, though, for “The Departed”, a film which has sense became a little maligned in the critical community for not being as good as the Asian film it was based on, “Infernal Affairs”. It does indeed seem like a bit of an apology award, with Clint’s effort this year being both better than the film he won with in 2004, and the film that beat him here. Scorsese’s film took Best Director and Best Picture, which is a bit of a shame, really, because films like “The Queen” and “Letters from Iwo Jima” were nominated, and were probably more deserving of the award. And that’s not to mention the films that were overlooked, like Almodovar’s “Volver”, del Toro’s “Pan’s Labyrinth”, and Aranofsky’s “The Fountain”.
2007 is actually a pretty good field. “Juno” is a film I’ve liked less on every re-watch, yes, and “Michael Clayton” is one that I would’ve pretty much forgotten if it wasn’t for this nomination, but three genuinely excellent films were nominated. “There Will Be Blood” is a superb epic about greed, pride, and the American dream, and would probably have deserved to win in any other year. “Atonement” is a fine British effort, with pretty much everything you’d expect the Academy to love (fine costumes and sets, epic scope, traditional filmmaking sensibilities), but even that came up short. It was lovely to see “No Country for Old Men”, a so-called return to form for the Coen brothers, recognized as the best film of 2007. It wasn’t – “Zodiac”, “Rescue Dawn”, “4 months, 3 weeks, and 2 days”, “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” and “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” were all better films – but it’s nice to see the Academy go slightly against the grain in terms of the type of film they applaud, and – shock horror – actually reward the best film nominated.
And then 2008 returns to more of the same. “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” was an indulgent, Oscar-friendly, repetitive mess, even if it looked amazing and featured a pair of fine performances. “Frost/Nixon” was an above average Ron Howard film with political foundations. “Milk” tackled important themes like homosexuality, and – again – had political foundations. “The Reader” is about the holocaust. “Slumdog Millionaire” is a rags-to-riches epic directed by a well-respected, British director. The whole field is pretty much made up by Oscar baity films, which really is a shame, even if a predictable one. It’s even more disappointing to note that the second to worst film, “Slumdog Millionaire”, actually won, with the only film there I’d be willing to call excellent (being Gus van Sant’s “Milk”) being recognized only for its acting (which, surprisingly enough, it didn’t deserve to be; Mickey Rourke’s epic turn in “The Wrestler” was heartbreaking without resorting to gimmickry like Penn in “Milk”). Further down the list of nominations, we have “The Wrestler”, “Revolutionary Road”, “The Visitor”, “In Bruges”, “Wall-E”, “The Dark Knight”, and – most notably – “Departures” all nominated for major awards. These are films that the Academy has seen, why are they not present in its biggest award? Because they wouldn’t be safe choices, that’s why.
And so we come to 2009, the final instalment of this decade’s Best Picture saga. Ten nominations has allowed films like Pixar’s “Up”, Blomkamp’s “District 9”, and Scherfig’s “An Education” to receive a nomination, but it’s also opened up berths for more films like “Precious” and “Avatar”, and so I don’t know if you could say that this move has been a success (check out Rob’s discussion of the subject for a further examination). I guess the only way we can tell is if we wait and see. If Pixar’s “Up”, one of the four films I would give five stars to from this year (along with “Antichrist”, “35 Shots of Rum”, and “Thirst”, none of which – obviously – are present), certainly deserves to win, and if it does I will be most happy with this awards body that has failed me – and you – so many times in the past. But, if something like “Avatar” comes out victorious, it’s just another nail in the coffin, and another reason for me to make a vague and unfulfilled promise to not bother watching next year.