I'll get to my thoughts in a minute, but first let me fully debunk 8BJ's claims. Previous violent films to be recognized by the Academy include Platoon (1987), The Godfather I & II (that'd be 1973 and 1975 respectively), Braveheart (1996), and The Deer Hunter (1979). What Jake seems to be unwilling to accept is that Gangs of New York was neither a popular movie, nor was it a particularly well-liked movie both in and out of Hollywood. And that means a whole lot more than how violent it is.
But that aside, I've been trying to come up with my own theory for why Polanksi won, and I'm coming up pretty short. As best as I can guess, there was backlash suffered from the over campaigning for Scorsese and Chicago by Miramax and Harvey Weinstein, which led to many voters moving on to the next on their list. Or simply that people were so divided between those two, that the votes were split completely, allowing for a small lead to put Polanski over the top. But honestly, I haven't a clue why he won. Personally, I think it's great. He deserved it for Rosemary's Baby, he more than deserved it for Chinatown, and among the other nominees, he deserved it this year as well. Good for him.
One last fun bit of Oscar trivia...this article at MSN Entertainment (spotted on OscarWatch) points out that Spider-Man's Kevin O'Connell broke the record for most Oscar losses, having missed out on his 16th award when he lost the sound category to Chicago. Keep at it, Kevin! If Randy Newman can win eventually, I'm sure you will too.
Posted by jason at March 24, 2003 03:06 PM
| TrackBack
| Read more: Movies
, The Oscars
Polansky should have accepted the award in person so the authorities could arrest his child raping ass. Too bad he is a pansy ass bitch and did not have the old, shriveled up balls enough to show-up in person.
At this point I'm sure Polanski has given up hope that he'd ever be able to come back to the U.S.
Regardless I still think his film was the best of the year.
I should have spelled out. "The only violent movies to win are movies are about Nazis in modern history". We don't live in the same world or culture of the 70's and 80's.
God Braveheart I am glad you mentioned that turd of a movie. It is about as historically accurate to the actual history of Scotland as The Lord of the Rings. The Scots did not paint their faces blue and it is probably only about 20% historically possible.
And on to Gangs of New York, Ebert thought it should have one for best director but not since the hard R has fallen out of popular view. Not to mention that all in the attendance of the party of video store clerks thought that it was the worst wussing out since Pulp Fiction lost best director to Forrest Farking Gump.
But then again I hate Hollywood. I hate what it has evolved into and the only real innovation in cinema that is going on right now is happening in Hong Kong, Tokyo or some garage based editing room by an actually Indy movie maker.
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)