Skip to main content

"You're not paid to do your best. You're paid to win."

And the Oscar Should Have Gone To…
1982

Oscar doesn't often get it right. It doesn't often even pick the right nominees, let alone the right winner out of those nominees. I thought I might embark on an occasional revisit of those pictures up for the top prize in a given year, and see how they shake out. And, since The Verdict had been on my mind as unjustly missed (you can probably guess how this is going), 1982 felt like as good a year as any to start with. The full reviews can be found by clicking the links, but here, in summary, are those in contention, and their pros and cons.


E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial

The popular movie, the crowd-pleasing blockbuster, is often to be found in the holy five (well, holy up-to-ten now), one cynically assumes simply to swell viewing figures, rather than to stand any chance of actually taking the top prize. Occasionally the popular movie is also the critically acclaimed one too, and occasionally it even wins out over basic sense (Titanic).

E.T. had been roundly celebrated as full of heart and innocence and wonder, and was loved by children and adults everywhere, but it's undiluted appeal to the emotions and the unjaded – and the sentimental – would increasingly become Spielberg’s biggest stumbling block as a wannabe serious filmmaker. His previous flirtations with Oscar – Jaws, Raiders – were unashamed thrill rides, whip smart and without a trace of mawkishness, and I’d have gladly seen either take the statuette (although 1975 simply had too much strong competition). E.T. left me relatively unpersuaded by its appeals to the universal, and while I can get behind it as an accomplished piece of filmmaking, I have to agree it was rightly passed over.

Gandhi

The one that went home happy, the little man in the nappy. One might have expected the previous year’s toweringly hubristic pronouncements that “The British are coming” to meet their just reward (with Revolution, they arguably did), and one might argue a tale of the Empire’s defeat was just that, but Gandhi really rather legitimised the idea of a resurgent British film industry in the wake of Chariots of Fire.

The truth was, neither were particularly remarkable pictures, both keenly trading on the nation’s increasingly sole export, heritage, for recognition. Chariots, a likable but low-key piece, had been considerably (entirely?) buoyed by a last-minute inclusion of Vangelis’ main theme, one that didn't even make it into the meat of the picture. So potent was it, it became the film, redressing it as a triumphant tale whose indomitable spirit caught the whims of voters.

Gandhi, on the other hand, was simply important. It was an important film made by a would-be important filmmaker, and it promoted important and weighty themes of resistance to injustice and strategic pacifism in the face of oppression. It couldn't really fail with the Academy, and it didn't, despite being rather stodgy and unapproachable, counting worthiness over insight into its subject and an ability to get to grips with the political situation its title character was opposing. It’s difficult to argue with the Kingsley’s win for actor (although at least two others were similarly meritorious) but Gandhi was definitely the over-inflated victor of the 1983 ceremony for no better reason than its perceived virtue.

Missing

Missing could be glad just to get a shoe in the door. Some will doubtless claim Costa-Gavras’ picture was the truly deserving true story of the awards, the one with current affairs legitimacy that even caused the US State Department to get in a tizzy. And its account of US corruption, engineering the coup that brought Pinochet to power in Chile and killing an American citizen – or being complicit in his death – who stumbled upon the fact, is incendiary material, and worthy of feting.

But the film itself is rather thin, the actual revelation of the conspiracy lacking dramatic nourishment. In its stead we have an indulgent, over-emphatic performance from Jack Lemmon, essaying ignorance to awakening, to fill the gap. The picture has a strong, fearful atmosphere, and an outstanding turn by Sissy Spacek as Lemmon’s daughter in law, but it's only ever half a great picture, one that saw the Academy unite in support of its subject matter but which wasn't quite up to the task of doing the material justice.

Tootsie

Tootsie makes no great claims of supporting a worthy cause. It’s simply a very well-observed comedy, even if some of the trappings (Dave Grusin’s score especially) date it to the era in which it was made. With enough screenwriters to toss an unpalatable salad, it's a miracle this comes together so well, and is so sustained, seemingly able to pluck endless ripe scenarios in support of Dustin Hoffman’s gender experimentation.

So much of this is dazzling, from a string of fine supporting players (Bill Murray, George Gaynes, Oscar-winning Jessica Lange, Teri Garr, Charles Durning, and best of all Sydney Pollack as Michael Dorsey’s long suffering agent) to Pollack the director applying a supreme and deceptive lightness of touch. But it's Hoffman’s performances that make Tootsie shine, as he gamely plays on his own difficult reputation as an obsessive while displaying the comic timing of a great comedian. Comedies don't often win big at the Oscars, but in another year it would have been easy to see Tootsie, which did actually have something to say about some things, if not always very subtlety when it chose to say them outright, being rewarded. Ultimately, though, less fair than the film itself being missed is that Hoffman lost out.

The Verdict

If Missing portrays the awakening of a man who has gone through his life with his eyes blissfully closed to reality, The Verdict features one who has numbed the pain of that reality, stumbling through more than a decade-and-a-half of alcoholism, only to be offered the chance for salvation. This could easily have been become validating schmaltz, a Rocky tale of the broken man regaining the will to fight and coming out triumphant against the better-equipped, better-financed, and just plain better, opponent.

But, while it features all those vital elements, everything about Sidney Lumet’s film, from David Mamet’s sterling screenplay up, is disposed against the easy recourse, looking instead for the reality in the situation. Paul Newman gives one of his very best – if not his very best – performances, and he’s ably supported by the likes of Jack Warden, James Mason, and an odious Milo O’Shea. Frank may be the protagonist, and he may be fighting for what’s right, but his motives are decidedly murky in terms of his client’s best interests. He isn’t a hero. This is tale where, if he had failed, he’d only have himself to blame. Perhaps the one misstep in a fine, fine feature is the Charlotte Rampling character, used to over-egg the drama in a manner that is, in the balance of things, unnecessary.

And the Oscar should have gone to:

The Verdict, quite easily. Tootsie makes a strong runner-up, while I’d go as far as saying that winner Gandhi is the weakest of the finalists. But The Verdict remains the true classic of the five, and the one that has aged most gracefully.

I don’t intend to plough through all the remaining categories, so just a sprinkling of the main ones, and some of note, follows:


Best Director
Winner: Richard Attenborough
Should have won: Sidney Lumet

It fell to Lumet to receive the backhanded compliment of an honorary Oscar (meaning “Let’s get in there before you peg it”) in 2005, but he was nominated for Best Director four times, including The Verdict. Richard Attenborough barely manifested anything discernable to justify his award, while if Pollack really expected to be rewarded he would have nixed that Grusin score. Spielberg is an assured hand, but I don’t think E.T. is his strongest showing, which leaves Wolfgang Peterson, with both his most impressive film and most impressive directorial effort. But Lumet, who doesn’t put a foot wrong with The Verdict, edges him. Unlike The Wiz, Sidney’s in his element.


Best Actor
Winner: Ben Kingsley (Gandhi)
Should have won: Dustin Hoffman (Tootsie)

Kingsley definitely should have an Oscar at home, but it’s Best Supporting Actor for Sexy Beast. Much as I love Peter O’Toole’s performance in My Favourite Year, he didn’t need to do much in the way of acting to pull it off. So this is between Hoffman and Newman, and while The Verdict is the film Newman should have won the Oscar for over The Color of Money, Hoffman’s sheer dexterity in Tootsie is jaw-dropping. It’s just an outstanding performance by any standards.


Best Actress
Winner: Meryl Streep (Sophie’s Choice)
Should have won: Sissy Spacek (Missing)

Oh God, bloody Sophie’s Choice, a dreadfully self-important, dreary, overrated picture. I don’t have strong feelings here, other than it shouldn’t have gone to Streep, and Debra Winger’s performance in An Officer and a Gentleman, likeable as it is, is not the stuff of Oscars. I’d have no argument with Julie Andrews for Victor/Victoria or Jessica Lange for Frances, but Spacek in Missing, showing Jack Lemmon how it should be done, gets my sympathy vote.


Best Supporting Actor
Winner: Louis Gossett, Jr (An Officer and a Gentleman)
Should have won: John Lithgow (The World According to Garp)

I wouldn’t really argue with Gossett getting the statuette, just the film itself. Lithgow’s is probably the most affecting performance, and he’s an actor who really deserves to have won one by now. I’d put it between those two, as Charles Durning, James Mason and Robert Preston are all perfectly serviceable but don’t scream snub.


Best Supporting Actress
Winner: Jessica Lange (Tootsie)
Should have won: Teri Garr (Tootsie)

Lange’s fine in Tootsie, but it’s a nice part, not a remarkable performance (You wonder how much of it was a Frances sympathy vote). Everyone here is good (Glenn Close, Kim Stanley, Lesley Ann Warren), but Garr’s particular brand of put-upon is a master class.


Best Original Screenplay
Winner: Gandhi (John Briley)
Should have won: Tootsie (Larry Gelbart and Murray Schisgal)

Tootsie’s screenplay is such a consistently inventive piece of work, I’d put it ahead of the nearest contender (Diner), while the others (E.T., An Office and a Gentleman) are more about the execution than the genius of the writing. Needless to say, Gandhi’s screenplay doesn’t really impress.


Best Adapted Screenplay
Winner: Missing (Costa-Gavras and Donald E Stewart)
Should have won: The Verdict (David Mamet)

Mamet’s screenplay is so clearly something apart, you know the Missing award was basically a statement. Sophie’s Choice’s screenplay stinks.


Best Original Song
Winner: Up Where We Belong (An Officer and a Gentleman)
Should have won: Eye of the Tiger (Rocky III)

I’m torn actually, as they’re both superior slices of ‘80s cheese. One thing’s for sure, It Might Be You from Tootsie should never have been nominated.


Best Original Score
Winner: E.T. (John Williams)
Should have won: Poltergeist (Jerry Goldsmith)

E.T. is fine, but a bit too much in places, and Williams was doing so much better year-in, year-out at that point. Poltergeist is a smart, spooky piece of work, and it would have given Goldsmith a much-deserved Oscar.


Best Art Direction
Winner: Gandhi
Should have won: Blade Runner

Well, it’s obvious, isn’t it?


Best Cinematography
Winner: Gandhi
Should have won: E.T.

I wouldn’t actually quibble with Gandhi getting this one, but both Das Boot and E.T. have just as strong work (how Blade Runner missed out, yet Tootise got a look in, though…)


Best Costume Design
Winner: Gandhi
Should have won: TRON

Iconic lycra, there.


Best Visual Effects
Winner: E.T.
Should have won: Blade Runner

Both Blade Runner and Poltergeist have better effects work than E.T., while The Thing, and Star Trek II, didn’t even get a look in (or for makeup, which Quest for Fire took).


Of missed contenders in the big awards, it’s the usual science fiction fare of Blade Runner and The Thing, but neither were exactly critically lauded at the time. Despite being released in 1982, Year of Living Dangerously ended up in the 1983 nominations, but would otherwise have figured.

Gandhi followed the frequent course of being the most nominated (11) and winning the most awards (8), although Tootsie was next with 10 and took home just the one. E.T. received 9 and won four, while reactionary An Officer and a Gentleman, a fine picture for Reaganite America, pulled two out of its 6 nominations.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

If this is not a place for a priest, Miles, then this is exactly where the Lord wants me.

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)
(SPOILERS) Sometimes a movie comes along where you instantly know you’re safe in the hands of a master of the craft, someone who knows exactly the story they want to tell and precisely how to achieve it. All you have to do is sit back and exult in the joyful dexterity on display. Bad Times at the El Royale is such a movie, and Drew Goddard has outdone himself. From the first scene, set ten years prior to the main action, he has constructed a dizzyingly deft piece of work, stuffed with indelible characters portrayed by perfectly chosen performers, delirious twists and game-changing flashbacks, the package sealed by an accompanying frequently diegetic soundtrack, playing in as it does to the essential plot beats of the whole. If there's a better movie this year, it will be a pretty damn good one.

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

It was one of the most desolate looking places in the world.

They Shall Not Grow Old (2018)
Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old, broadcast by the BBC on the centenary of Armistice Day, is "sold" on the attraction and curiosity value of restored, colourised and frame rate-enhanced footage. On that level, this World War I documentary, utilising a misquote from Laurence Binyon's poem for its title, is frequently an eye-opener, transforming the stuttering, blurry visuals that have hitherto informed subsequent generations' relationship with the War. However, that's only half the story; the other is the use of archive interviews with veterans to provide a narrative, exerting an effect often more impacting for what isn't said than for what is.

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

It seemed as if I had missed something.

Room 237 (2012)
Stanley Kubrick’s meticulous, obsessive approach towards filmmaking was renowned, so perhaps it should be no surprise to find comparable traits reflected in a section of his worshippers. Legends about the director have taken root (some of them with a factual basis, others bunkum), while the air of secrecy that enshrouded his life and work has duly fostered a range of conspiracy theories. A few of these are aired in Rodney Ascher’s documentary, which indulges five variably coherent advocates of five variably tenuous theories relating to just what The Shining is really all about. Beyond Jack Nicholson turning the crazy up to 11, that is. Ascher has hit on a fascinating subject, one that exposes our capacity to interpret any given information wildly differently according to our disposition. But his execution, which both underlines and undermines the theses of these devotees, leaves something to be desired.

Part of the problem is simply one of production values. The audio tra…