Skip to main content

I have to admit that I wait to talk, but I'm trying harder to listen.

And the Oscar Should Have Gone To…
The 1994 Contenders Ranked

It isn't every year you can say the Oscars at least had an interesting selection of nominees, but 1994 not only managed that, it included two unassailable classics among the five Best Picture contenders. Also unlike most years, there isn't an enormously misjudged dud in the ranks, and at least three of the pictures represented something different to the usual Academy fare.

5. Four Weddings and a Funeral

Four Weddings’ success represented one of those periodic resurgences for British cinema (usually followed by a precipitous plummet), not that Merchant Ivory hadn’t been an art house fixture for about a decade. This was mainstream populist fare, though, coinciding with Britpop and (just) preceding Danny Boyle; a rare English comedy hit (the most recent previous champ being A Fish Called Wanda), it made a bona fide movie star out of Hugh Grant, despite his best subsequent attempts at self-sabotage, and put TV veteran Richard Curtis well and truly on the movie map. It was also either the making of several of the supporting cast (Kristin Scott Thomas, John Hannah) or gave them a shot in the arm (Simon Callow), even if their sudden demand often led to ill-advised parts in Hollywood hokum… And Wet Wet Wet.

Four Weddings isn’t, however, a romcom for the ages. It has a number of funny sequences, andmostlyappealing characters, is well-observed in its insular Oxbridge way, but it problematically completely misses the boat in selecting Andie McDowell as the object of Hugh’s affections. The attempts to give her amusing material fall painfully flat, and there’s zero chemistry between the two; one’s left wondering why he was such an idiot to pass on Scott-Thomas’ unrequited allure. Like a wedding cake, or a drunken eulogy, it’s a bit of fun, but it’s no When Harry Met Sally.


Box Office: $52.7m (US, 21st), $245.7m (WW, 8th)

4. Forrest Gump

Recipient of equal parts scorn and adulation, Forrest Gump tends not to elicit lukewarm responses, but it more accurately ought to, as it’s neither fish nor fowl. As such, it represents something of the shape of his career to come for Zemeckis, who would find it increasingly difficult to regain the form of his hot ‘80s streak, quality-wise. Is Eric Roth’s adaptation a satire of all-things Americana, where the best soldier, athlete, businessman, parent is an imbecile, something we should see as a cautionary tale of a failure to reflect and consider, discern and just plain comprehend the world around us? Or is it a heart-warming tale of perseverance and indomitability, of standing steadfast in the face of all that life throws our way?

It's both those things at various points, a movie serving two masters, without the courage of its more cynical convictions and thus much too crooked and warped in its outlook to be taken on face value as an aspirant tale. Undoubtedly, fuelled by that mawkishly uplifting, feather-light Alan Silvestri score, it was the heartfelt interpretation – with some good solid, light-relief broad-stroke comedy thrown in – that the Academy voted for and that audiences came away so sated by (and globally at that – only The Lion King beat Forrest at the box office that year), but Forrest Gump is a tonal mish-mash, too astute to be dismissed with lazy finger-pointing (reading it as a conservative text simply doesn’t work), but too manipulative to be embraced for its insights.


$329.7m (US, 1st), $677.4m (WW, 2nd)

3. Quiz Show

There’s nothing very wrong with Robert Redford’s fourth directorial effort – aside from Rob Morrow’s Boston accent and Ralph Fiennes’ distancing iciness in place of charm – but for a feature that exhibits its share of dramatic licence in depicting the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals, it’s oddly staid and reverential towards the period. What was needed was a director passionate to tell the story, rather than one who saw it as his next batch of Oscar bait. Compare and contrast with JFK a couple of years previously. It could, of course, have been worse. Following in the line of nostalgic inertia for a television era past, Clooney’s Good Night, and Good Luck would be practically comatose, and just as irrelevant in its attempts to point out halcyon values, as if the redundant lesson would have any effect or anyone would care about translating it to today.

Nevertheless, Quiz Show remains a fascinating story that commands the attention, no matter how leisurely Redford treats the telling, and boasts a marvellous goofy turn from John Turturro as hapless winner Herb Stempel, destined to be usurped by Fiennes’ Harvard scholar but not to go down quietly. Redford arguably takes the easy option by mocking Stempel while venerating “honourable” Charles Van Doren, but Herb has the last laugh, as it’s Turturro who energises Quiz Show whenever he’s on screen. There’s usually at least one self-consciously worthy period drama slot among the Best Picture nominees, but more often they aren’t set in the relatively recent past (The Madness of King George was squeezed out). Quiz Show finds a director going through the motions with material that deserved better (see also, more recently, The Post).


$24.8m (US, 56th)

2. The Shawshank Redemption

If everyone else appears to love something enough, the only remaining available position is to tear it down, which is why, even though Shawshank remains atop IMDB’s chart, you won’t find many new articles claiming it deserves that position. Even I won’t, and I wouldn’t begin to think of decrying it. Shawshank actually fits the aspirational Oscar-winner mould more perfectly than probably any of the year’s other nominees, but the 1990s wasn’t much of a decade for the little movie no one saw causing an upset at the big awards (the lowest grosser was Unforgiven, and that still made $160m worldwide).

The criticisms Shawshank commonly receives aren’t groundless, of course – if you want a realistic portrait of prison life, or require a voiceover narration to offer information that can’t be gleaned from what’s patently obvious on screen, you’re going to become irked quite quickly – but for its adherents, it’s a picture that embraces the value of hope and perseverance without descending into gross sentimentality or indulgence. Frank Darabont successfully distils the essence of another Frank, Capra, into a picture for modern audiences, even if, like several of the best Stephen King adaptations, it’s firmly set in a bygone era.


$28.3m (US, 51st)

1. Pulp Fiction

What caused more upset, Forrest Gump beating Pulp Fiction or Sam Jackson being bested by Martin Landau? The latter for Jackson personally, obviously, but Pulp Fiction’s loss represented a missed opportunity for the Academy to respond to an increasingly rare nomination for a zeitgeist picture. And a zeitgeist picture that fully deserved the recognition to boot.

Pulp Fiction entirely holds up, even given its over-referencing in pop culture during the subsequent quarter of a century, and remains the best thing Tarantino has written, somehow allowing him to overcome the limitation of being a moviemaker who loves making movies that are entirely about riffing on the movies he loves; it’s a straightjacket that largely restricts him from saying anything really significant (which is fine, just don’t pretend he’s something he isn’t).

Yet Pulp Fiction creates its own transcendent iconography, and even manages to comment on its own artifice and veneration of the form in a creative way through its plays with chronology; dead characters are still living as the movie ends, in much the same way they are for the viewer who watches their favourite films time and again (Tarantino, basically). Tarantino’s undoubtedly become more technically accomplished as time has gone on, but he’s also become more indulgent and less self-disciplined; about the only area his standards have been raised in the intervening period is that he no longer feels the need to inflict his acting self quite so wantonly on his audience.


$107.9m (US, 10th)/ $233.9m (WW, 12th)

Best Director
Winner: Robert Zemeckis
Should have won: Quentin Tarantino

If Zemeckis was going to win, it should have been for Back to the Future (he wasn’t even nominated). Woody Allen and Robert Redford represented respectful filling out of numbers rather than anything special, but Krystof Kieslowski (Three Colours: Red) certainly merited consideration. It was Tarantino’s to lose, though, and lose he did.

Best Actor
Winner: Tom Hanks (Forrest Gump)
Should have won: Nigel Hawthorne (The Madness of King George)

At the time I might have said Travolta, for an instantaneous career reinvention that miraculously erased nearly a decade and a half of lousy choices. Or Morgan Freeman, but his performance is so much soothing voiceover, he could deliver it in his sleep as a means to send youto sleep. Paul Newman (Nobody’s Fool) was good – as ever – but not so you seriously think an Oscar’s warranted. Hanks meanwhile gives a fine comic performance, no doubt about that, but he’s delivered much better comic performances, meaning voters were really taken by the maudlin backdrop to Forrest’s blithe indifference, rather than the performance itself. So I think almost by default, Hawthorne would be my pick, even if the film as a whole is decent but unremarkable.

Best Actress
Winner: Jessica Lange (Blue Sky)
Should have won: Susan Sarandon (The Client)

We nearly had a Jessica Lange in Blue Sky win this year with Glenn Close and The Wife, another film no one saw yet voters had the feeling (only not enough for Glenn) that it was time to honour the actress (albeit, Lange had already won Best Supporting Actress). Even less saw Miranda Richardson in the unloved Tom & Viv. Winona Ryder in Little Women? Nah. Then there was Jodie Foster’s hilarious “Ah am a don-key” performance in Nell. Another by default is my pick, then; Sarandon is on authoritative form in a merely passable John Grisham thriller, but I don’t think any of the contenders this year were that interesting.

Best Supporting Actor
Winner: Martin Landau (Ed Wood)
Should have won: Samuel L Jackson (Pulp Fiction)

Jackson has hitched his cart to entire wagon trains of shit since, but he’s undeniably great in Pulp Fiction. Landau’s turn is fine and affecting, but it isn’t in the same league (his greatest performance is still Crimes and Misdemeanours); I’d probably put Gary Sinise (Forrest Gump) ahead of him but have the Space: 1999 veteran on similar pegging to Chazz Palminteri (Bullets Over Broadway) and Paul Scofield (Quiz Show).

Best Supporting Actress
Winner: Dianne Wiest (Bullets over Broadway)
Should have won: Uma Thurman (Pulp Fiction)

Still Thurman’s best role. Wiest is always good, of course (particularly with Woody, hence this being her second win). Also in contention were Rosemary “Aunt May” Harris (Tom & Viv), Helen Mirren (The Madness of King George) and Jennifer Tilly (Bullets over Broadway). Of the latter, being cast as irritating sometimes just means being cast to type.

Best Original Screenplay
Winner: Pulp Fiction
Should have won: Pulp Fiction

At this point, Woody Allen was pretty much a fixture in this category, plaguing the ceremony in the manner of Meryl the accented peril (he was nominated five times during the decade). Richard Curtis (Four Weddings) received his only nomination to date, and Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh their first (of three) for Heavenly Creatures. That and Three Colours: Red were both strong pieces of work, but nevertheless up against Tarantino and Roger Avary.

Best Adapted Screenplay
Winner: Forrest Gump (Eric Roth)
Should have won: The Shawshank Redemption (Frank Darabont)

Darabont’s is almost a text-book great adaptation, so easily eclipses other contenders, The Madness of King George, Nobody’s Fool and Quiz Show.

Best Original Song
Winner: Can You Feel the Love Tonight (The Lion King)
Should have won: Circle of Life (The Lion King)

I don’t know how the least of three Lion King noms won, but the real mercy is that Randy Newman (The Paper) was shut out.

Best Original Score
Winner: The Lion King (Hans Zimmer)
Should have won: The Shawshank Redemption (Thomas Newman)

I’m mostly unimpressed by the Disney Renaissance of the ‘90s, scores included, so I’d have picked Thomas Newman’s work for Shawshank over Zimmer, Elliot Goldenthal (Interview with the Vampire), Alan Silvestri (Gump) and Newman again (Little Women).

Best Art Direction
Winner: The Madness of King George
Should have won: Interview with the Vampire

Best Cinematography
Winner: Legends of the Fall
Should have won: Legends of the Fall

It looks great, even if it’s far from a great movie.

Best Costume Design
Winner: The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert
Should have won: The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert

Best Makeup
Winner: Ed Wood
Should have won: Ed Wood

Also nominated: Forrest Gump, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.

Best Visual Effects
Winner: Forrest Gump
Should have won: Forrest Gump

Also nominated: The Mask, True Lies.

My Top Five Films of the Year

5. Ed Wood

Many would argue Tim Burton’s career has been on a creative nosedive ever since this, his least successful movie. A love letter to cinema’s “worst director”, it’s undoubtedly the case that there’s affection for the subject matter rarely evidenced elsewhere, and that this is by far the most fruitful of his (now defunct?) collaborations with Johnny Depp. 


4. The Shawshank Redemption

There are two directors’ feature debuts on this list, and in both cases their first two efforts would never quite attain the same level of quality again. Frank Darabont evidently needs to find another non-horror, validating Stephen King short story to adapt.


3. Chungking Express

Wong Kar-wai’s third film is, like Pulp Fiction, composed of interweaving stories touching on the world of crime, although in this case only one actually features criminals. Wong Kar-wai’s are tales of love-sick cops, one (Takeshi Kaneshiro) stuck on the girlfriend who dumped him and the pineapples she had a penchant for, but engaging in a dalliance with Brigitte Lin’s drug dealer. Most winning, though, is the second story, as Faye Wong plays California Dreamin’ on a loop while breaking into the flat of Tony Leung Chui-Wai’s cop and tidying up for him. It’s an irresistible confection, romantic and melancholic, lacking obvious happy endings but leaving you floating on a cloud.


2. Shallow Grave

While Trainspotting is obviously the grander achievement, both in terms of distilling the source material and reconciling it into a movie audiences wanted to see – let alone turning that into a pop-cultural event – part of me still says Shallow Grave, Danny Boyle’s debut and Ewan McGregor’s real breakout role, is the superior work (notably, it won the BAFTA for outstanding British Film, while Trainspotting was trumped the following year by The Madness of King George). A pitch-black tale of opportunism and greed, as a grim plan to retain a suitcase full of cash spirals out of control, McGregor, Kerry Fox and (particularly) Christopher Eccleston are as impressive as Boyle’s focused, budget-strapped execution of John Hodge’s screenplay.


1. Pulp Fiction

It isn’t too often that my favourites of the year are also up for the big awards, but the Academy was in the mood for both cool and classy in 1994. Even if the big winner was neither. 


You may also like:

Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.