Sounder SIGN UP FOR FREE
Talking Images
Talking Images

Episode 23 · 1 year ago

Best and Worst Academy Awards Best Picture Winners

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

Yes, that's right: This is the episode where we arbitrarily pick the best and worst films to have won the Oscar for Best Picture, and, well ... fight it out ...

Do you want to hear us:

  • Shock you with which Best Picture winners we hate?
  • Psychoanalyse the academy voters?
  • Figure out if things are getting "worse" or "better"?
  • Pinpoint trends?

If so, join in for the ultimate Oscars Podcast, spanning from the very first winner in 1929, all the way up to Parasite in 2020 - and for a deep dive in how the Academy actually impacts the real world.

You are listening to talking images, the official podcast of ICM Forumcom. Welcome back everyone. It's Oscar time, and you know what that means. Today we will partake in the time all tradition of arbitrarily singling out best picture winners we don't like and make it clear why we don't like them. Oh and you know, it takes that same thing for the ones we do like as well. We do have, ever, hope to do this a little differently and everybody else, as what is always missing from these conversations is there's that little bit of added context, you know, the world outside of the Oscars, because that does exist. Don't worry, though, there won't be any scandalous EXPLO says. We will, ever, look at the facts and try to make an assessment of just how well the Oscars actually managed to pick films that will remain considered the best film of the air, and we will look at the positive and negative impacts the Oscars are many actually bring on the world. And, and that's not all, will even try to psychoanalyze and generalize the Oscar voters until we can diagnals exactly why they wote as they do. Will fail miserably at this, of course, but oh well, let's play. Adam so and Maate your introduce yourself and just let me know how much do you love the Oscars? II? This is Adam but blacker on the ICM forum. I have to say I don't care remotely about the Oscars at all. I do, however, somewhat care about some of the movies that are nominated at the Oscars. I. It's so from Australia. The Oscars is something which I cared about a lot when I first got into cinema, so when I was looking for all the films or sort of inform my judgment about what to look for. These days, though, I do you see this bit more of a popularity contest, it's still something that I do find very interesting. Hi, I'm at you, if I'm friends and what? I wouldn't say necessarily that I love the Oscars. I do enjoy them and I do like following the whole thing, the whole ways, and my tastes are not that far away from that of the academy. That's I often find films I like in them. So I do generally enjoy them. Yeah, I'm more or less in your camp as well in that adult love the Oscars, but I do always try to out of a way to watch the best picture, no maneath, and to stay on top of all of it, which brings me on to the very next question. Do any of you actually sit down and watch the entire Oscar show, or at least part of it? Well, I looked up the list of Oscars this morning and I figured it out. I think the first one I saw was in one thousand, nine hundred and ninety four and the last one I saw was in nine ninety one, and I haven't watched it since. It just something that I was excited about when I first started getting interested in movies, but after seeing it a few times, I realize that it just didn't feel like it was actually something that was really in love with the movies. It felt like a ceremony that was in love with the film industry, and that's what it really is. It's a film industry event to celebrate the people in the film industry, and it's not that they don't deserve to be celebrated, but care more about the movies than about the rich producers who make them. The first Oscar ceremony that I watched was two thousand and two ceremony the year that a beautiful mind one and I watched the ceremony every year since then up until the two thousand and eighteen awards for two thousand and seventeen films the last two years, so the years that I green book one of the year that parasite one, I didn't watch the entire ceremony. I looked at bits and pieces of it afterwards, like Spike Lee's acceptance speak. That was pretty cool, but I'd sort of gotten over it. So it was a real big thing for me that I'll try and watch it live every single year. If it wasn't broadcast live, I'll try and not listen to the roady or day and then watching the evening that night. The big thing about the Oscars these days is that just very predictable. I really like watching the Golden Globes because it's the first major awards ceremony of the year and by that stage people are making all the predictions but nobody really knows who's like to actually win. By the time the Oscars have come out, you've already had the Golden Globes, you've had the bath Tis, you've had the SAG awards. I've had the independent spirits and pretty much by then everybody knows who's going to win every single category. There's always a couple of surprises in there, but with twenty four categories, if there's only two of them are the surprises? It's really got to the point where there's no point of me actually watching it and I can use to predict seventy five percent or more of the winners each year anyway. So just last couple...

...of years and slider's no point. So for me it's a bit of an issue to watch the Oscars because that night I did watch them, was known was those students. I think the first seven I watched was the one where Birdman one, so that was two thousand and fifteen. But I have stopped recently because I was working and had to get up early next morning, so couldn't really watch them that two am. But I have enjoyed watching the same money I agree with so that they are pretty predictable if you follow what's going on. But I enjoy the celebration of movies, even if it's very self involved. Yeah, I'm in pretty much the same situation as my deal in that whe Europe, the Oscars here at night. They actually finish in the morning. There were there was a time when I was more interesting. I would try to watch it, but I would usually only get up to the very, very first award or just, you know, casually flip in when people actually still gathering up outside were introduced. That's that's not very interesting to me. So I've never really thought the entire ceremony at all. I'm usual not interested in the speeches either, so I don't go back get watched the clips. Do I do essentially every single time as soon as I wake up the next morning, go online and see what actually want, because that is pretty interesting. Like so all, I've tend to be at least a little bit surprised by some of the wins, even though there's usually the two three real candidates, and that that's time. You over into the next question, which is and I guess I answered for myself, but do you follow the nominees themselves? You know, I think I've already made my disinterest in the Oscars pretty clear, and that extends to the nominees. I certainly don't avoid any movies because of their nomination, but I can't say that I seek out any movies because of their nation to any of the Oscars categories. I think watching the films that have been nominated or like could be nominated is very interesting. Even though there's a lot of underrepresentation of certain genres and movements and saw at the Oscars, it still gives a pretty good cross section or some of the more acclaimed and more worthwhile films each year. So I do allow a little bit of some of the Oscar bars talk and I'm things pop up from Gold Derby are. Sometimes get newsletters from them and I find out some of the films that are predicted to do well when they come around to Australia. Yeah, and the interested in seeing them. I've heard some right things about them. I'm not seeing them because I want to every single film that's one an award, but I gives me a good idea about maybe some more interesting things out there that might not otherwise be on my radar. So I do follow them. Ever since the that Berman year, what are started following. I have made an effort to watch all the film's nominated for this picture, if possible to be for the ceremony, which is not always possible because sometimes they come out just a few weeks after. Yeah, but I do try to follow them and, like I said, I enjoy the race aspect, the kind of sports in new hold of movies. So mentioned Gold Derby. It's also something I used to follow more, now a little less, but I do follow the movies and I do watch them more, more to have an opinion on what one then necessarily because I'm hoping they will be great. Just got an interesting point on best picture nomonies. I would say in the first few years I was getting into cinema, so maybe a thousand and one to two thousand and seven, I'd say I would have pretty much watched all of the five best picture nominees for the year before the ceremony, if possible. When they start expanding ten films, it got a lot less interesting to me and would only watch maybe three or four before the ceremony, the ones that really look good. Then two thousand and seventeen came along, I joined. I check movies and Academy Award Best Picture nominees as an official list. That actually gives them more motivation to watch best picture nominees, and I would have had in years before that. I just want to jump in to say that I'm not particularly interested in movies because they're nominated. I think Sal's approaches is a pretty good one. You can really get a good understanding of Hollywood and the film industry by watching all the nominees in the given the air. And I'm thinking specifically of a book I read called pictures at a revolution, five movies and the birth of the new Hollywood. It's by a writer named Mark Harris, who's one of the better movie writers around Right now, and it examines specifically the best picture nominees, I think, from one thousand nine hundred and sixty seven to be specific, Dr Doolittle, the graduate, guess WHO's coming to dinner in the heat of the night, and Bronnie and Clyde, which is a really weird collection of movies, and his argument is that this collection movies shows a changing understanding in Hollywood of what a best picture should be, as well as a changing understanding of the types of movies that Hollywood make. So I think that approaches is an interesting one to sort of pick ear see all the nominees and try to suss out what exactly is going on...

...in Hollywood at this time that produced these five movies. Yes, I agree, and I think that's is the point of the Os because I think many people expect the Oscars to be something they're not right. I think they are just what they are, which is the emanation of the film industry, with specifically the American industry. It's basically the friends that's party wood is proud about from the past here, and I think when viewed through that Lens, it's quite interesting to see what's the people working in the film industry feel is their best work. Whether or not we agree is kind of beside the point. I think it's just interesting to see what the results are. I thought I might also just mentioned, because of what Adams said about the nine hundred and sixty seven best picture nominees. I actually seen around ninety percent or more of the best picture nominees from nine hundred forty five up until threezero night, but it's just that period beforehand, the period after it, where they choosing up to ten films each year for best picture nominee. It's or dilutes the whole thing for me, makes a lot less interesting. It's a lot more interesting for me when you've got a film selected as one of the five best of the year and I represent something socially or something which is going on there. Yeah, I'm pretty much in the same about to do there in that from the years five films, I've seen pretty much all but forty months before and after. It get a little bit more difficult. By the same time, I think the expand that the category is I'll also make them a little bit more interesting because we get a lot of films in there that weren't usually there, and that was also the reason why they expand them in the first place, to get, you know, films that were either more popular or, in some cases likely more artistic, like when they actually nominate the terns Mallick centory of life, since you actually get the occasional film that you know we'd never have been nominated. It's a little bit outside of the main stream, but still get that kind of exposure and I really like that those films actually get a chance to get that exprectposure, but it does diluted it in terms of following the race. I tend to try to watch everything I can before the ceremony comes in. That's when know what I feel about them, because I usually at least like to have seen the best station in there before so I don't just come with a completely blank reaction where I don't even know how I feel about it. The likes all said earlier, usually you have a pretty good idea of what will win and what's reasonably to expect to win. So I can get that done. And then it gets a little more exciting too, because you do have your favorite and even though I think you're all completely correct, it is just to show for Hollywood, buy Hollywood, because they're all Hollywood insiders, essentially working in industry. It is still that sport element where you route for your own favorite. You know which ones you hope are going to win. You know which ones you kind of hope won't win it because they're too obvious or because you don't like them, and that does make it a little bit more exciting. And I think we've all more or less started to answer this question. But do you think people should actually care about the Oscar? Is it worth following? Do People get something out of following the films that get nominated and get involved in the ceremony, etc? We're going to attempt to take a nuanced position here. I'm very much a living, let live type of person when it comes to enjoying movies. I always say whatever makes you happy, do it. And you know, I haven't listened to the film purism episode yet, but I figure if someone wants to watch a movie while taking many breaks or on a weird frame rate speed, doesn't make sense to me, but you know, knock yourself out. So if people like the Oscars before, you know, watch it whatever makes you happy. The only thing I would say, if we're using the term should, is that I hope people recognize Oscars for what it is, which again, as I said, is sort of a film industry celebration. And so when I hear people get into these arguments about, you know, Oh, x movie shouldn't have won, he shouldn't have won the award, that shouldn't have been nominated, it was kind of think should has nothing to do with it. This is about the film industry celebrating itself and you're talking about quality, as if movie quality and film industry are the same thing. To me it's a category error and I understand what people enjoy arguing. Go for it. It just feels like it's kind of besides the point. I don't know if people should care about the Oscars like Adams said, a lot of it depends on what they're thinking when they're going in and watching it and looking at the winners. I don't think it should be used as a set in stone determination of what is really the best out there. The tricky thing is it is the most respected awards ceremony films out there at the moment. It's there any real celebration and recognition that sort of recognized around the whole world for movies. So I think it's got some sort of importance there, but in...

...terms of caring about it, I don't know. The main thing, I guess, for the Oscar winners is it gives more recognition. Sometimes too good filmmakers for some time deserve a bit more recognition, or sometimes they're able to go on to do better things. Once I want an award and once I've got an Oscar nomination behind them, and some of them don't go on to do great things, but it's nice to have the recognition out there because so I think, or maybe you'll get them a bit more funding or more chance of getting funding to do their own sort of project. I completely agree with Adam basically on everything he said. I would add that you should watch them if you are interested in what Hollywood thinks of itself. But if you're looking for, I don't know, list of recommendations, just ask your friends or reach critics. But that's not what they are. So just know what they are and if that's interests you, sure and if my part, I think it's very hard to not at least in some way care about the Oscars and what gets dominate and especially about wins, because in film culture this just gets instantly cannonize, at least for specific period of time. And, unlike what a lot of people think, being a sin devolve being a film. But it is quite social. We've been a lot of time talking about films and Olsco especially sparks, so many conversations and platforms, a lot of really big Hollywood films which, if you will, be talked about over and over and over again. I think that if you want to take part in those conversations, which came interesting, even if these films aren't necessarily good in themselves, is that losing out of those conversations and that massivest, enormous spectacle of thoughts and essays and, you know, brass opinions and hot takes, Etcetera. I think that you'll be losing a lot, and I mean a lot. Especially there's also the interest of history as well, because of how big the Oscars is. Every single time a film with the Oscar, that is history in the making. I mean I know that when we start talking about the films and listening the best and worst, etc. You will be going back to even the thirties and twenties, and it's just shows how big the impact is, because even if a film is not at all remembered for anything else today, it will stand out because it won't that Oscaring will be marked in film history because of it. And this also ties into our first, slightly bigger topic, which is the actual impact the Oscars have. I agree. The Oscars definitely have a huge impact on the film industry in a bunch of ways. You mentioned, of course, that it shapes the conversation. Sometimes even individual films are so tied to that conversation that it becomes part of what you have to talk about with them. What when you talk about them like Shakespeage, love beating something point try, and that's however wanted to see it. People have an opinion on that film because of what it did at the Oscars. I'm also thinking of the year you had a lot of land and moonlight. People who liked both movies suddenly started criticizing the other film because they were posed. So it definitely has a huge impacts on the way we talk about two movies that are involved. It also has a big impact on the release of films. You definitely see it with the notion of the awards season, but a certain type of films coming out all in the end of the year in the US and in Europe, kind of the end of the year, but also the start of the year, and that kind of shows up in the way that there's this death of movies coming out right after the Oscars, right especially in the US. I think Matthew has raised an interesting point about where the Oscars change the awards season and the way that films are released and that bigger film to try towards the end of the year in order that they can repel them more towards awards. That something that I don't particularly like and a particularly fast because you sort of get three months of the year where you get really high quality films coming out, for the other nine months of the year you get a lot of very ordinary films or average films designed to just appeal to the average film consumer. Big Budget Spectacles. Really be nice if this well had that continuous fly throughout the year and haven't actually been a lot of Oscar best picture winners that have been released earlier in the year. I guess parasite would be a sort of exception, but that still came out on the second half of the year for most people. GLADI IIDA in two thousand came out fairly early on. Really most of the big awards films are released towards the end of the year and I think that kind of interferes with what really should be and natural progression. You know, filmmakers on studio shouldn't be holding off and showing their films just because I think would be an awards contender. And then some films end up being massive disappointments because they're held off...

...with and people go into them thinking they'll be an Oscar contender. There might be a good film but it's not a great, great film. That leads to level disappointment because it's been released during the Oscar bars season. So I prefer of the calendar was a bit more evenly spaced out I actually have a slightly different day there, which is that if you didn't actually have the Oscars and the other massive war termine, it's like the gold, the Globes, etc. There might even have been a slightly less incentive to make these kinds of films, because I think that the fact that they released so tight together, they have all the massive promotions about the Oscars and you sell films with the Oscar awards on them etc. I do think that drives the certainly said what gets made. Studios also specifically do these prestige projects for the award and they spend millions and millions and millions are promote in the film for the awards. So I don't think that if they got me awards and similar award firm this didn't exist, it is actually possible that some of these films wouldn't even necessarily get made. I know what you're saying. They're Chris, that the attraction of possibly being an Oscar on many and Oscar winner would give producers or studios bought incentive to actually green light these films. But I think a lot of films that get green lights ad because they people think they'll be Oscar contenders on paper actually aren't very good, and a lot of the really good Oscar winners of the past ten years have been films that weren't made to win Oscars and weren't designed for that. You know, things like the artist or parasite art films, that people were making them and financing them thinking, or I'm hoping when I win an Oscar for it. I know it's saying Chris, and it's would that the industries got more intentive to make films, but I think there's a lot of really subpower biopics and other films that are released that aren't that good and the just released because the studios are hoping that they'll be an Oscar bait film, when in fact the best films of the year actually an independent film. You just spot on about that when Adam was talking earlier about one thousand nine hundred and sixty seven has being this key year because of the new Hollywood showing up at the Oscars, and I think what you mentioned is kind of something similar. Really you can see happening in the past ten years. It's not as radical, I think, as what happened in the S, but you also see with all the drive to change the membership of the Oscars to be more representative. I think you see that in the results. I don't know if it's worth getting into at the moment. I don't think the main reason why parasite one was because you had a more international type of people on the academy. I think the film winning Best Picture was just a great distraction from better go when not being nominated and having no female best director normalies because that was such a big thing, or getting such lack over read. I think it really makes sense in the end that a majority of Academy of voters, to start of what we need to distract from this, will why don't we try to have our first foreign language best picture winner? But I don't know if they really think like that. But I think one of the point I would like to add, which I think you've mentioned a bit sold, is how there's basically a genre of film that is associated with the Oscars and that's biopics. That's, I think, very significant influence that the Oscars and the wards in general have on filmmaking. Chris mentioned that certain films are made for Oscars, and biotics in particular, because they are so good for winning Oscars. They are very associated with that and I think that's a very clear influence of the same money on actual filmmaking. Yeah, I think you have a very interesting theory. There's only it is possibly true that many people taught like that. You really know, and we've seen interviews with academy waters that do think politically, do think in terms of what message they're sending, and that's also explains a lot of the less good films that we might be discussing later as well. But before we get started, without a want to bring up one more thing that the academy actually does in terms of impacting the world, and that is distribution, because if a film does end up getting an academ nomination or especially, and again we win, that really improves how that film will performed elsewhere. And also it's talking after you a ward. I'm talking in the screening period as well. So I think many of us, especially those of US outside of the US, so Europe, and any listeners who might be in Asia, et Cetera as well, I'm sure it's the same thing. Most of these films that get nominated for an Oscar don't come out until after that nomination is actually given out. Sometimes you don't even come out until after they have one or lost, which is a...

...bit extreme how long these delays can be. But I know for a fact that are many films I would never even know got an opportunity to see if they hadn't gotten nomination. One actually missed, and I'm really sorry missed it, the favorite, which came to the country I live in for just one week. I didn't know. I thought it was coming. I was really excited and was going to call next week, but because it was considered such an extremely small, nice film here, it does that, it didn't care to put it on for longer. But it came. It was there for one week and if I had known that, I would have got the opportunity to see it. And I think that, even though to a lot of people who watch films quite closely, the academy ceremony does appear to be, you know, this brushing out specific set of really commercial, really popular films, but in a lot of countries these films don't even get exposures to begin with because they're, you know, not the latest blockbuster. So I do think that this is actually one way that their academies are many really helps, especially with the best form picture nom needs, et Cetera, as well. A lot of these smaller films to get quite a bit of help. I do entirely agree with that, Chris. Living in Australia, in Perth, we're not a city that's got a whole lot of our house cinemas. Whether there is not much cinema culture here, so it is quite true the lot of films wouldn't have made it even to the our house cinemas over here if it wasn't for them popping up in award season earlier. Is Good that the Oscars are able to highlight that, and I don't really have anything against the Oscars as such. I just know that also, as was mentioned earlier, as lots of biopics and prestige vote, unquote films that are made in order to try and Gun Oscar nominations. I'm just stinking back a few years ago we had the grace of MANARCO film and the Princess Diana Film released in the same year and lots of buzz about them before they came out, and they both ended up being enormous disappointments with the critics, even though everybody was saying was going to be really great because it's about these real life people. I don't know, it's interesting. Outside of definitely our passes with the Oscars. I think exposure for films like the favorite is really great, when that's able to happen, or even films like lobster by, which was landing losses previous film, when that got the original screenplay nomination. Obviously the open up a few more doors also. I mean, yeah, I would like to just say I'd likely one hundred percent. They're like the fact that the art is got nominated and I love the art. No, it's gotten there too. Hate on it now since became so big, but the fact it was such a relatively small and, let's remember, French production and a real silent film done with so much love and care, getting that exposure and actually winning, I mean that led to so many people seeing their first silent film of all time. That's that's really incredible. So we've all got a lot more positive or the last or the lasting building this love demeration for the positive impact that Oscar seemingly have. So let's try to strip all of that away and focus on the films that we consider the worst best picture winners off all time. So there's this, the hair small if you like, with a quick thought with best things of winter. Do you think it's the very worst? And how bad is the very worst best picture winner? All right, now we're talking about something fun. There are so many, so many contenders. I think there have been many add movies that have won best picture, but the only one that I find a little morally and ethically ugly is gone with the wind, and I'll read what I wrote about it recently in our forums. Ranked down contest. There are some bad things to say about the writing of this movie and some good things to say about the photography, and it does another positive and negative remarks that one can make, but none of that matters. What does matter is three and a half hours of parboiled lost cause romanticism. It's enough to wretch, which I did do when I saw this movie. So I admit a creeping feeling of horror and revulsion. Indeed, I think the movie makes for a turgid historical EPOC but a somewhat effective horror movie. For maybe those people are not familiar with the American terminology. Lost Cause Romanticism refers to a pro confederate ideology. So it's a difficult movie to watch just because of its sympathy for the American south during the civil war. It's been quite a while since, as saying, going with the wind. It is a film of say a couple of times. I've never really found anything to disturbing with the depiction of the South and slavery and all that because me,...

I guess it was always just a small subplot and small part of the film, whereas what really got to be out the film was the scarlet of Harrot character and I just found an invite it very dynamic character, lots of interesting into play in there. It's not my favorite best picture normally, but I think when we look at or ninety two or so films that I've won the award, I think there are a lot of land of films and less interesting films out there. I suppose when I'm going through and looking at the worst for me I don't know if I could actually say worst. I'd say maybe weakest. I don't know if there's any best picture winners that I've given less than a six out of ten to or that of course there are quite a few of them that would only give a six out of ten to the week is for me is possibly Mrs Miniver in one thousand nine hundred and forty two, winner with greer Garson. It was not a very interesting film. A lot of it's very dingoistic. It was released during World War II and a lot of it, if you're looking at it seventy five or eighty years later, a lot of it's not very relevant. So I found that a pretty uninteresting film. There's also a lot of things like keeps being mentioned, but around the world in eighty days a lot of spectacle on. There got very much. There's a substantial film for though. The interesting thing is that giant, which one best director, isn't a much better film either. So I in fifty six for me has some of the weakest best picture nominees. Another one for me is Lord of the Rings, the return of the king. I didn't think there was particularly great film. I didn't think any of the Lord of the rings films were particularly good. A bason why one is because there's a lot of resentment about it losing out, or the first one losing out to a beautiful mind. In two thousand and one there's a lot of talk in the Internet. Or we need to rewarder. We need to reward this massive achievement, and it is a massive achievement spectacle, but in terms of writing, no, it's horrible that actually want to best adapted screenplayoffs scup. You know, I guess you know that's what happened when things get swept away up in the moment. So I think if people were looking at a film like that under ordinary circumstances would get a few technical nominations. I don't think on a normal circumstances it would be a best director or best adapted screenplay nominee, let alone winner in the two towers, which I actually prefer. Lord of the Rings Films, Best Visual Effects, best character. With God I'm having a lot of screen time. That didn't get a best director or best adapted screenplay nomination. So I would have expected the same for the return of the king. That one instant hoop styles a week one. There's a few other weak ones, but their films I haven't seen recently, like an American in Paris, and I think too much of that in the time and really seeing that one recently after comment on it. So to jump back just to quickly on gone with the wind. It's a film I like a lot for reason that Sol mentioned. I think SCARAT HOR is a fascinatingly complex character and I think esthetically the film is is quite something. However, absolutely agree without them, that is a racist firm and I would not dream of defending it on more grounds just on esthetics. I think, by the way, it's interesting that two of the films that we mentioned so far a film that we dislike for political or more reasons, right from with the wind being racist and Mrs minever. Haven't seen it, but soul says it's Jinguistic. Anyway, mine is not actually that. My least favorite best picture winner is brave hearts. It's kind of epistomizes everything that I can dislike in Oscarsy type films. It's a historical biopic that is just using this vague historical stories myth, mixing the two and just making a star vehicle out of that, and not a stickler for historical accuracy at all. But bravehearts is particularly egregious in that regard. And it all serves a pretty aggressive story of the manly man and his lover who exists only to be killed and give him a motivation. And you add to that the unthinking nationalism and Gibson's unhealthy fascination for christlike figures, plus an incredibly bluted narrative and you get too pretty excruciate experience. For me, even the Batton since were quite an interesting really. So it's a family with very few, if any, regieming crisis for me, and I think I have to follow the trend in comment on. Go on with win a twelve. I had to be completely honest. I Love Gone With the win. I think it is such a massive epic on one of the best film to Thurty nine. For sure. It has such strong performances it. It's obviously the central drama and the characters and the scope of the film with really brings it home. But I can also really understand that, especially if you're American and with you know the American history and knowing that context better,...

...that film can be rent so extremely differently and probably more accurately as well. When you're from Europe and you don't have any strong connections whatsoever to the civil war or what they fought for, you're much more likely to see it as the character story and not really focus on, let's say, the background motif which we know a lot of Americans recently are really hyping up this movie for and which is quite quite unsettling. And I also want to come in quickly under the other films mentioned. So I actually love Mrs Minniver. I think it's a very beautiful character portrait. Not all of the very best winners, but it's still a film I got quite emotionally involved in a such nice, heartfelt narrative. And for brave heart, yeah, we completely one of the weakest, for sure. I mean that. I think it's just the N S I such an inting toime because with braveheart and also gladiator, you essentially had the two big teenage boy best film of all time matching with the academy which is just such a missort thing. Like these two films just don't have any kind of emotional debt. They're extremely shallow, empty, relatively dull action films, which does it boggles my mind that they were even under consideration. And Yeah, some people mentioned the reserve of the ging. Exactly the same thing. Now I have much fonder feelings for a term of the game because I love how they built the fantasy world across the tie trilogy. But yeah, absolutely the same thing, where something that's clearly far more targeted at teenage boys. Now miley's favorite film, that's everyone best picture, actually has to take us back to almost the very beginning. We're going back to the thirty ceremony, and I'm talking, of course, of the Broadway melody or, as sometimes called, the probability of nine hundred and twenty nine, which really showcases how extremely shallow the academy is in just throwing out a war to the latest, big fat I mean this was one of the big early sound musicals, and that's really seems to be the only reason this one at all. Like. The sound is not great. It's like you were throwing away a nomination to the early role on emeric film or something because of the Tgi you. It boggles like the fact that this film won the were all of the beautiful, extremely strong, silent films release this year in the period when a sound was so terribly poor, and I guess they shows so much better in retrospect. It's just darring like this this son landscape are the way the songs are recorded. It doesn't sound great at all, and it's really do nominating the latest that it's we finally have a talk. If we finally have this musically, finally have sound, let's just throw an award at it. And Yeah, that's why that's my least favorite and it does not a very well made film at all. I'm happy to join my fellow co hosts in their hatreds and dislikes. For the most part, I haven't seen Broadway melody or Mrs Minafer, but I also thought brave heart is just awful, as well as the return of the king. I love a breat of heart. When I was a kid loved it. I think, you know, part of the process of becoming an adult is recognizing that these simplistic stories are very false ultimately, not just false in terms of realistic storytelling, but also false historically. It provides a very false history of Scotland and England and that era return of the king. Gosh, what can I say? It's three and a half hours and it's one of those movies that fell far longer. There multiple false ends, moments when I thought the movies over and then it just kept going. But I remember there was a point near the end where there was an audible grown in the movie theater as we thought it was going to end. And the story just kept continuing and I'm sorry to say I hated all the Lord of the rends movies, but we don't need to get into that. I know it's very dear to some people. It just movies that that did not connect me and just felt for most of these movies. I didn't care about these characters. I didn't really understand what was going on. I'll just jump in on a couple of the films that were mentioned. Then brave heart. I haven't actually seen it. That's one of the few. They are on that many, maybe ten or so best picture winners that I haven't seen. I've hard as one of them because I've pretty much heard everything about it, similar to what I cohost of just said. And Mel Gibson. Yeah, I don't know, being of put on with him. He's done some interesting films and performances. Is Very good and conspiracy theory as an act as a filmmaker. Yeah, I don't know. I'm never any interest in...

...actually checking out brave heart everything that I've heard about it. Interestingly, this ties us into the Broadway melody because, similarly, Broadway melody is another film that I've never heard much good about and which I've decided I don't actually really need to see there's no poll compelling reason for me to see it. I mean, along with our cover, kid and Simarron, which both considered to be among the weakest best picture winners, or my melody, is just another one from the early days of the Oscars. That just doesn't seem to me something that's going to reflect was considered to be the very best of that time. I mean it's hard to tell about the Oscars in the first few years. A lot of it was just a lot of our backs lapping and I think it's really only a set. Progressed and got down to maybe five nominees and been s that the nominees and winners. They're becoming a bit more relevant to reflecting social things and different trends in the film industry. I do have to mention another film. I'm really sorry about the French connection. Might actually top out, Mrs Minever, as my least favorite best picture winner. It's actually one that can spring to mind because I liked it less the second time. I was more the first time around, or sort of like, I guess this is all right second time around. Third Time around it's like yeah, there's really nothing to it. I was really bigger than s or the chase, things going on and off the train, but none of that is particularly new by standards today and it just really has anything to the film. I mean even gene Hackman's performance and character is much better developed in John Frankenheimer's sequel to the film. I can't believe you just said that. To be honest, it's an okay feel. Just feels so flat and empty compared to the French connection, where you know I delivered such a phenomenal performance, especially, as you know, a corrupt racist seventy this cup, where you know it's clear that this is such a problematic character and you just dive into his mind I ever actually said as one of the best best picture winners. To be completely honest with you, with your being really quickly back to Simaron and cavalcade. Yeah, there's almost no reason to watch him a room outside of his door and necessity, because that's just that's one film that boggles my mind at how it won. It was so many is stronger films lined up and this is just I guess it's some kind of love for the creation of the American city or something similar, but it's so bloated, so absurdly melodramatic. So it's just I guess people have just had completely different used what was a good movie, because there's so many fantastic films and performances from that year and this one isn't it. And I know a lot of people, like ad mentioned that they quite dislike several academy award best picture winners. I'm not in that category. I think that almost all academy award winners at least are decent, if not good, but there are two films that are active dislikes for me, actually three the way to show a note as well, but that is the probability and Simmaron ink. In the case of Calvacade, though, which is probably the most or one of the most hated and dismissed best picture winners, I had to say I went into that with that expectation. That actually was quite a good movie for me. It's extremely melodramatic, and I'm talking extreme melodrama, but it's still really nice family story just going through all of these generations. It has a heart felt grief as well some pretty surprising developments in there. Is essentially like a well made compressed soap opera from the dirties, but at the much higher scale, and actually you could possibly have enjoyed that soul even more than me. Yeah, I don't know, Chris, I really just like melodrama. By trying to upset as a drama, you've sort of convinced me that I probably not gonna like the film. Look at something that I might keep it go at some stage, but I don't think it's any priority for me. Yeah, and that case you'll just hate it like everybody else. Don't worry about it. Yeah, on that subject, I should mention that there are probably, I think, a little over twenty the s picture winners that I haven't seen, and a lot of them aunt those look less perl did, let's say, films from the S and S, like cavalcade and go to show nerves, and also around the world in eighty days, and also a recent one, crush. I'm actually surprised it hasn't come up. I haven't seen it, but it has such a turrible reputation. Yeah, that was actually my next question is, can believe no one has mentioned crash, because that is really one of the weakest best picture winners as well. Talking about melodrama and taking itself too seriously. I mean this is the film that probably one for or very political reasons, for people thinking that they were tackling a racism in a very serious way. It ends up just feeling completely comical because all of the elements of God are just...

...so extremely all were blown that it just becomes cringeworthy. I mean that's such a weak feeling. Without about one of the worst winners increase. You asked us to pick one worst picture movie. So if we didn't mention crash, I don't think it's because anyone here loves it, but just that I limited myself to one. No, no, crash. Crash is terrible. I assume we all hit crash. Maybe, maybe, maybe self feels differently. I actually haven't seen crush. We seem to keep mentioning those ten or so films that I haven't seen, and rush there's another one that I've avoided because I only heard the terrible things about it when it came out, or not so much when it came out when started get picked up for award season. The interesting thing about crash is that it's also intriguing you for me, because I know there's a lot of politics going on at the time. I was heavily invested in the IMBB message boards at the time and there's a lot of things going down. A lot of people didn't like brokeback mountain and I didn't like what's portrayal of a cowboys and there was a lot of things from conservative people about having a film about promoting a homosexuality. Apparently, depending on how you read it, as a best picture in it is not a way to go. So there's a lot of here discussion about broakback mountain and I know crush was seen as a bit of an alternative. And then when crash one you had all the things like people are posting. You know Google search results that if you tied I'm happy that crash one, it comes back with did you mean I'm happy that trash one? And they got a lot of Haitan lot of negativity since it actually won the Oscar, much more negativity than when before it when the Oscar. So yeah, I don't know. I've been intrigued about crash but I'm not expecting it to be a good film. I'm not expecting it to be terrible either, but I know that Paul Haggis is a bit of an overwaughter right who it comes to riding. So I'm expecting it to be about average. But no, it's one of those films. I've decide. I've got no reason to prioritize it at the moment. I think you know you're right, Sol in that it's not a terrible movie, isn't it's well made, it's some rules well acted, but it's what Chris said about how I think a lot of people voted for this movie because they confused a movie about an important topic with good movie. It is about an important topic, it just deals with it in this sort of ham fisted, over at manner. And to some people, though, the fact that it touches on controversial issues itself is a marker of quality, and I think that is a very common problem with the Oscars and with the worlds in general, and it's also tool with festivals. That's the political importance of the film often takes precedence over its esthetic merit. I mean, it's not the problem, it's just a feature, I suppose, and that's what leads to stuff like crush winning. Another example of mine is one that most people love. There are only for the picture winners that I dislike. So I'm like Chris. I'm generally positive on the picture winners, but three of them are from the s. One of them is both hot and the other two American beauty and Shindler's list. I actually hate hinders list. I know that it's not too heavy popular opinion, but I think it's another case of the film. Even if you love it, that certainly one because it felt so important. Well, might you. You're bringing in a controversial topic. I also dislike Schindler's list. It's also something I'm hesitant to say because people have a very genuine and and well intentioned emotional involvement with that movie. So I could never break grudge anyone for being deep admiration for Schindler's list, and feelings on it are complicated and there's no way to divide it. My feelings from my being a Jew and having, you know, ancestors were killed on the Holocaust. But the essentially comes down to this is that, you know, this is something that a friend of mine told me. Kubrick once said about Schindler's list. I've no idea if that's true, but apparently Kubrick said the holocast was about seven million people dying. Schindler's List is about a thousand people living and to me it just very much a piece with Spielberg's worst tendencies towards sentimentality. Obviously, you know I'm like I said, I respect people have a much different opinion on it. Okay, I'm definitely in the camp of people who strongly admire Chouldler's list in that it's always been one of the our top ten best written, best directed films that I've seen from the entire S. I don't think it's a problem that it's about thousand people surviving. I don't think it's even about that. It's not a film about the Holocaust. Holocaust is part of the setting there. It's the backdrop for the film. is about the character progression the Oscar Shin Lak character and how he first starts up by saving the Jews as a selfish act he's doing. He's basically in it to get...

...money, but then by the end of the film is completely progressed from that. He's actually starting to look at US human being. So what I really like about the film is the Sham La Character. It's like a probably complex character art fun that I haven't really seen mirrored in very many films inc then or before then. And you've also got the refines character in there also, I'm ongoeth and not see in there, and it's got incredibly complex character. Also, any sort of wrestles with this idea of having mercy and they're not quite being able to act on that. It's incredibly dynamic film and I think it's awful that, I hate to use that word, I think it's awful that people would integrate the film. I'll put it down because it's not representing the Holocaust and everything that it was, because I don't think that was ever the intention. I mean I do know that when Spielberg was filming that he will come out with him with different stories and some of them didn't make it into the film, like about the Ur gun not working even though the nuts he kept trying it over and over. There are different stupits of it which capture the Times a little bit, but the same way that cabaret would use, you know, bits of the uprising of Nazi Germany in the backdrop, but it's not the film was about. It's amazing character study. I haven't seen it recently because, as a very ever stating emotional impact on me. And Yeah, I just find it, you know, maybe just supporting as maybe the best term, that somebody would actually think something with such a complex screenplay in there and such multilayered performances would be one of the weakest best picture nominees or best picture winners we've had. So many are lame and I can write films that have sort of made it to the top over the years. I don't want to keep talking forever about this. American beauty as another film that I like a lot and which I've seen a lot, but I'm not probably quite as passionate about that one. I do think American beauty is incredibly well film, incredibly clever and very witty and very well performed and of course it's got an amazing score by Thomas Newman that incredibly got overlooked for the Oscar and it stay anyway. I've been rabble and one for too long, so let's somebody else like however, and I'm sorry from getting emotional here, without getting it into into it too much, I think what you mentioned about Schinder's list not being a weak film is it's I mentioned that it was my one among my least favorite. I guess maybe I said worst, but it's you know, it's subjective. I not saying that sheds this is not well performed and not saying that it's not well shot. I think it's goddious. Actually. I think the symmetrography is is amazing. Then the same with American beauty, with your felmail, also strongly dislike, but it looks great. However, those are things. I strongly dislike American beauty because I think it's extremely smug and shindless. List in last part because of the some of the things that I don't mentioned. I think about the worst tendencies that spinback has. I think the best example for me is the little red girl. I think when you have a tragedy so so strong, right, you don't need to employ such obviously manipulative techniques and I find it alsmost insulting personally. But you know, it's not. I'm not saying anything about people who love should not list. I mean most people do. So, yeah, I don't know, it's just very, I guess, Alien Hike on the film. For me, I don't find it Manipulat at all. I just think it tyckles a very complex web and that it's trying to be as extremely in depth character study, which it is, and just to include bits and pieces of stuff on on the side there to sort of pat the backdrop of what the Times you're like, the different techniques, and then they or quite interesting and I don't know, look, it's probably something for another podcast, but I've always liked Spielberg as a filmmaker. I've never quite understood people who bash him. He does do a lot of popcor entertainment films, but he also does a lot of very serious films and manage just present them well, with complex characters, interesting performance. Says, and I think it's really maybe one or two sportwork films that I've ever disliked. So pretty much know when I sit down and watch a SL work film, as it's called the post, I actually know that I'm going to be in for a pretty entertaining ride as well as one that's going to sort of activate me intellectually. So yeah, I don't know, it's just interesting to hear that sort of take on shinless list. I don't really much more to say beyond that. Okay, one question, if for but you here, is that it is just a general view of most films, because, I mean this is essentially who he is. Is extremely emotionally manipulate. They with high degrees of where he works with music,...

...the way he poked with us in them faces, Ceter it's very in your face and it's very clear where he wants to audiences emotions to go. That is also part of his talent, if you realis, but also part of what makes so many of his films great and it's what makes him such an effective feel maker. So for me I think it resist was a great film. I don't put it among the best. I'm not sure if I agree wich saw that it's as deep a character study, at least not for me, but it's certainly too really interesting characters and certainly a really complant or in a certainly a really, really wonderfully made film. But then also have some films like, for instance, war horse and not to get completely off topic here, which is just almost in the crash camp where it just you see the way he assumes in that one tear or it is how perfectly makes it, which is is a he does that extreme overt and mentality to such extreme and I I'm really used word perfection because it's so well shot, but he does the such a makes free way that it just becomes completely cringe worthy. So if this complaint against cinders list about general complaint against Biel Berger, is it more specifically because they handled this topic in a similar way to how we handle many of his other dramas? Kind of booth to an extent? I am not a fan of his sentimentality in genuine but it doesn't bother me as much in other films as it does in this one, in parts because of the subject matter. They are also other things in the film, but this is not a should lose this podcast. So there are some people speedbug I love, but it's ten it has to be the early ones, and so these are less sentimental. I don't have anything against the director, who is many putitive. necessarily. I Love Hitchcock and well he does. Is when you pulate the audience, but I think the way Spilberg does it it can get on my nerve. To swing this back to best picture winners, and best picture winners from the S in particular, because it does seem that they're all singling out the S as a particularly poor decade for best picture films. And one of my least favorites, if which we haven't gotten to yet, and I'm surprised they haven't gotten to yet, given it general reputation, is forest gump which, at least to me, there's so many similarities of the cringe wordiness of, say, crash, just without the added social messaging, because here as well, everything is blown up to make you feel something and you have the character and you have the relationship, so thin, so workly emotional like this, you just feel exactly how it wants you to feel. It's just I can't see. Don't think it's well dumb like some of them. Feels tragically comical, like the ways that they pasted in First Gump, for instance, in old footage and notice done as comedy within the film, but I was sentially laughing added. I just really don't think this was a good film at all. A chorus. I'm with you. I also very much disliked force gump. I remember seeing it when I was a kid. I I guess I was probably about nine years old, and I remember even there and thinking it's very entertaining. There's a lot of comedy here, but something doesn't quite feel right. Something feels very artificial. And maybe that's not a fair criticism because to me it's really it's a fantasy movie. It's just the the structure or the content of the fantasy that I really disliked. And in some ways I feel like it's a very conservative fantasia on s nine s themes as this very sort of aggressive tendency in terms of you know, the hero is a sort of simple country kid who just wants to serve his country and the villains are the hippies and the black power people. Actually quite like forrest Gump. It's not in my top five films, up ten films, it's probably not even my top twenty films or one thousand nine hundred and ninety four, but we'll definitely be on the top fifty films. The big impressive thing for me about it was the visual effects. I guess yeah, May Chris gonds somewhat of a bit funny, but I really like the way that Tom Hanks was inserted into all the archive footage and the whole film is about the character experiencing this whole slice of American history without being able to properly understand it. And I don't know, I just thought the whole way it was starting was very interesting and quite captivating. It is a film that I've seen three or four times and the more often than I see it the more and more Christian sense and mental it seems. But just really like the way that told, the whole thing is done. I think Gary Senesa's performance in there is excellence and the why is character sort of progresses and he is friendship with...

...a Tom Hanks character as well handled. So I look it's not one of the best best picture winners for me, it's not one of the worst. It's probably somewhere in the middle for me. But I think definitely the technical or shame one of it is maybe more impressive for me and Gary Sensa's performance is more impressive for me than maybe the overall films. I haven't seen tug him since I was a kid and loved it. I'm afraid this might be your brave help thing like Adam. So I'm a little scared of visiting it. But let's have to spin the positivity around. They're a little in this second half of the best versus words or, as we did here to finish it, more of a bang worse versus best. So let me ask again. What is your single favorite best picture winner of all time? Gosh, I find it impossible to picture just one. Someone said earlier that they were thought the list of best picture winners is actually very good and that they're very few bad movies. There might be a few week movie. There have to say I'm not sure I got that far, but I think overall the the list has just a large quantity of amazing movies. It's hard to pick one without sliding other great movies, all about Eve Cassi Blanca, all quiet on the western front, the bridge and the or quiet. These are all wonderful movies that I love. It's a Cliche, but you know, I think the godfather movies one and two would would have to be my choice, although I'll put in a special word for wings, which I'm guessing is probably not a popular choice. Things is one of my all time favorite movies. For many people, I think it's just an answer to a trivia question. What was the first best picture winner? I was lucky enough to see a restoration of it on the big screen with the hand tinted original tiles so that the explosions and movie actually are not black and white. There are fiery oranges and reds and it's simply one of the best visual spectacles I've ever seen on a screen. I can't believe you actually wings as the best penmorials picture winner of all time. I just love goals my mind. I actually completely agree with you on the one element. You said. This is a beautifully made film. It has some absolutely stunning shots, especially seems like the swing scene, the airplanes. It's absolutely gorgeous to look at an experience and I think it would be even better in the cinema. Quite like wings. It's a good movie, but it's also movie. I have a bit of animal because, as you know, this was not officially the best picture winner of that year because the ward didn't exist. Is that this was the very first year and they also had the award for best artistic picture, which went to sunrise, and it was retrospectively decided which one of those awards corresponded to the best picture award, and they went with wings over sunrise, and if they had not done that, sunrise would easily have been my favorite best picture winner of all time because it's all you know, at the top of his game. It's so visually beautiful and immersive. You can see each shot pret up like a painting and with the more at the center. It's just absolutely spectacted, ring with selfware in that film every single time. So that's why I have a decent bit of this Scipe for this to pick of wings, just because it went against what I would consider the best and it despite being so good. I think it also reflects the academy is wish to just nominate big spectacles at this time, because essentially wings, winging is, to me at least, the same as Avatar winning it. Those two films are about the same in terms of historical value, in that they're just glorious epic films from a technical perspective, but I don't love the films themselves. When I comes to trying to work out the Veris best picture whinners, for me, I think some of them a word at the name Adam did mention the God father, which is very high out there for me to which are probably the highest ones, the ones that are hold of the most, to seem I can't choose one, so I'm sorry about that. One of them is the silence of the lambs. I think it's an incredibly our well made film. And it's a film that each time I watch should I pick up more about it and just really like the way the editing is especially really good in it towards the end with some of the misdirection about what exactly is going on, and just the interplay there between Jody Foster and Anthony Hopkins is incredibly well done. The other film that POPs to mind for me is midnight cowboy. I think that's just...

...an amazing film about this sort of uneasy friendship develops between these two characters and against the film, which has got some credit for powerful editing in there some really great music in there and yeah, a little bit of a sad, maybe bitter sweet sort of film, but yeah, one that's definitely rested a lot with me. So, along with soul, I'm going to try to help. How help out then, is a bit because we criticize a lot of the s winners in the preture spots, but my favorite, this picture winner, is and forgiven and it is appropriate that this would be my favorite because it's a film that's very much about the legacy of its start director and show so really prepared for the Oscars. It's parallels. The man who shot the betty valance in the way it exposed the legend of the West and the weight it has on its characters and simplicitly on the people who shaped it, the printers of the legend. And it does kind of the same thing that the betty valance did in tnditioning from classic to revisionists. You have kind of Clintest wood closing the door on the era of Westerns that he helped start up. Its opening and closing scenes are these beautiful tableau set at dusk and in French that's this notion of Western crepescule, which means Dusky Western or twilight Western, and unforgiven is like the posto child for that giving us a melancholy look at this essential American mythos which was so influential, especially through the medium film. And it's there unforgiven to essentially destroy all that, to strip away all nobility and the artifice of the Western, especially with a final scene that is a tragedy of this man who cannot escape the terrible world he comes from and the terrible life has had. It's the polar opposite of the classic Western hero who helps society transition from lawlessness into civilization. He is the problem and as much as he wants to, he cannot be part of the solution. He cannot escape the vicious cycle of violence. And so I find it to be a daring and thoughtful look by eastwood at his own persona really and just generally a great film. I'm just gonna jump into salute my the choices of my co host here. Unforgiven is is a beautiful movie. The INSERNIS THE FULFILLMENT OF EASTWARDS WESTERN ARC use is a revisionist western star. He was never a classic Western star in the mold of a John Wayne or, you know, a William Heart, but his revisionist character traditionally was the man with no name, the sort of conic, violent, emotionally remote figure of the dollars trilogy. I thought that that are sort of without without going way back into our Western episode from a few weeks ago. I thought that our breach the culmination high planes drifter, but it reached a sort of a sentimental not sentimental, it reached a legacy defining measure in unforgiven, because an unforgiven east would really want for realism much more than bravado or fantasy that he had in his earlier westerns and I also want to salute the silence of the lambs. For me as well, this is a movie that reveals more nuances every time I watched it. Certainly when I first saw it I just thought it was an excellent thriller movie. It's only in subsequent watchings that I've really come to recognize some of the feminist themes in the movie, which I didn't realize it all as a teenager, but I think now we're probably the most important part of the movie. Yeah, I think it would be really interested in rewatching level that in mind. I mean if I had had originally, which is that it's a really, really strong thriller with Spectacular Central Performance. But NOPE, give it. But in my opinion, people often does the thought had the film with his NU stellar performance, just how uneasy they feel there. But so much of the film is not about it. In so much really is far more conventional thriller that wrote really, really well but for me just never ref went that extra mouth become great phenomenal cinema. It's does a really strong thriller to me, but I would really like to Rewatch it with more context and more ideas of what I can read into it. I would say I agree on silent some of the lambs, both as a great thim in general but also has one that grew on me with re watching, and also I agree that it's has a great central performance, but I would argue that it's joddie foster. I think Hopkins is also good. Yes, Journey foster is the central part of silence of the lambs and the Hopkins only has come on the exact number. It's less than twenty minutes of screen time, even though I won the best lead. That to Oscar forward. The whole film is about journie foster and, like Adams said, there's a whole lot of feminist set themes in there and it's basically the setup sort of comes down the fact that double lector is the most decent male character in the film, which is a really interesting set up for but a lot of it's just about her going through...

...the academy as a female member, but also if some of the things from a past there at the lamb stop screaming claris, there's just a lot going in there which I've always found to be very dynamic and watching it, and I'll just ask second the choice of unforgiven. I don't know if that'd be in my top ten best picture. When it was would definitely be in the top twenty best picture winners and incredibly classy film. I've always liked clint eastward as a director and unforgivens definitely one of his strongest directing efforts. Oh, something interesting which I might also just pick up there. Chris has mentioned the chat there that he doesn't think jodie foster is a great actress in general, and I'd probably agree with that. I isn't that many performances from her that I really like. I mean she was good encarnage, some of her s comedy work as a child actress and things like freaky Friday. I kind of like. Her performance in the accused did nothing for me, and a lot of our other performance says weren't really up my alley. Way. I thought she was a really great choice for the casting of grace in silence of the lambs and though when the role was recast with Julian Moore in less of mistaken in some of the later films, I don't think it worked quite as well. Yeah, I think that's really interesting as well, because I personally, you doing more death, far superior actress in general. But they also completely agree. I mean it's it doesn't work anywhere near as well in this sequel. And yes, I also think I'm forgiven is an excellent choice. It's such a strong, incredibly strong film. There's not a thing that has gone slightly down the estimation since originally thought that it was was my all time favorite films. They still view that's just completely brilliant, with Eastwood Versus Hackmant to great performances, and just the way that plot works and how it corresponds with traditional restor is just absolutely fantastic. Now I already talked a bit about sunrise, which is a bit of an unofficial member are as opposed. It's beyond that, I think most of my top favorites are fairly ordinary. Would obviously list the godfather films as being among them. I would also list the their hunter. Wish just does such a SEC taculate job at building tension between these characters and taking us on this roll into complete madness. And unlike so many people, I love I love the first forty minutes, an hour before it actually becomes a real more movie, and in fact I think that's one of the some of the strongest scenes in the films, and think that film really really delivers. I also want to highlight one film I don't think anyone would have talked about, and that's all the king's men from one thousand nine, hundred and forty nine, which so long before the media circus and the complete spectacle really came about and before, I would say this like this, such a superior facing the crowd, which also looked at similar media performances. This film it's just so colossless the way it looks at this one singular politician and managed to and this world around them, how it reacts, how it affects his family, and it is incredible, incredible central performance by Broderick Crawford, I would argue his best, and it's just so explosive, so hard hitting, and it just doesn't get brought up enough and I don't really under said why it disappeared the way it did. I was also blown away by all the king's men at the time. It's not a film that I've seen recently, so it's probably didn't spring to mind immediately as one of the best best picture winners out there, but there at the time I was really captivated by Roderick Crawford's performance in there. And Yeah, everything is said about there, about media sensacialism and power getting to his head. I thought it was an incredibly well done film. When other film that I love among the respicture winners that I don't think most people do, and it's not one of the most famous ones, it's a manfold seasons, the essentially a Toma small biopic, except it's focused on his kind of fight with Henry the eighth, played by Robert Shaw, and if nothing else, it features two great performances, we were sure as Henry the eighth and Boscoffield as Thoma small. I think he was mostly a theater actor, so I don't think he has been in that many movies, but he is. He might be my favorite best actor winner. That's a very interesting comment, Matthew, because I have seen a man for all seasons. It is likewise a film that I've not seen recently. The thing that I remember most hotly from the film is Robert Shaw's before moments. I always live Robert Shaws and actually I thought he really came alive with his King Henry performance in there. I don't actually remember that much of pauseco fields performance. I've heard Di do a couple of really great performances in the N S and I think he's absolutely excellent in quiz show. Chiff you haven't...

...seen quiz show, I would hardly recommend that and unless some mistake, I think he actually got an Oscar nomination for that one. Also, just want to briefly circle back to a movie I mentioned before but kind of didn't really give Justice, which is the Godfather, and several of you have have also mentioned it, and I think the reason I passed it over and end up discussing wings more is because everyone loves the Godfather. It's one of the most universally beloved and admired movies. I think it's number two on the IMDB top to fifty list, so it's kind of easy to take it for granted and also it feels like there's not a lot to say about it that hasn't been said before, but it feels like it wouldn't be doing justice to the best pictures or the Godfather without mentioning it. It's an extraordinary movie. It's technically are perfect, beautiful music, beautiful photography, a complex story that interviews many genuine characters into an overall picture of I guess you could call it American capitalism at its worst. And it's a movie that's sort of so good that we kind of just, you know, take it for granted, but it is an extraordinary achievement it. Yeah, at least it the godfather as lightly, my favorite official best piction winner as well. And Yeah, I dumped over for exactly the same reason. I think it really goes to show that, you know, this is both such a brilliantly directed film. It's obviously very slow paced in a sense that there's so much character developments and some stories going into this that the people even forget this day, like the amount of time spent in Italy, for instance. Most people, when they remember back, don't think of it. But when you see it it's still so well done. The way is builds a tension throughout, and one thing at the really is want to focus on this. I'll partul you know and Marlon Brando's central performances, because both of them of course given such fantastic performances before. But the way they went into their roles, the way don't can sale went into their roles like this, is not just against your film, which are so many of. I mean this is against the film with I conic performances, iconic dialog it just the central conflicts, the scenes of even some of the standard murders are remembered forever and of course, the iconic music. I think if the reason why I didn't want to think about the goldfathers that I really think to do that you need a full podcast to do it like, especially if you want to do the full trilogy, and I'm essentially pitching that as well now. So they let's do that. Let's all sit down and rewatch the girl father really shy and talk that out, because that will be incredible. It's an interesting topic. They're about the godfather trilogy, because I do agree that the first film is absolutely brilliant. I did say before the probably why number three for my best picture choices, for best picture winners. It's just an amazing character arcue what the mark will collione character has and the way sort of progresses along the whole film and the closing doors at the end. There's just some perfect and amazing way to end off a film. And of course you're so many iconic parts and they're just little things. are running around with the orange in the mouth, things like waking up with our horses head. But yeah, incredibly powerful film. The Godfather part two I've never liked as much as the original film. The second time round I thought all sort of sort as a little bit, maybe, not quite pointless, but because the first film is so perfect as it is, I wasn't sure really how much the second film added on to it. So might be something interesting to podcast about. I've actually never seen the third godfather film because the views about that are really so mixed. Everybody keeps bashing Sofia Cupola's performance in it, but I guess there might be some of the finally check out if we do a podcast on the godfather trilogy. What I'm very similar to soul, and that's I also agree with out of you that the Godfeather is great. It would have been my second pick for best picture, if I'm best picture. And I also agree that the gods at about two is unnecessary, and I also haven't seen bout to him. So basically just repeating much on said. I'm actually shocked at a whole of my goals now don't view the gold fall, apart two a more or less the same footing as the Godfather, because, I mean this is almost universal view that these films are approximately the same in their general degree of this perfection, if you will, and for a long time even preferred part two, and I think the reason why that I do prefer the first one today is because it is actually a more personal film. For a couple of he had been trying to make a story about a father and a son at the same age and connect those thoughts and had so much invested in that. They couldn't do it, and the gold fall of...

...films not something you ever technically wanted to do. He did do the gold for the two and especially gone for the three for the money, but I think the factually brought this very specific idea, this very specific lands of the seeing a father and son at the same time, and got Roberty near in there giving such an incredible performance, having Al Partino keep developing as Michael Corleone and, as I have to say, Duncan cell which is like he did so few films. It's such an incredible actor and he really just brought father to life. I think that in just taking the story on words, bringing in more melancholy, the way everything is actually in a way wrapped up. I think it hit just as strongly as the first film. So some other best picture winners, they haven't been mentioned yet. That I think our towards the top of their game. Will trying to say too much about them so it doesn't go on for too long. I think Chicago is and incredibly well done film. It's a film I've watched model times before and I really like the whole satire of it. It's incredibly well edited. It's a very kinetic film and very different from the average musical out there. So that's definitely an alltime favorite. Amadeus is very dynamic because we're seeing everything is filtered through Sally Arey's eyes, so it's all this fields subjectivity, the approaching Mozart Platoon, Oliver Stone. Film again incredibly well done film. Really good use of music in there also and interesting look of like good versus evil and war on the waterfront with Marlon Brando's performance and Rod's Steager, Rod Steiger, if their performances in there. Definitely very well done film and incredibly well acted and very powerful film, Really Great Music Score and I might also mention any hall. It's not my favorite woody Allen film, but I think what a Allen's and incredibly dynamic director does a lot of interesting and artistic things, and any hall is definitely one of the most creative and unusual romantic comedies in the best possible way. That'll be towards the top of their but it's not one of my top five woody island films, but among the best picture winners, the every one that stands out to me. Why we on the subject of musicals. I actually also like Chicago, which I think is not a majority opinion, but my favorite musical that one of the best picture is west side story and I think it might be my favorite musical periods. Think it's just gorgeous retelling of the form when Juliet Story and a'meric guys such a daring song for its period and I love it just overall the Auldso for other honorable mentions, I would say all about eve is such a witty film with such an amazing central performance by Betty Davis, and I also love spotlights for our recent twinners. We were talking earlier about me disliking emotional manipulation and I think spotlight is a great example of a film that really refuses to be emotionally manipulative. Actually thought spotlight was incredible manipulative at times. I did like it overall. I thought it was very well acted. A thought Michael Keat and a really great character and there had a really great performance in there. But just some of the things in spot light, like there's a part there where the reporters are talking about a story that one of the people they interviewed recountered to them and they just say that and they just say to each other so and actually see the US and who was affected by the abuse account that story. We just see them recount it. So I don't know the different parts and there I would a bit. And I did like spotlight a lot, but I thought the way that it approached child abuse and abuse of power, I thought it didn't quite really show the actual impact on the victims themselves. A lot of it was about the reporter side of things, which is interesting in itself, and I don't know if it wasn't necessarily the most powerful way the topic could have been presented. I might also just say that what about eve? I do like that film a lot, but I'd say it's all about and Baxter and not Betty Davis and west side story and not a bad film, but judge Shaquira, so I have no idea how you won the best supporting actor for it. Just regarding spotlights, I'm going to steal your defense and say that spot it is not a film about chide the abuse. It's a film about journalism and that's why it doesn't show that. And I think that's part of what I mean when I say it's not any bit of it, that it could have gone there and it's didn't. And yes, and backst obviously the main character and all about you, but I think the standout performance, the one backs to it, is good. Also, is a bit to day this. Yeah, it's like I look, I don't want to deflect the to make us a whole spot like conversation. I did like like the film. I thought it was interesting. I just thought there was a bit of an...

...emotional distance in there, which was really odd. I get that it's more about the reporters and them investigating it and how, you know, new and shocking all of it is to them, but I also found it was hard to really feel for that shock because we sort of have the information presented us at a bit of a distance for what the film is expecting us to accept and when we do accept in a culture and society that child Bruce's horrible and has all these devastating psychological impacts, but by not seeing it. Yeah, I don't know. Look, it's a subject for another podcast. I'm not going to delve it into too much. I did like spot by a lot, but with some reservations there in terms of what they chose to show what they chose not to show. Pretty provided a list in my opening remark of you know, about ten other best picture winners that I thought were excellent. Don't want to, you know, keep on going on them and I think that you know. So the ones that I think a really great have been mentioned, but I just thought I'd mentioned one that that hasn't been mentioned, which is all quite on the western front. It's easy to forget. It's been a long time since it came out. It was one of the first best picture winners me and and I think, to too many people. At the time it was sort of the definitive World War One movie, the extent that afterwards made there weren't many world war one movies for a while. They only sort of started appearing again in the lead up to World War II and just thought you know, even to this day it's one of the definitive anti war pictures. From me, I agree that all quite on the rest of the Friday is and incredibly well done film, especially for its time. I didn't like lead performance too much and I thought it was a bit on the hello dramatic side, but the actual story itself is incredibly powerful and incredibly powerful for a very early sound era war film. Yeah, I think I have pretty much the same assessment. I saw, like I think a lot of these early some films from dirties are struggling a little bit to set up, but it did it really well. I main issue with mostly be performance, as though. I will just drop one recommendations that doesn't fit into this podcast all, but that's restaurant eighteen bipups from the very same year and it's, in my opinion at least, just as strong. But I would like to again take our focus back a little bit as well, because if we talked a lot about how poor a lot of the winners from the N Turties were, with Simmaron and calvacade and so many others. But I do think the Turks was quite a hidden Miss Decade for best pictures, in that they actually has some really, really strong selections, just showing some of the best things that Hollywood, especially starlet Hollywood, could do at the time. So I'm talking, for instance, about Grant Hotel, with all of the intersecting storylines and just so many incredible performances and actors like that's just a feeling get completely overwhelmed by, where you know you have, you actually have, you no garble, both bearymore brothers, John Crawford, Rollacebury, and this endless, endless amount of massive names with great dialogs just bringing their best to the screen. And it's just shot so well too. I also can't believe that nobody's mentioned from Kapras. It happened one night. It is can't believe it. I mean it's one of the best comedies that I would all also ever made and all and everyone best picture, because comedies almost never win. And you know this Clark Gable and Cliff Colbert Meshing up together and this it's just such a great film. I also want to bring your attention to one thing that almost ever gets mentioned at all, which is the life of a Melasula, which just has another one of those spectacular central performances here by Paul Mooney, and Paul Moon is really one of the unstung extreme content actors of the dirt S. I would argue it is, in the American context at least, the best actor of the dirty is. He always delivers just these incredible performances. It shots so well you can feel the time and you can feel the experience that's all event grow in, which inspired him. So it's just an incredibly great work. There's also some other really massive verse of shocked didn't get mentioned, such as the last emperor by got the Luchis. The visuals, the impact, the way it's made. It's absolutely spectacular. And since I'm mentioning way too many films now, I would like to say Guay to its type of conclusion, or at least a bit of a finishing remarks, in just the way that the academy has seemed to change a little bit. I still think there's a bit of a struggle in what gets nominated. What's one, but if you look at the type of films that usually want to receive assive commercial successes, this huge crowd pleasers usually just the best of what the baby could bring to the table. I think they have seen, over the...

...last decade or so, even a little bit long, larger and larger interest in something a little more cinematic and also smaller films. Now this dis can be traced back to, you know, obviously extremely small budget films like the herd lock. You're winning and a suddenly your artist, you know, a silent film, are mostly sided, which is also one of my favorite best picture winners, actually getting that win despite being so different from what everyone else we're expecting or from a best picture film like I really do think, even though it's seen as such a safe and relative, more dull moving now afterage, one best picture like this was not made with these intentions at all, and it's just so daring to make a silent film in this era and do it just so well and it's so much love and it really just changed my expectations for what a best picture could be because of this. For me, when you make a silent film in Two Thousand and eleven, that has far more art house connotations that do think that seemed into the spot like more and more. I mean, we did see, and I didn't mention that feels like a more got nominated films like the Terrence Valley Three of life got nominated and then in two thousand, or at least for a ceremony, in two thousand and fourteen, bird man one, and I love bird man. I think that the way it shot, the way it seems like one singular take, which is, by the way, something we will do a podcast on in the their future, and the way it carries through, the intensity, just the incredible, incredible intensity that Michael Keaton brings that lead role. It's all really want his best performance, and the way it plays around with forms and expectations, the even place into surrealism like again. That's one of those things that I just would not have expected from a best picture film, even though any hall did some of these things long, long before, and they saw this even later with moonlight, which another one that wouldn't necessarily place amount the very best best picture winners, but it is such a visual film, it's so even a bit of a minimalist film, and I get not what I would have expected. And this care is all the way through to parasite winning last year. So I do think you've seen, even though films like Green Book, which is what you have expected from the s win still gets in there. I do think that there's more of a power struggle or a different type of demographic voting in now, and I think that would be like a really good thing to look at as a fause. To remark, I whole has decademy changed, and how do you expected to change in the future? And, as you mentioned a little bit in the opening, slight bit of psych on Lization to figure out why the voters have volted the way they do. I'm a really big fan of parasite and moonlight. For me, they're both within the top two films of their respective years. However, if I'm honest with myself, I think they won do two political reasons more than anything else. With moonlight, it was all on the back of the Hashtag Oscars, so white campaign, with no actors and actresses of color being nominated in two thousand and fourteen and two thousand and fifteen, which I had to break it to you, but there weren't that many great performance as anyway, which is probably a problem with casting and with the roles that are being offered in there. I, like will Smith, got a I think God and glow nomination for concussion, but that wasn't a very good performance. Happy didn't again Oscar nomination for there's a lot of centerment there for Hashtag Oscar so white. So I think moonlight winning was sort of inevitable because the voting body sort of wanted to show that they're being a bit more progressive. So it's a great film. I'm really happy that at one whether it would have won under different additions, I don't know. Our land had all the precursors in lights. Actually I think the only film since maybe brave heart that's actually one best picture without winning any of the precursors. Didn't Win The side Ensemble Award, it didn't win the ID DGI award, it didn't win the W Gi Award, didn't win the our Golden Globe except for picture drama. So I guess it's slightly different. But there's all these precursors that I didn't win and yet it's still managed to succeed. And when the Best Picture Oscar, which was really unusual, which plays in the politics, and when you get parasite, and I think that was also a lot of it. Of It was the sentiment against Screen Book Winnning Against Rama the funds. You quuron film, which...

...a lot of people liked and they really wanted to see foreign language film win. was also a lot of final get I think the distraction of credit girl with being overlooked and I having any filmo directors in the race. There was a great idea was to all maybe we'll actually have our foreign language film winnings winner. So I think a lot of that played into an if you look at the precursores there and the stuff like the one thousand nine hundred and seventeen one, the bafters won, the Golden Globes won the Dgi Award, won the PGA award. At all the precursores in there and I feel very sorry for Samndi's because Ding seventeen is an incredibly well done film and now it's got distinction of being one of I think it's like ten directors, maybe less. I've actually won the DGI award but even gone on to win the Oscar for best direct but I'm deflecting for a bit here, but look intervit where the Oscars going. He is to come. I think a lot of it were determined by politics and what films the general public want to see winning or don't want to see winning. I think it's going to determine it more than anything else. I think things like parasite winning and moonlight winning it's bit more of an outliin. I know it was pretty big thing when moonlight did end up winning, but then you had more conventional stuff like green book winning in the mean time. So yeah, I think it's up and down. I don't think we'll actually be seeing any trends nicely changing over the next few years. Well, honestly, I think that it's really quite strongly because even if politics stay a part of it, and it always always does, they could have picked far more conventional films to do it. Likes a green book, it's just not a completely it's well acted but fairly mediocre film in most regards, and it's still wanted one on the same kind of political buyers in terms of highlighting a film with race and racism. But if you look at state ten twenty years ago, it wouldn't even have to be nominated. You wouldn't have seen a smaller film like that get a shot and you would almost certain not that see parasite get nominated. So I think that there has been a pretty cool assertive already which start which there's always been a little element of this, but I think we've seen more and more films get at least get a shot, get their foot inside the door, like terrence of all legs. I keep going back to three of life getting them. You do see a shift that way. But I don't think, as they think, that as big as you could make it, because I do agree with all a lot of this is a lot of this does come down to politics, apparents as but I think the fact that some of these now great, you could say authorities as even get a chance at the Oscars is a really interesting development in itself. Well, I agree with Chris. I think that politics always play a part in the Oscars. Is just the nature of the beasts and there is an impact in what the Oscars do. So I don't personally mind that politics get into it. It's just that it's can be different kinds of politics. Sometimes it's into industry and sometimes it's maybe a broader thing regarding where the Oscars are going. Parasite is an interesting case. It's a film I really like, but I was not that happy to see it win best picture. Because to me it is it is the academy overstepping its bonds in that it is not. It's is the American film industry. And I am a litt bothered by the idea that the Oscars see themselves as the ultimate words body for the whole world and so that they can nominate whatever they want and have whatever they want win. And that's makes me a little uncomfortable, because if you have parasite winning best picture this year, that means that every other year an American film was just the best film of the year. That's just what we thought. I don't know, there's something uncomfortable for me with that, but I do agree with Chris that's the academy seems to be more open minded about the type of movies that get a shots. I think that's a very good point. Matthew, by having her site finally went after all these years, it's sort of does give that sort of like sense that are only finally had a foreign language film was good enough to be crowned the best. So I think there's a bit of an unfortunate side effect the thing. It's a good observation. You May I'm still happy that at one but it does sort of make you think. But then again, I don't know how seriously people tightly Oscars from decades and decades ago when you've got something like Tom Jones winning over eight and a half and contempt. I don't think people really take the lack of foreign language winners decades ago all that seriously. I don't actually mind, but I think your spot on the money there that that's the message of sending out.

This is the first for a film that actually was good enough to win, and you know you have, I think, if you count nominees before, there are about I don't have it in my head right now. I think it's like seven eight films, and know that. You know there was that was actually in for language that over the years did make it into the best picture category, many of them fairly recent. Obviously. They all were always nominated for best foreign film as well. They want that. Everybody knew they would win that, because even a really for best picture, I thinks only one singular exception the history of the Oscarware for a language film was nominated for Best Picture and didn't win best foreign film, which is with Hilarious. But I don't mind when it happens because I don't take those skirts that seriously. I do think that the great benefits of those screwl is, first and foremost, getting exposure to films, and when you have films like the artist and also films like parasite getting that win, it just means that they can have a much, much bigger reach. So that's what I'm first and foremost interesting, is how these films get pushed, and I also liked the idea that the game becomes more interesting and exciting. So I think that the messaging they're something is really bad, but that the outcome is good. What sort of message, then, doesn't send when the loco wins best director finally, in two thousand and nine? Is that also and send a negative message that there are no great films from Female Directors in the twenty century? I don't know, just something else to put out there? Well, in a way, yes, but I think it's mostly just because it all. Scars was always centered as the American show, so they selecting American industry films. It's always American industry films. I think if you look at women directing, there's always been dream extreme minority, especially in mainstream Hollywood cinema. You haven't seen that many women director get the chance to do those kinds of major films. I also do have a bit of a, let's say, a theory of why the academy has started to change, and I'm wanted to bring this, it's a relative article out, but then every people talk about the Oscars. This is more or less the article or the study that shows up which is from them. Take back in two thousand and fourteen, which showed that ninety four percent of the academy waters are White, seventy six percent of them are men and the average age is sixty three. Most of us would have expected that the average age to be quite high, but given how the academy is supposed to be the room for so many different professionals that are active, I think the fact that the average it is at essentially retirement, meaning that you though there's just so many people over sixty three, like how many percent are over eightyfferent instance. I think that when you see that kind of number and you see how old the water demographic is, I think a lot of the choices make a lot more sense. But also, and this is where it gets a little bit exciting for me, why I do have this bit of hope for the Academy going forward is that who we? Who are we seeing as these people who are in in o the s and s now, well, that are the more bore. The people were involved in what was essentially called New Hollwood, was involved in the explosion of a different type of cinema in the late S and S. I've mentioned you know, body and Clyde and with the breakout of how everything changed in late s and you see that, you know, these people are now the old people essentially in charge. So it makes complete sense to me that, if you know, it is the people who worked on and you know, we're young when tax driver came out, were young when bodying Clyde came up and worked on them. When you have these people with a slightly different sense of what cinema should be, then I guess the old the older. God it makes sense that ear with a much older demographic, that they would make the choices that they made here. And I think that as more and more of these people and up in the water position to get more more than these people in the academy will keep getting more and more interesting as well, at least for me personally. Well, I think what this comes back to is the idea that the point of the Oscars is to represent what the film industry feels like or what it thinks, and it can only achieve that if it's representative of the industry. Now, I don't know what the actual, I would average age of people working in Hollywood is, but yes, I would respect it is a bit lower than that. I think in general, the the goal should be for the academ need to be representative because again, that's that's all it's that's all it tripresents. I think it is a good idea that the academy is becoming more diverse and the membership and we're getting voters from a larger eye spectrum and ethnicity...

...or so voicing. I think they can only be a positive thing. But I don't know who necessarily have very different outcomes if we had a less inclusive, a less diverse range of voters in there. All them of film industry people. They all appreciate cinema. I don't know if necessarily make the big differences some people are proposing. Yeah, I think your relatively writers. Well, I do think that simply does. Expanding demographics won't necessarily make a big difference. I think we'll probably be a few different movies considered and that, even though the older guard at the Oscars probably more similar to my taste, now that those schools do tend to strain a little bit behind times as well as, if you know, we had a much younger voting group. Each time, you'll probably see some different films get the edge. But obviously no block is a monolith and I think the old dinner really changes as a few different films we get slightly different odds. That's about it. Well, I for one I'm hopeful that things are changing for the best in as far as you act the music concerned, even though I have some worries about this, the idea of wording and national firms, I do think generally this that this last decade has not been a bad one for the Oscars. Sol I'm looking forward to to what, whatever they do with this very strange year with so few films coming up. On that subject, about two thousand and twenty being a strange year. From what I've heard, the actual Oscar ceremony is being pushed back until April. In Two thousand and twenty one, probably more films will get out, but then what's happened for two thousand and twenty one play would twenty one's gone a few less months of films in there. So interesting that's pushing out of the circle. I'll probably prefer if they didn't and they just sort of accepted that they'll less films made in two thousand and twenty, just like in the s forty three didn't have a particularly large number of our films of the highest quality being made because of different things going on there. So interesting to see where they go from this in terms of being helped. A hopeful for the Oscars, I think they have chosen generally pretty solid winners over the last few years. I know for some of them it's more due to politics, but I've generally being quite happy with all of the Oscar winners of the last a fifteen years. I think they've all been pretty strong films. And what the strongest candidates? I thought they represented something going to good and filmmaking and I think they PD of me is continuing to highlight good films, maybe not the best films that are out there, but at least a something and it's some sort of reference point. I have no idea where the Oscars are headed, but I'm pretty sure I still won't be watching no matter what year it is. Like I said before, though, I'm just interested in the movies. So I hope it's not so much for the Oscars but just that, you know, some industries across the world can get back into production and start making good movies again. Yeah, I think I agree with Adam here that I'm not sure like it regards of how great the Oscars were to become ancture if I've ever become an active watcher. But you know, you can never really know. I think my main hope for for the Oscar future is that they continue down this path, releast stay on this path where they pick more films that are slightly smaller and need that extra push, because that really especially for selfish reasons, because that really helps me get to see them at the big screen. So I guess that that's my hope for a future of those scars, that that the academy nominates and a watch films that I can see them on the big screen. And on that note, it's been a really fun episode. Thank you all for listening and see you again soon. You have been listening to talking images, the official PODCAST OF ICM FORUMCOM.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (57)