It is very subjective to define 'best', some movie which I don't like can be ultimate for you and some movie which the whole world likes can be poor for some one. The 'best' film is decided by the jury, a team comprising of some jurists and what they feel is good is chosen as the best.
I don't quite understand the point this article is trying to make. At one hand, it says that academy award should move in a direction which is not tried and tested one and at the end it provides us the same solution! Ironically, last year itself academy deviated from the tested formula and gave 13 awards to a mythical film. If you know the history of the Oscars, no mega myth-based films get any major awards- be it Star Wars, Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, X-men, MIB..no one. And then LOTR begged 11 awards all because of the superb execution in all departments. Was it not a deviation? Talking about "The Aviator" - this film was released keeping Oscar in mind! Otherwise, you wouldn't see any such movies getting release in the week of Christmas (last week of the year). Aviator wouldn't come even close to Million Dollar Baby as we know how seriously Eastwood takes acting (remember mystic river, unforgiven?). And saying that Freeman was just acting like a routine performer in the film will be something very denigrating to an actor of such caliber. I, although, agree that Eastwood could have been an option for the best actor but I am okay with Foxx as well.
Raja - Every critic has an opinion of his own, I guess, but I could not believe some of the things you wrote in your article. Unfortunately, a lot of critics do precisely that - criticize without actually knowing the craft of acting. I am surmising that you belong to that category, simply because I find it unfathomable that a person with an iota of knowledge about acting, drama and characterization, can make such horrendous conclusions. Have you even seen Ray? (Quite obviously you have seen the movie, but I mean Ray Charles, not Ray the movie) ... Jamie Foxx became Ray Charles. For anyone who has studied acting, they will tell you that each actor lends a slight bit of his/her own persona to the character. To completely become lost in a character that is historic, is legendary, and perfect to the extent that it wins praises from the character's family themselves - requires unbelievable amount of talent and dedication. I am sure any other year would have been DiCaprio's, but not this one. Foxx's was a performance that will be cherished in the Hall of Fame. Your conslusion about Freeman and Swank made me want to smack you over the head - what a peurile, juvenile and moronic article!
I am sorry sir, whoever you are! It seems that either you are under/not at all qualified to give your opinion on this topic or that you are simply suffering from what I call a bad taste/poor judgement phenomenon! To say that Hilary Swank was the least deserving of all the nominees is a rather rash comment. Have you seen the movie, sir? Her's was one of the most knock out performances I have ever seen.. The efforts she made for this role are very very evident in the movie. I am a big fan of Kate Winslet and Annette Bening... so I wouldnt have minded if either of them had won.. but we are talking comparisons here and Hilary was definitely deserving. While I agree with your opinion over Morgan Freeman, I dont think there was anything wrong with the other awards. It was a very very close race and the fact that one of them wins doesnt mean at all that the others nominated werent worthy of the award. This coming from a person who belongs to a country where the film awards are given not based on the talent of the artiste, but on their popularity.. eg. Rani Mukherjee getting the award over Shilpa Shetty's moving performance in Phir Milenge?... Nonsense!
What makes you think that what you are talking about are the best movies? U talk about the Academy not being fair and in the same breath lament the decision not to award Martin Scorcese on the basis of the fact that he never won an Oscar before. Why should that be an criterion? Anyone who's seen Aviator will tell you it's a veru hollow, Hollywoodish account of the Hero of the skies. Million Dollar Baby, on the other hand was a much, much better movie.
And similarly, U talk about nominating Clint Eastwood for an acting basis. Well, I can understand, he was nominated for and won the Best Director award, which I personally feel he quite deserved....but an Acting Nomination was asking for a bit too much.
Even I personally dont feel that all the deserved people get their awards at the Oscars every year but then I can sit and point out a hundred discrepencies in ur argument which suggests u r more biased and sentimental than the Academy has ever been, but arguing against it for all the wrong reasons.
Raja Sen talked in the article as if he knew everything correctly and Acedamy was just some bunch of idiots not knowing how to do their job. Academy is made of human beings and they will make decisions that differ from many of us but that does not mean that they are wrong, how else would they make it to the panel?
I would be really interested to see Raja Sen's take on the Filmfare awards in India.
Raja Sen obviously has his own list of favorites and believes that the they are the ones deserving of having received the Oscars. But he forgets that choice is always subjective and the Oscar jury have cast their votes based on what they thought were the best of the year. The fact that this year's Oscars were unpredictable simply goes on to prove that a whole lot of other juries are in line with what the Oscar jury thinks. Raja thinking differently does not make his choice of winners any superior.
What the author said here is really true. Scorcese never winning an oscar is really perplexing(Welcome to my club, says Peter 'o' Toole). Imelda Staunton should have really been the deserving winner this year(Too british ?). Aviator was more complete a movie than Million dollar baby for the best picture statuette. Well as usual it's all about glamour and hype rather than the worthiest performance.
Raja Sen is wrong when he says that Lagaan was hyped and did'nt stand a chance against No Man's Land, which again smirks of preference to "serious" cinema than to "entertaining" cinema. Just like the Oscars which tend to ignore the controversial or violent films. For example Uma Thurman's performance was ignored this year as well as the previous year for the two parts of Kill Bill just because it showed her slashing bodies all around and Diane Keaton gets a nomination for a role she must have played many a times before. Oscars have become a joke just like our Filmfare awards.
