Archive for February 7th, 2010
Sunday, February 7th, 2010
What makes a film a ‘Best Picture’?
Described as the most important of the Oscars, Best Picture always seems to be the most contoversial - probably because it’s the vaguest in terms of what it actually is. And this year’s selection is certainly a mixed (as well as much larger) bag.
So what does ‘Best Picture’ mean to you? When discussing with friends, I blithely claimed ‘You shouldn’t be up for Best Picture if you’re not up for Best Original/Adapted Screenplay’ which is, of course, mostly bollocks …Mostly (see how I steered the conversation round to James Cameron there?)
In terms of Avatar, there hasn’t been a Best Picture nominee not to receive a Screenplay nomination since, oh, Titanic. The James Cameron conspiracy continues 
But Titanic wasn’t the first. Star Wars was nominated for Best Picture without a screenplay nom but lost out to Annie Hall (which then went on to win both). But I don’t understand how you can compare Woody Allen and George Lucas (beyond arguing that both their earlier work was better) for making the film of the year.
It’s curious that they’ve taken the number of nominees back up to 10. While it’s nice for certain films to be acknowledged, should you be nominated if you haven’t really got a chance of winning? (But then do the Oscars actually mean much beyond the personal choices of the Academy and possibly a bit of Hollywood politics?)
So is Best Picture the film that’s better than the sum of its parts? The film the Academy wants to be remembered for choosing? An award for taking film in a new direction or against the trends of the last few years? I’d say it can be all of those things. But is that varied message why we sometimes think, in past years, that the Academy clearly got it ‘wrong’?
And who do you want to see win Best Picture 2010? And what the hell makes it ‘Best Picture’ anyway?
