Once again Oscars are disappointment
Campus Times
March 26, 1999
by Simon W. Bouie
Arts and Entertainment Editor
Now that the ballots have been passed out and the winners have thanked
the Academy and all of the little people, it is time for me to vent my post
Oscar frustrations.
Every year, I watch and hope with eager anticipation that the Academy
will get its picks right. Every year, I end up outraged and mad because
the movies and actors that deserved to win did not. This year was no different.
Let's start with my gripes. Gwyneth Paltrow was very good in "Shakespeare
in Love." However, Cate Blanchett was outstanding in "Elizabeth."
Blanchett took a powerful monarch and humanized her beyond the Elizabethan
myth. She made the Virgin Queen vulnerable, sympathetic and worthy of the
audiences' support.
Judi Dench was outstanding in "Shakespeare in Love" but, I
have a problem with giving an Oscar for an eight-minute performance. Dench
should have won last year for "Mrs. Brown," yet the mediocre Helen
Hunt won for the overrated "As Good As It Gets." Dench's victory
Sunday was makeup for the slight she received last year.
By apologizing to Dench, Kathy Bates was robbed for an outstanding performance
in what was the only redeeming portion of the sleepy "Primary Colors."
James Coburn's win for supporting actor in "Affliction" was
more of a lifetime achievement award than anything else, yet his performance
in the film for which he was nominated was good enough to win, so I can
live with the Academy's choice. Besides, he was "Our Man Flint,"
how can you deny him?
In the best acting category, Robin Williams -- oh excuse me, Roberto
Benigni -- was awarded for his performance in "Life is Beautiful."
However, if one has seen Benigni at any of the recent award shows, one knows
that Benigni basically played himself. So how much acting did he actually
do?
Edward Norton's portrayal of a skinhead in "American History X"
was some of the best acting I saw last year. He basically played three roles
in one film; wounded teen who loses his father, neo-Nazi who rebels against
society because of the loss of his father, and rehabilitated and healed
man who changes his ways in prison and regrets the mistakes of his past.
Norton would have been a better choice for best actor.
Now that we have reviewed the acting categories, lets look at some of
the other mistakes from the 71st Annual Academy Awards.
Best Picture was awarded to "Shakespeare in Love," which was
an entertaining movie. However, was it better than "Elizabeth?"
I think not. Was it better than "Life is Beautiful?" Assuredly
not. Was it better than "Saving Private Ryan?" NO, NO, NO, NO,
NO!
"Ryan" was robbed and thanks to Disney for giving Miramax
a big advertising budget to bombard the trades and basically buy an Oscar.
"Private Ryan" is the type of movie that will be watched 50
years from now, as a historical documentary.
"Willie in Lust" will be looked at five years from now as
the movie that won over "Private Ryan" and people will scratch
their heads and go huh?
I do not know why I still bother to watch the Oscars every year when
deserving movies are slighted. Last year, "Craptanic" beat the
wonderful "L.A. Confidential." If we go further back, we see that
"Forrest Gump" beat the exquisite "Shawshank Redemption."
Oh well, that is show biz and that is entertainment, regardless of how ridiculous
it may be.
Simon W. Bouie, a senior broadcast major, is arts and entertainment
editor of the Campus Times. He can be reached by e-mail at bouies@ulv.edu.
