LIFE WITHOUT OSCAR: 1997 and 1998

Posted by · 6:09 pm · December 7th, 2010

Catch up with the idea behind this series here.

Before James Cameron was making $3 billion grossing movies, he was stuck directing $2 billion grossing art films that won tons of Oscars. I remember seeing “Titanic” three times in the theater at the age of 15, trying to get Kelly Adams to make out with me. I loved that movie yet still I remember being disappointed that “Good Will Hunting” didn’t take the top prize and that Burt Reynolds came away empty handed as well. We’re never satisfied, are we?

Billy Crystal hosted and the result was the most watched telecast ever. And if you remember this show, you remember watching an endless segment introducing 70 previous winners. It was the worst.

1998 gave us the second biggest upset in the last twenty years, when “Shakespeare in Love” took the top prize from “Saving Private Ryan.” At the time, I was outraged, but now I’m more than happy to throw my weight behind the former as a better film. Of course, we all know “The Thin Red Line” is where it’s really at.

Roberto Benigni may go down in history as the only winner to stand on Spielberg’s chair after hearing his name. Say what you want about his performance, but he remains the only Best Actor winner in a foreign language film and that’s a fantastic achievement.

So what failed to excite the Academy?

1997 – “Taste of Cherry” (Abbas Kiarostami)

“Taste of Cherry” was my introduction to Kiarostami and was probably only usurped as his most famous title by “Certified Copy” earlier this year. A formalistic exercise in restraint, the story follows a man intent on killing himself as he searches for a stranger to assist him. He drives around Iran in a beat up jeep, picking up and engaging people from all types of background. He takes his time bringing up his motive, but it constantly lingers over every second of every scene. Think of it as “Goodbye Solo” without the magical negro cliché and estranged family subplots.

There are, in fact, no subplots and no clichés. Kiarostami isn’t interested in letting us know why our protagonist is at the end of his rope as much as he’s interested in the process of carrying out his actions. For the first twenty minutes, we’re not even sure what he’s up to at all and when he picks up a young soldier and begins driving him around, a number of dark ulterior motives begin to cross your mind. There’s a palpable sense of foreboding that Kiarostami effortlessly sets up without the help of any mood lighting, music or dialogue, but purely from subtle behavior and conversation.

He’s helped greatly by the strong lead performance of Homayoun Ershadi, who effectively conveys a depressed disposition without asking for sympathy. While it’s never clear why he wants to commit suicide, it eventually does become clear how he plans to do it and why it would involve another person. The very idea that he can’t do even this alone suggests what type of character he is and his need for connection. Nothing more needs to be said on the subject and towards the end of the film, when Ershadi is alone to reflect with his thoughts, Kiarostami has the decency to leave us to ours as well.

Much of the film takes place inside Ershadi’s jeep and between two men in conversation. The camera is almost always placed in the seat of either the driver or passenger, assuming the point of view of its occupant. The obvious effect is a feeling of immediacy in the conversation, but it also suggests a number of other things. Disconnect between the two men, suggested by a lack of shots where they appear together and a subjectivity on the part of the audience, who is constantly put in the shoes of one person or the other as they debate the merits of life and death. Kiarostami knows how to use these simple techniques extremely well and for the most part, he knows how to stay out of the way of the proceedings.

The part not covered by “for the most part” is the last few minutes of the film, which take a baffling turn for the reflexive. I still have no idea what Kiarostami is trying to accomplish with the sudden departure from the narrative and I even thought that maybe my DVD had malfunctioned. I don’t want to spoil it so it’s difficult to discuss, but while I can’t say I thought it was the right move, it certainly had me thinking. Unfortunately, like my critique of “Inception”‘s ending, it had me thinking about the director’s intentions more than his message.

1998 – “Meet Joe Black” (Martin Brest)

Tapley knew this was coming. Anytime someone asks me what my favorite movie of all time is, after quietly panicking and trying to deflect the question, I settle upon “Meet Joe Black.” Some might assume this is accompanied by a glance at the ground and a shuffling of my feet, but I’m proud of the fact that I am right about this movie and the vast majority of people are wrong. It’s incredible and the type of film that Hollywood doesn’t make anymore. Come to think of it, it might be the reason Hollywood doesn’t make its type anymore.

I should also mention that 1998 is my favorite year in cinema, period. Countless other titles could have made this column from “The Big Lebowski” to “Buffalo ’66” to “Kirikou and the Sorceress,” but in the end, I couldn’t resist the chance to write about this film, even though I imagine a good deal of the readers here will have already seen it. I was sixteen years old when I saw it at the dollar theater on a Navy base in Virginia Beach. I had heard it was boring and only went because it was a dollar and you could stay and see “A Bug’s Life” for free. Oh, and also because a girl I was hopelessly falling in love with asked me to go. Now, I’m not going to say that her resting her head on my shoulder midway through the film forever elevated it to the upper echelon of my favorite films, but I’m not going to say that it didn’t help either.

Because this is a movie about love, of which there are millions. Fitting because there are a million permutations of love and each person is likely to see it and experience it differently. “Meet Joe Black” somehow formed a mirror image to the way I saw it, or was beginning to see it. In a way, it’s almost an integral part to the development of my concept of love, which makes my recommendation of it in this column sort of a moot point as well. I don’t expect anyone else to have the reaction I did, and still do, when I see it. Luckily, I have no qualms about recommending it here because I also think it’s a fantastically made film that goes way beyond love to explore family, jealousy, legacy, life, death and the very meaning of existence.

Brad Pitt gives an underrated performance in my book and Claire Forlani gives one of the best star-making performances that never made a star, but this movie belongs to Anthony Hopkins. His patriarchal business tycoon is the heart and soul of the movie and requires him to project dignity, fear, authority, and eventually quiet resignation, all of which he nails. Marcia Gay Harden and Jeffrey Tambor also offer up great work in supporting roles, all of which are given the time to be fleshed out and milked for their maximum impact on the story.

Which is where the bulk of the complaints come from when discussing “Meet Joe Black” with non-believers. “It’s so long!” Theoretically I agree. No movie needs to be two hours and 58 minutes in my book, but I can guarantee that this one would never have made such an impression on me if it was a minute shorter. Pitt once described the way Martin Brest approached it as conducting a symphony; bringing up the string section a little here and then fading out for the horns over here. It’s a languid pace for sure, but to me, it never loses focus and each new instrument brought into the sound adds to the texture of the whole.

Now I’ve used up all my copy and didn’t even get a chance to mention Emmanuel Lubezki’s exquisite cinematography that has some of the best lighting I’ve ever seen and Thomas Newman’s elegant score which remains one of his finest. There’s more to say but I’ll leave it to the comments. Sharpen your daggers.

Oh and yes, the part where Brad Pitt gets hit by the car is awful.

Those are my picks. What do you guys think?

[Photo: Criterion Collection]
[Photo: Universal]




→ 48 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Filed in: Life Without Oscar

48 responses so far

  • 1 12-07-2010 at 6:45 pm

    Drew said...

    The 98 telecast when Titanic won was the first Oscar telecast I ever watched, at the age of ten. Not ashamed to say that my first kiss was while watching that movie when it came out.

    Anywho, back the oscar’s that year. In hindsight I think the movie I would’ve rooted for, if I had a greater knowledge of film as a ten year-old, would definitley have been L.A. Confidential. Though many would probably disagree.

  • 2 12-07-2010 at 6:45 pm

    RichardA said...

    Saving Private Ryan totally lost the Oscar in its last 5 minutes.

    Meet Joe Black was probably known it end credits track. Ha!

  • 3 12-07-2010 at 7:04 pm

    Christopher Keddy said...

    Wow… you just brought me back. I remember Titanic so well, cuz it was around the time I was starting to go to movies by myself instead of with my parents, and I was also trying to make out with a girl during Titanic, but was sick and ended up puking three times during the movie. I just remember that I ran out of gum and so I didn’t want to go back and sit with the girl I brought (who I was hoping to kiss before all the puking) so I ended up just leaving. Somewhere in my 15 year old mind ditching her was better than smelling like puke… though even thinking about it now I think it still might be the better plan.

    Anyway, yeah – there is a whole generation out there to whom Titanic represents the year of making out with girls. I must have got my real action that year with Seven Years in Tibet though because I don’t remember a damn thing about it.

  • 4 12-07-2010 at 7:09 pm

    Robert Hamer said...

    1997 (or 1998, if you want to be a dick about it) was my first time watching the Oscars too. Interestly, like Drew, I’m also an L.A. Confidential backer.

    As for Chad’s choices, I would totally be with him on Taste of Cherry if I wasn’t an eligibility snob, and I don’t think he should apologize for Meet Joe Black. Every interesting critic should be able to tell the vast majority that they’re wrong on a reviled film, like Nick Davis and Psycho (the remake), Roger Ebert and Knowing, Kris and The Lovely Bones, or Guy and your average Jennifer Aniston movie.

    Plus, anyone who says The Thin Red Line is better than Saving Private Ryan is automatically trustworthy in their viewpoints.

  • 5 12-07-2010 at 7:21 pm

    Chrisp said...

    1997 – Neil Jordan’s ‘The Butcher Boy’ for the Oscar snub. ‘Boogie Nights’ should have been nominated for Best Picture though. A travesty!

    1998
    My 5 Best Picture picks:
    1. ‘Rushmore’ – 0 noms! (should have won Best Picture)
    2. ‘Bulworth’ – 1 nom
    3. ‘Happinees’ – 0 noms!
    4. ‘Central Station’ – 2 noms
    5. ‘The Thin Red Line’ – 7 noms! (no wins at all? Damn you ‘Ryan’!)

  • 6 12-07-2010 at 7:25 pm

    RJL said...

    1997: (nothing)
    1998: Waking Ned Devine

  • 7 12-07-2010 at 7:40 pm

    James D. said...

    Never would have expected Meet Joe Black. I remember walking out. Then again, I was only ten years old, so maybe I should see it again.

  • 8 12-07-2010 at 7:49 pm

    /3rtfu11 said...

    Eve’s Bayou (1997) The 1997 Oscars had the worst lineup of actual winners I can think of ever. With the exception of Kim Basinger’s BSA win I wasn’t pleased with anyone who took it home.

    Beloved (1998) – I don’t give a damn if it earned a costume nomination. It’s earning a special mention by me.

  • 9 12-07-2010 at 8:04 pm

    DylanS said...

    I can’t help but agree. Duvall should have easily beaten Nicholson, if not him, then Peter Fonda in “Ulee’s Gold” should have still beaten Jack. I would relucantly agree with Helen Hunt’s win, but only because her competition was sooo weak. Robin Williams and Basinger were both deserving though.

  • 10 12-07-2010 at 8:13 pm

    Andrew Rech said...

    97. Happy Together. You know I’d probably rank this just below In the Mood for Love in Wong Kar-Wai’s filmography, it’s just a total masterpiece. I would have given Leslie Cheung and Tony Leung a joint Oscar that year, just peerless work. The tango scene, the tape recorder, there are just so many individual moments that are permanently burnt into my mind.

    Sadly I haven’t seen Taste of Cherry yet, close to the top of my Netflix queue though. Count me as another Rushmore champion for 98 though.

  • 11 12-07-2010 at 8:22 pm

    ScottC said...

    Very interesting. I remember liking Meet Joe Black and being a bit surprised at the lumps it took, but I haven’t given the movie a thought in quite some time. I should revisit it. Though personally I’d pick Rushmore for ’98.

    And I disagree with DylanS – as to ’97, I thought Helena Bonham Carter’s work in Wings of the Dove was vastly superior to Helen Hunt’s.

  • 12 12-07-2010 at 8:35 pm

    Ibad said...

    I hate Taste of Cherry. Hate hate hate hate hate it. There may have been formalistic restraints but the whole thing wreaked desperately of trying so so hard to be “philosophical” and/or “deep.” That ending is perfectly indicative of this self-congratulation and absorption I’m referring to that was evident all throughout the film. I didn’t exactly enjoy watching Close-Up but at least the cinematic techniques utilized there were original and the substance thought provoking. Every step of the way, though, Cherry was wholly obvious, predictable, self-conscious, condescending — pure pretension, really.

    Top 3 of ’97:
    1. Boogie Nights
    2. Jackie Brown
    3. The Ice Storm

    Top 3 of ’98:
    1. The Thin Red Line
    2. Saving Private Ryan
    3. The Big Lebowski

  • 13 12-07-2010 at 8:48 pm

    Jack said...

    Wow Chad. I never thought I would agree with you, but I, too, think Meet Joe Black is a fantastic film. The score by Thomas Newman is truly one of my all-time favorites.

  • 14 12-07-2010 at 8:59 pm

    Keil Shults said...

    Keeping in mind that this is to recognize films that received NO nominations…

    1997: Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control

    1998: Rushmore (I love Lebowski too, but it’s really bizarre that this failed to garner even a screenplay nod, especially since it actually had some awards buzz going into the Oscar nom announcement that year)

  • 15 12-07-2010 at 9:02 pm

    Lucky Bojangles said...

    I too am a lover of Meet Joe Black. There should be no qualm made about it’s length. The romance was heightened, the story was damn near unrealistic and the situations forced, but on that level, the screenplay/writing level, it’s on par with many old-Hollywood romances: Casablanca not withstanding. Not on a great list for me, just a good example of Hollywood enjoyment. Joyously infectious.

    1997 – I’m surprised by the lack of Egoyan love.
    1. L.A. Confidential
    2. The Sweet Hereafter
    3. Boogie Nights
    4. Good Will Hunting
    5. Amistad

    1998 – Saving Private Ryan = a good example of a bad script being excellently directed. I’m a fan, but it’s too cliched to match up to other great films of that year.

    1. The Thin Red Line
    2. Shakespeare in Love
    3. Life is Beautiful
    4. The Truman Show
    5. Out of Sight

  • 16 12-07-2010 at 9:06 pm

    Hans said...

    First time I saw Meet Joe Black was on TV, and I missed the impact of the car crash scene because of an awkward commercial break cut. But everything else I saw was wonderful and I’m always happy to sit down and catch it whenever it’s on TV.

  • 17 12-07-2010 at 9:24 pm

    Ben said...

    I love Meet Joe Black

  • 18 12-07-2010 at 11:17 pm

    Guy Lodge said...

    The Ice Storm was robbed of at least 12 nominations in the ’97 race. I’d have settled for one, for crying out loud.

    I remember seeing Meet Joe Black on a date. I liked the production design. That I was paying attention to such things probably isn’t a ringing endorsement of that date.

  • 19 12-08-2010 at 2:25 am

    Rashad said...

    1997 – Gattaca, Jackie Brown, The Devil’s Advocate

    1998 – Belly (yes!), love You’ve Got Mail too

    Saving Private Ryan robbery has been done to death, but it needs to be said again

  • 20 12-08-2010 at 2:29 am

    Chris said...

    My picks would have been “Grosse Point Blank” for 1997, and “Fucking Amal” for 1998 if it was eligible that year.

    I can’t really remember “Grosse Point Blank” though. I first saw it in 2000 or 2001 and might exaggerate its charms, because back then I thought John Cusack was kind of cool.

  • 21 12-08-2010 at 3:13 am

    Glenn said...

    Rashad, I tend to think “You’ve Got Mail” is the last great traditional romantic comedy. Times have changed and now they’ve gotta be indie/edgy or shrill. I adore that movie something chronic. It’s one of my grumpy films, the kind I can watch to lift my spirits or if I’m sick.

    Haven’t seen “Meet Joe Black”, but now I want to. I love write-ups of these sort of movies. I’d rather read 1 of those, deeply personal feelings about lesser-hailed movies, than 100 reviews for “Harry Potter 7”.

  • 22 12-08-2010 at 4:20 am

    Rashad said...

    Definitely agreed. I hate how vulgar everything has to be these days.The indie “quirk” films bother a lot too; just come off whiny and pretentious. That film was simple, yet charming. It also it a perfect example of updating a story for modern times.

  • 23 12-08-2010 at 4:25 am

    julian said...

    so roberto benigni winning best actor was “a fantastic achievement”!? WTF?
    The only reason he won was the fact that AMPAS were manipulated by this atrocity of a film and felt oh so good about giving an award to an endearing, goofy foreigner! The worst scandal in oscar history, if you ask me (even though that crappy argentinian film winning over two of the best films in recent history; Hanekes Das Weisse Band and Audiards Un Prophete, runs it a close second…)

  • 24 12-08-2010 at 4:37 am

    Lance said...

    I totally agree with you Guy about The Ice Storm – what a great movie!!!

  • 25 12-08-2010 at 4:39 am

    Loyal said...

    We’re all allowed one guilty pleasure film I guess but man, Meet Joe Black is guiltier than most.

    You’re full of surprises Hartigan.

  • 26 12-08-2010 at 4:54 am

    BulgingThrobbingShroom said...

    Saving Private Ryan has already proven itself to be the most lasting achievement – and the strength of that film only grows with time. Not only is it better than other films combined, it is the film that has changed the world.

    And you cannot argue with the reception it got from the veterans without looking like a dumbass.

  • 27 12-08-2010 at 6:44 am

    Kiel said...

    Jodie Foster should have won best actress for Contact in 1997. What an incredible performance.

    Pleasantville remains one of the most under-rated films in history.

  • 28 12-08-2010 at 7:06 am

    JJ1 said...

    1997 – Ice Storm.
    1998 – You’ve Got Mail. I agree, one of the last great traditional rom/coms that was really affecting; and not stupid or lamebrain or slapstick. I love it something chronic, too. haha

  • 29 12-08-2010 at 7:07 am

    Jeffrey said...

    I too remember the first time I watched Meet Joe Black fondly. I stayed up late. My parents had gone to sleep and I wasn’t supposed to watch it without them. Years later, I appreciated the lighting and the intense drama, but at first it was all about the sex scene — Brad Pitt’s eyes, Brad Pitt’s streaks, and Brad Pitt’s buttocks. Oh yes — and his character’s obsession with peanut butter. What?

  • 30 12-08-2010 at 7:36 am

    Devin said...

    1997 was the year of one of my top ten greatest films ever, Atom Egoyan’s The Sweet Hereafter. All the stink at the Oscars that year concerned Leo not getting nominated for Titanic. Phooey! If you wanna talk about real snubs, Sir Ian Holm gave one of the most well rounded and amazing performances ever in The Sweet Hereafter. There’s the real snub.
    As for Meet Joe Black, defend it all you want, but it was incredibly boring. Then again, I’ve loved my share of critically hated films as well (with all apologies to the late Gene Siskel who picked it as the worst film of the year, I still laugh at Drop Dead Fred).

  • 31 12-08-2010 at 7:38 am

    Devin said...

    and Kiel is right….Pleasantville is amazing.

  • 32 12-08-2010 at 8:34 am

    Keil Shults said...

    Wow, I really did not remember that The Ice Storm failed to garner a single nomination. As much as I love my prior choice, Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control, The Ice Storm actually had a better chance at multiple Oscar noms, and should have earned at least a few.

    MOST UNFORTUNATE OSCAR SNUBS (Revised)

    1997:

    The Ice Storm
    Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control

    1998:

    Rushmore
    The Big Lebowski
    Hands on a Hard Body (think it would have been eligible in 1998, otherwise 1997)

    *Side Note: I forgot to mention this film in last week’s column, but another underrated, overlooked gem from 1996 is Steve Buscemi’s Trees Lounge.

  • 33 12-08-2010 at 8:45 am

    Keil Shults said...

    And because people are just listing their favorites, I’ll do the same.

    Favorites (some of which DID get nominated):

    1997:

    1) Boogie Nights
    2) The Sweet Hereafter
    3) L.A. Confidential

    Runners-Up (alphabetical):

    Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control
    Good Will Hunting
    Hard Eight
    The Ice Storm
    In the Company of Men
    Jackie Brown
    Titanic

    1998:

    1) The Truman Show
    2) Rushmore
    3) The Thin Red Line
    4) Saving Private Ryan
    5) Out of Sight
    6) Hands on a Hard Body
    7) There’s Something About Mary
    8) Happiness

    Don’t hold me to any of this.

  • 34 12-08-2010 at 9:01 am

    Zac said...

    I missed last week’s column so here’s my picks for 1995-1998:

    1995: Heat. How the hell did the Academy miss this one? A modern crime classic with one of the best casts ever assembled. The line between cop and crook has never been so fuzzy before. Switch the badge and gun and you probably couldn’t tell the difference. To me, this is vintage DeNiro before he started doing the broad comedies and silly dramas. 15 years later, the bank shootout remains a primer on how to do a action scene.

    1996: For some reason when coming up with a #1 movie for each year that I’ve been alive, this is the only year that an obvious #1 doesn’t jump to mind. I don’t know why, but I can never settle on one definitive pick. For non-nominated, I would go with Bound. The Wachowski’s debut shows why they were picked to helm The Matrix 3 years later. The sex scene between Gina and Jennifer is still one of the most erotic I’ve seen in the movies.

    1997: The Ice Storm. I had no idea what this movie was about, only that Ang Lee had directed it. Terrific performances from Kline, Allen, Weaver, Maguire and Ricci. A devastating portray of life in the 1970’s.

    1998: The Big Lebowski. This was one movie that I saw by myself on opening weekend and bugged my family and friends for weeks to see it with me. Only a few took me up on it and the result is one of the funniest movies I’ve ever seen. In a career filled with great and Oscar winning performances, Jeff Bridges was never better than here. John Goodman and Steve Buscemi complement him perfectly.

  • 35 12-08-2010 at 9:09 am

    Erik said...

    Chad, you said Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan was the second biggest upset in the last 20 years. What’s the biggest?

  • 36 12-08-2010 at 9:17 am

    sosgemini said...

    97- Eve’s Bayou

    Not only the best film of the year but it has the best performance of the year by Debbie Morgan.

  • 37 12-08-2010 at 10:05 am

    Pope said...

    Ahhh, 1997. The first Oscar show I ever watched (primarily because of Titanic). I remember seeing this at 7 yrs old with my mom after weeks of begging her to take me. Irony is when the ship started sinking my fear of drowning kicked in, I got terrified and asked her to leave. She refused. Glad I didn’t leave though because it was quite an experience. I love LA Confidential but I remain in the minority who think between these two films, the right one won. Sentiment I presume.

    But ummm, for 1997, Gummo. I’m not sure this is the year it came out and I’m not really sure what it could have been nom’d for but I love this movie. For 98, The Big Lebowski. My favorite Coen movie ever. Not sure what this could have been nom’d for either. Actually, Rushmore probably had a better chance at some nominations. Man, what a year that 1998. Questionable decisions galore.

  • 38 12-08-2010 at 10:15 am

    AdamL said...

    “Saving Private Ryan has already proven itself to be the most lasting achievement – and the strength of that film only grows with time. Not only is it better than other films combined, it is the film that has changed the world.”

    Er, no. In fact er, hell no. This is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever read. How did it change the world.

    I cannot conceive how anyone can possibly thing it is a more accomplished film than Shakespeare in Love. You may have enjoyed it more, but in every possible reagrd (with the possible exception of directing, but even here I disagree because of the appalling bookends) Shakespeare in Love is VASTLY superior.

  • 39 12-08-2010 at 10:27 am

    Movie_Dearest said...

    My first Oscar show was when I was 10 too, but it was 1978 … God, I feel old.

  • 40 12-08-2010 at 10:31 am

    Fitz said...

    “Vastly superior”? The film has been buried ever since its win.

  • 41 12-08-2010 at 10:34 am

    evelyn garver said...

    Chad, the problem with MEET JOE BLACK lies in the conception of the character of death personified. Death would know everything and be arch and wise. This film’s conception of death is akin to the naifs of films like BEING THERE and even RAIN MAN. I’m sorry to say it was just silly. As one critic [I honestly can’t remember who] put it, Alan Rickman might be death, but not Brad Pitt.

  • 42 12-08-2010 at 11:03 am

    Chad Hartigan said...

    Death is an abstract concept that can be whatever the filmmakers want it to be as long as they are committed and consistent.

  • 43 12-08-2010 at 11:27 am

    Keil Shults said...

    I suppose I should finally get around to seeing Meet Joe Black, though I doubt I’ll like it anywhere near as much as you did.

    Mighty Joe Young, on the other hand…

  • 44 12-08-2010 at 11:34 am

    Keil Shults said...

    AdamL had a decent point about Saving Private Ryan not necessarily changing the world, but then he rendered all his past and future points moot with his ‘Shakespeare’ lovefest.

    This is why we should all take a step back from the dueling war films and the Best Picture winner to succumb, once and for all, to the eternal glories, eerie prophecies, ingenious conception, and impeccable execution of The Truman Show.

  • 45 12-08-2010 at 12:39 pm

    Ivan said...

    98 was a great year for foreign films…
    Festen the Celebration
    The Dream Life of Angels
    Central Station
    Run Lola Run
    Martin Hache
    Lovers of the Arctic Circle
    Head On
    Rosie
    West Beyruth
    The Roses Seller
    Eternity and a Day
    Don’t Tell Anyone

  • 46 12-08-2010 at 4:00 pm

    Jeremy said...

    Erik: I assume Chad’s referring to “Brokeback Mountain” losing to “Crash” in 2005. May that decision live in infamy.

    For 1997, I’ll go with “Dark City”, with honorable mention for “Chasing Amy”, “The Ice Storm,” and “The Spanish Prisoner”.

    For ’98, I’ll take “Show Me Love”, with “Ronin” as a backup.

  • 47 12-04-2011 at 10:27 pm

    Marta said...

    I still am not over Eve’s Bayou being completely snubbed in 1997. I lost complete respect for “The Academy” then. Their omission was shamelessly racially-based and unforgivable. They should have a category each year for “We made a huge mistake some years ago” to atone for their sins. As foolish as it is, I still refuse to see some of the 1997 Oscar winning movies because I am still outraged by the Eve’s Bayou massacre.