In Contention

Tag: Richard Attenborough

  • Attenborough: Oscar got it wrong

    As awards geeks, bitching about the Academy’s supposed mistakes is pretty much our favourite sport. The question of who should and shouldn’t have won provides endless material for discussion — frequently on these pages.

    One of the titles that comes up often in the “shouldn’t have won” category is Richard Attenborough’s “Gandhi,” that well-mounted, well-acted and thoroughly indigestible biopic that managed to beat such more-beloved nominees as “Tootsie” and “E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial.” It was an unpopular choice even at the time. After the ceremony, NYT critic Vincent Canby famously wrote: “”E.T.” and “Tootsie” are films. “Gandhi” is a laboriously illustrated textbook.”

    Interestingly, Lord Attenborough, of all people, agrees. In a recent interview with BBC Radio Five, he admits that “E.T.” was robbed, being “an infinitely more creative and fundamental piece of cinema” than his own winning film. Attenborough continues:

    [Business partner] Diana and I went to see “E.T.” in Los Angeles shortly before all the awards and we used language, when we came out, to the extent of saying ‘we have no chance – “E.T.” should and will walk away with it’.

    Without the initial premise of Mahatma Gandhi, the film (“Gandhi”) would be nothing. Therefore it’s a narrative film but it’s a piece of narration rather than a piece of cinema, as such. “E.T.” depended absolutely on the concept of cinema and I think that Steven Spielberg, who I’m very fond of, is a genius. I think “E.T.” is a quite extraordinary piece of cinema.

    I couldn’t have said it any better myself. I’ve never been a fan of Attenborough as a filmmaker (“Shadowlands” excepted), but he sure is a classy guy. There are a lot of undeserving Oscar winners out there who must know they got lucky, but few of them have the guts to come right out and say so.

    Anyone else want to come forward? Kevin Costner? Gwyneth Paltrow? John G. Avildsen? Anyone?

  • Actors winning Best Director — always deserved?

    Of course not. Quite often the Academy gets behind an actor for the simple reason they pulled of the film without screwing too much up.

    How else can one explain Mel Gibson’s win for “Braveheart” but failure to be nominated for his masterpiece “The Passion of the Christ” and “Apocalypto,” easily two of the finest directed films of the last ten years? Somewhere along the road, the Academy fell in love with actors who try their hand at directing (unless your name is Sean Penn or Barbara Streisand) and began giving away Oscars, quite often over more deserving directors.

    Poor Martin Scorsese has watched actors win the Best Director prize over his work three times. In 1980, of course, Robert Redford won for his drama “Ordinary People” over Scorsese’s searing “Raging Bull,” while ten years later Kevin Costner won the Oscar for “Dances with Wolves,” besting Scorsese for “Goodfellas.” But hey — this is the Academy…right? Clint Eastwood also bested Scorsese’s “The Aviator” in 2004 with a win for “Million Dollar Baby.”

    One year after Redford won his Academy Award for Best Director, Warren Beatty took home the award, much deserved for his criminally under-appreciated epic “Reds.” But he would watch in shock as “Chariots of Fire” ran to the Best Picture award over his film. The following year, a minor British actor, Richard Attenborough directed “Gandhi,” which the Academy fell in love with, honoring the achievements of the film’s subject rather than the effort itself, which even at the time seemed old-fashioned and rather ordinary. Attenborough himself, on the way to accept the Directors Guild Award for the film, stopped to chat with Steven Spielberg to make clear what everyone in the room seemed to know: that Spielberg should have won the award for “E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial!”

    (more…)