FrieAaron wrote:thomchatt3rton wrote:FrieAaron wrote:
This sounds more like you have some unreasonable expectations. What do you consider "getting it wrong?" If their pick for BP doesn't exactly match up with yours? They almost always award something that's at least good.
You're right: I
do have unrealistic expectations, and they
do usually pick a movie that can be described as "at least good".
I kid. But look up each years best picture, and compare it with a list of other notable movies that came out that year. How often do they get the one that stands the test of time?
Of course this is true, but look at it this way: The list of nominees *alone* is over 5 times as large as the list of winners, and the list of every other movie that year is over 100 times bigger. Something like "Ordinary People" may not be as thought of as "Raging Bull" today but it's still a very good movie.
What you're arguing is that a great movie can't be identified as great until years later. There's a small amount of truth to that, but it ought not to be taken too far.
I would argue that critics
knew, even in 1980, that Raging Bull was better than Ordinary People. It was specifically the academy that didn't know.
I haven't looked into this, but I bet if you measured critics average scores for movies, they would outperform the academy for what stands the test of time (and standing the test of time is the ONLY objective measure for a work of art).
Also, I wonder how the Palme D'Or fares vs the Oscar for standing the test of time. I'd bet on Cannes. I do know they're willing to take more risks, which is the primary flaw in the Academy's thinking, imo.
