Last week the nominees were announced for the Academy Awards. In the category for Best Picture, the following nominees were announced:
- “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
- “Frost/Nixon”
- “Milk”
- “The Reader”
- “Slumdog Millionaire”
Notably absent from the nominees was “The Dark Knight,” which currently stands as the 2nd highest grossing film of all time.
Some have argued “Milk” does not even deserve to be nominated. However, according to several sources, it was nominated merely because of it’s liberal (gay) propaganda. In fact, writers for Yahoo believe it could win Best Picture. Their reasoning: A retaliation at Proposition 8 and “Brokeback Mountain” losing to “Crash” for Best Picture in 2005.
In your opinion, what movie deserves to win Best Picture, and WHY should it win Best Picture? (Your answer does not have to include a Best Picture nominee)
Tags: Academy Awards, Best Picture, Frost/Nixon, Milk, nominees, Oscar, Slumdog Millionaire, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Dark Knight, The Reader
January 26th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Benjamin Button only because it’s the only one of them I have seen
January 27th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Slum dog millinoaire. It’s the best movie, barely edging out the wrestler.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Who’s arguing “Milk” shouldn’t even be nominated?
The 93% rating on the Tomatometer at Rotten Tomatoes, with 176 “Fresh” ratings, 14 “Rotten” ratings, and an average Rating of 8/10, would certainly would provide evidence to the contrary.
January 28th, 2009 at 7:17 am
Tyrone,
If that’s your grading scale, then Wall-E, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, and the Wrestler all have arguments to be nominated over Milk.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Benjamin Button was good, but i agree that Slum Dog Millionaire should win. I wish Dark Knight would have been nominated. An agregeous oversight. And kudos to your thoughts on “Milk”. You speak the truth.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:58 am
DavidJones,
I agree. They all have arguments to be nominated over Milk. I’m saying that anyone who believes that a film considered “Fresh” by 93% of critics is being nominated “merely because of its liberal (gay) propaganda” is ignoring evidence that it doesn’t find convenient.
If Milk had received approval from 60% of critics (like The Reader), I’d think there was something else afoot. But Milk was critically acclaimed across the board.
Assume The Dark Knight had been nominated. Using the logic of those opposed to Milk’s nomination, I could say the movie was nominated merely because Heath Ledger died and expect to be taken seriously. I’d be ignoring the fact that the film was widely acclaimed by virtually everyone. Personally, I thought the Dark Knight was the best film of the year. If someone had suggested to me that it’s Best Picture nomination (assuming it had been nominated) was merely due to Ledger’s death, I’d accuse them of ignoring all the evidence suggesting Ledger’s death had nothing to do with its nomination.
The theory that films with homosexual themes are nominated purely because of those homosexual themes is conspiratorial at best and homophobic at worst.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:08 am
My argument was not homophobic in the least bit. My argument was based on talking with people who have seen thefilm. From the opinions I heard, the prestige of the film seemed reminiscent of “There Will Be Blood” i.e. just like Daniel Day Lewis deserved to be nominated for Best Actor, the movie itself was probably not Oscar worthy. Yes, the film was artsy and many understand why it got nominated, but it probably was not one of the best 5 films of the year. In comparison, maybe Sean Penn does deserve to be nominated for “Milk,” but from the people I’ve talked to, the actual film is not Oscar worthy.
Personally, I have not seen the film nor do I plan to. It was actually Yahoo that reported the film might win because of Proposition 8 and the “Brokeback Mountain’s” loss. I was just reporting what a secular news source said.
But you can’t deny that fighting for gay rights is something Hollywood embraces and upholds. Just ask Brad Pitt and the all the money he’s donated to the cause.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:25 am
I wouldn’t deny that at all. Anyone who argues that Hollywood doesn’t have a progressive agenda is delusional, in my opinion.
But the logic that Yahoo! is using is very flawed. I’ll try to provide some better analogies using the 5 examples you provided:
Wall*E was nominated merely because it was a Pixar cartoon.
The Dark Knight was nominated merely because Heath Ledger died.
Iron Man was nominated merely because Robert Downey Jr. has recovered from drugs.
The Wrestler was nominated merely because Mickey Rourke’s story is heartening.
All of these arguments are fundamentally flawed because they both ignore all the evidence that suggests they are strong films regardless of these qualities, and ignore the fact that films with similar qualities don’t get nominated.
Also, I wasn’t necessarily saying your argument was homophobic. I was saying that such an argument is homophobic, at worst. Imagine if I was to suggest that Schindler’s List (96% on RT), one of the greatest movies of all time, was nominated merely because of its pro-Jewish propaganda. Wouldn’t you find it odd that I was ignoring all the brilliant things about the film? My argument would be conspiratorial at best and anti-Semetic at worst.
I should probably also mention that I don’t consider Rotten Tomatoes to be some kind of unquestionable authority regarding films. I just think it serves as a good reference tool for seeing how films were received. It also serves as good evidence to suggest that a film wasn’t nominated for some conspiratorial reason.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:35 am
I’d also submit as evidence the fact that no homosexually-themed movie has ever won Best Picture. I suppose an argument could be made for Midnight Cowboy to be, at least somewhat, homosexually themed, but even that would be a stretch.
When a homosexually-themed movie was the overwhelming favorite for Best Picture, it lost to Crash, a forgettable film trying to tackle the issue of race in Los Angeles.