【时代周刊 20130220】十大最有争议的奥斯卡最佳影片

满仓

【中文标题】十大最有争议的奥斯卡最佳影片
【原文标题】Oscar Robbery: 10 Controversial Best-Picture Races
【登载媒体】时代周刊
【原文作者】Gary Susman
【原文链接】http://entertainment.time.com/2013/02/20/oscar-robbery-10-controversial-best-picture-races/


最好的影片肯定会获胜吗？下面是奥斯卡历史上最激烈的最佳影片奖争夺。



必须承认，追随奥斯卡的部分乐趣在于，当你看到一部不值一哂的影片竟然会获奖时所迸发出的愤怒和委屈。当然，我们知道奥斯卡的评判标准不仅仅是受众的感觉，评委会投票的背景因素相当复杂。探求获胜的真正原因是痛苦的过程，因为它们不仅包含美学因素，还包含更多的问题——产业发展的趋势、媒体的创新和国家的情绪。

今年也是如此，《林肯》、《猎杀本拉登》和《被解放的迪亚戈》等影片都引发了针对历史、种族、痛苦和历史的争论。所以《逃离德黑兰》或许会更加吸引眼球，不仅仅因为好莱坞偏爱“回归的大男孩”本•阿弗莱克，还因为在所有提名中，这是一部引起最少政治争议的影片。多年来，无数次具有争议的最佳影片角逐过程给今年的奖项提供了一些借鉴。下面介绍了一些埋伏在评选过程中的危机，夺奖影片获胜的原因，以及经过历史证明，我们是否要重新投票。


1942年：《公民凯恩》和《青山翠谷》



《青山翠谷》是一部无可挑剔的影片，讲述了一个家庭几代人的悲欢离合，似乎是为奥斯卡量身打造。再也没有人比得上奥逊•威尔斯对这部影片的导演约翰•福特五体投地的崇拜了，但是，正是威尔斯自己在1942年用电影历史上最大胆的首次演出，向这个被他称为奥斯卡至尊的偶像发起了强有力的挑战。相比于福特的多愁善感的叙事影片，历史对《公民凯恩》更加慷慨，作为历史上最伟大的影片，它长期占据了各媒体的评论版面。在当时看来，威尔斯似乎有幸赢得所有奥斯卡奖项。媒体大亨威廉•伦道夫•赫斯特对《公民凯恩》毫不掩饰地以他为原型的行为深恶痛绝，威尔斯的影片被剧院禁映，赫斯特的报纸上也没有只字片语。

《公民凯恩》得到了9项奥斯卡提名，但只赢得了最佳原创剧本奖（赫尔曼•曼凯维奇与从未得到过提名的威尔斯分享了这一奖项）。最佳影片、最佳导演、最佳黑白摄影和最佳黑白艺术指导奖都输给了《青山翠谷》（尽管格雷格•托兰德表现出创造性的摄影技巧）。威尔斯把最佳男主角的奖项输给了《约克军曹》的加里•库柏，这部影片还从《公民凯恩》手中夺走了最佳剪辑（尽管罗伯特•怀斯用令人目眩的手法讲述了一个非时间性的故事）。至少《公民凯恩》的作曲家伯纳德•荷曼输给了他自己在《黑夜煞星》中的表现。


1953年，《正午》和《戏王之王》



奥斯卡学者长期以来把《戏王之王》称作最糟糕的最佳影片。这样的评论不算百分之百公平，塞西尔•戴米尔的马戏团史诗剧在愚蠢的名声（尤其是吉米•斯图尔特客串逃跑小丑的情节）以外，也有让戴米尔名声大噪的壮观场景，包括震惊的火车出轨镜头，对年轻的斯蒂芬•斯皮尔伯格产生了巨大的影响。但无论如何，它与《正午》无法相提并论。这不但是一部有史以来最伟大的西部片，而且还对当时麦卡锡反共产主义偏执狂提出了寓言性的警告。

而这就是造成它悲惨命运的原因。影片的编剧卡尔•福尔曼是好莱坞十君子（这些目击者因拒绝在众议院非美国行动委员会前透露演艺圈中共产主义者的姓名而遭到监禁）之一。在好莱坞最黑暗的时期，即使最忠诚的保守派加里•库柏也被迫在影片中表示支持福尔曼。库柏最终收回了他的表态，因此赢得了最佳男主角。与此同时，戴米尔是最能代表好莱坞立场的邪恶反共人士。爱发牢骚的人总是说奥斯卡有多么偏重政治，忽视艺术，这一次这样的抱怨是完全正确的。


1968年，《毕业生》等影片和《炎热的夜晚》



这一年的奥斯卡角逐如此激烈，以至于有一本书——马克•哈里斯的《革命的影像》——来讲述整个过程。哈里斯在书中详述这场比赛如何象征着美国影视业所发生的巨大变化。守旧派影片的代表是二十世纪福克斯公司的大手笔音乐剧《杜立德医生》，借福克斯强大的市场宣传机制跻身提名。《炎热的夜晚》和《猜猜谁来吃晚餐》也是传统的影视作品，但是它们在民权高峰时期触及了社会热点问题。《毕业生》也涉及了当代话题（代沟、性解放），但使用的是嬉皮、戏剧化的方式，而且有摇滚类型的配乐。《雌雄大盗》是一部历史剧，但最具有前瞻性，借鉴和法国新浪潮的风格，把性和暴力的刻画推到极致。

最终，奥斯卡平分了财富。《雌》获得最佳女配角（埃斯特尔•帕森斯）和最佳摄影；《猜》获得最佳女主角（凯瑟琳•赫本）和最佳原创剧本；《毕》获得最佳导演（迈克•尼科尔斯）；《杜》获得最佳视觉效果和最佳原创歌曲（“Talk to the Animals”）；《炎》获得最佳男主角（罗德•斯泰格尔）、最佳改编剧本、最佳音效、最佳剪辑和最佳影片。这种结果当然比不上把所有奖项都给予《炎》或者《毕》来得更震撼，但依然传达出一个信号，好莱坞在给新生代让路。


1977年，《总统班底》和《洛基》



1977年，几部最佳影片奖的提名者注定称为历史上最伟大的影片——最佳政治题材影片《总统班底》、最佳媒体讽刺影片《电视台风云》、刻画了最佳角色形象的《出租车司机》。还有一部被人遗忘的历史上最优秀的音乐剧，以伍迪•盖瑟瑞为原型的《光荣之路》。《洛基》或许是一部最优秀的拳击影片，同时完美地讲述了一个失败者的故事，但它真的能和其它提名影片并驾齐驱吗？或许还是有些差距的，但是评审委员会喜欢失败者的故事——尤其是当不出名的演员通过自己编写的剧本一鸣惊人时，这就是西尔维斯特•史泰龙和他的拳师故事。

而且，这部影片有一种爱国的、积极向上的劲头，与其它提名影片的冷酷、悲惨风格不同。《电视台风云》获得了三个表演类奖项（包括后来追认的彼得•芬奇最佳男主角和阿特丽斯•斯特雷特凭借一闪而过的表演而获得的最佳女配角），《总统班底》获得了第四个表演类奖项（杰森•罗巴兹最佳男配角）。至少《洛基》以它特有的方式与其它提名影片一起称为不朽，尽管它所派生出来的作品越来越卡通化了。


1991年，《好家伙》和《与狼共舞》



1980年，马丁•斯科塞斯拍摄了80年代最优秀的影片《愤怒的公牛》，但是把最佳影片和最佳导演奖项输给了第一次执导影片的偶像万人迷（罗伯特•雷德福的《普通人》）。10年后，斯科赛斯拍摄了或许是90年代的最优秀影片《好家伙》，但是再一次把最佳影片和最佳导演奖项输给了另一位第一次执导影片的万人迷（凯文•科斯特纳的《与狼共舞》）。斯科赛斯似乎霉运缠身，实际上，他直到2007年才凭借《无间行者》终于获得了最佳影片和最佳导演奖。其实，《好家伙》输给《与狼共舞》并不奇怪。不断扩张的西部终于补偿了印第安人为此付出的代价，评奖委员会成员可以让自己沉浸在重大历史问题和改正错误的喜悦中。（要记得，马龙•白兰度曾经在1973年拒绝领取《教父》的奥斯卡奖，以示对好莱坞长期以来错误对待美洲原住民的历史问题的抗议。）而且，评奖委员会一般都喜欢那些在摄影机背后取得一些个人成绩的演员，比如《洛基》中的史泰龙、《普通人》中的雷德福、《理智与情感》中的艾玛•汤普森、《心灵捕手》中的马特•达蒙和本•阿弗莱克。与《与狼共舞》相比，难怪斯科赛斯的模糊道德界限的犯罪题材影片在投票中会遇冷了。至少，他们无法否认天才乔•“你认为我很可笑吗”•佩西的表演，给予他最佳男配角奖项。


1995年，《低俗小说》和《阿甘正传》



1995年的角逐标志着好莱坞的转型，就像1968年、2006年和2011年一样，这不仅仅是两部影片的碰撞，而是代表两种电影趋势的竞争。一方是《阿甘正传》，一部好莱坞历史剧，利用新型科技改造现存的影片脚本（比如让汤姆•汉克斯与各种已故政治人物互动）。但它毕竟讲述了一个传统的故事，其中充满了甜蜜的虔诚，用婴儿潮时代的流行歌曲配乐。

另一方是米拉麦克斯公司的《低俗小说》，这部独立制作、非线性情节的犯罪影片向主流观众推出了昆汀•塔伦蒂诺的崭新思想，以及他沉浸在影片中所探索的所有可能性的喜悦，从约翰•特拉沃尔塔的舞步，到萨缪尔•杰克逊对布鲁斯•威利斯的语言暴力，到中世纪的武士刀，到迪克•戴尔的冲浪吉他配乐。现在回顾起来，《低俗小说》似乎标志着独立电影已经从小小的工作室制作变成美国电影业中一股巨大的力量（当然这样的地位并没有持续太久）。但是在当时，评委会的元老们想看到一些传统的东西。塔伦蒂诺和罗杰•阿夫瑞获得最佳原创剧本奖，但是《阿甘正传》获得了最佳改编剧本、最佳剪辑、最佳视觉效果、最佳导演（罗伯特•泽米吉斯）、最佳男主角（汤姆•汉克斯，他在上一年刚刚凭借《费城故事》获得这个奖项）和最佳影片奖。米拉麦克斯老板哈维•韦恩斯坦吸取的教训是，永远不要让对手更好地向学院奖评审委员会更好地兜售传统、现代和史诗作品。未来几年，他用一种极度报复的心理印证这个教训。


1999年，《拯救大兵瑞恩》和《莎翁情史》



很多奥斯卡观众依然把这一年的角逐视为终极对抗。一边是被普遍认为有史以来最成功的导演斯蒂芬•斯皮尔伯格，成功给他带来了别人的嫉妒，让他在1983年（《外星人》输给《甘地》）和1986年（《紫色》在11个奖项中一无所获，《走出非洲》赢得最佳影片）没能赢得最佳影片奖。最终，在1994年，《辛德勒的名单》以摧枯拉朽之势一举获得最佳影片和最佳导演奖。另一部有关二战的史诗影片《拯救大兵瑞恩》似乎注定要为斯皮尔伯格赢得另外两座顶级奥斯卡奖杯。

另一边是《莎翁情史》，由妙趣横生的汤姆•斯托帕德编剧的大制作浪漫历史剧。相比于浪漫喜剧，奥斯卡更喜欢战争史诗影片，但是这部喜剧背后的人是米拉麦克斯的老板哈维•韦恩斯坦，他自信满满地认为评选委员会成员必将被影片的文化底蕴和格温妮丝•帕特洛突破性的表演打动。颁奖礼刚开始的时候，朱迪•丹奇凭借奥斯卡历史上最短的出镜时间而获得最佳女配角，似乎预示着接下来形势的变化。帕特洛毫无悬念地获得最佳女主角（挤掉了凯特•布兰切特在《伊丽莎白女王》中卓绝的表演）。当斯皮尔伯格最终获得最佳导演和最佳影片奖时，整个电影届都发出一声惊呼。在两年前凭借《英国病人》获得同样的殊荣之后，韦恩斯坦终于证明他是角逐奥斯卡的王者。另外提一句，本•阿弗莱克也在《莎翁情史》中出演，所以这是不是表示今年《逃离德黑兰》与斯皮尔伯格的《林肯》是双方的再度对阵呢？


2006年，《撞车》和《断背山》



如果说2006年是一场饶舌歌曲对战，那么你可以认为对阵双方是东海岸和西海岸。西海岸评论人士似乎更加喜欢《撞车》，这是一部有关洛杉矶的影片，演员绝大部分时间都待在汽车里。很多演员都来自美国演员工会（难怪演员出身的评委会喜欢这部影片），它的主旨是给已经甚嚣尘上的种族问题盖棺定论——种族主义关乎每一个人。东海岸评论界则认为《撞车》的种族政治过于简单化，其情节充满了人为的巧合（几乎每一个角色最终都不是他们在一开始被设定的主角或者配角）。

他们更喜欢《断背山》，这部影片为了讲述好莱坞第一个主流同性恋故事，重新解构了宝贵的西部牛仔、男子气概和个人英雄主义等概念。尽管导演李安通过小心翼翼第处理这个题材而获得了奥斯卡奖，但三位主要演员却遭到了冷落（尤其令人尴尬的是希斯•莱杰，他突破性的表演其实是为他应得生前奥斯卡奖的最后一个机会。在《黑暗骑士》中被追认的奖项其实是对他去世的某种安慰）。由大部分洛杉矶人组成的评委会把最佳影片奖授予《撞车》。《断背山》编剧拉里•麦克默里抱怨这是对同性恋的歧视，这么想的不止是他一个人。让我们看看历史选择了哪一方：《断背山》是有线电视上的重磅话题，而《撞车》是Netflix公司历史上最畅销的租赁影片。


2010年，《拆弹部队》和《阿凡达》



2010年奥斯卡大幕拉开的时候，《阿凡达》已经即将成为史上最赚钱的影片了，詹姆斯•卡梅隆也即将打破他在12年前创造的纪录。与此同时，《拆弹部队》仅仅是一个无人问津的独立小制作战争影片，是评论人士让它从默默无闻到声名鹊起。影片的导演凯瑟琳•毕格罗恰好是卡梅隆的前妻，这一对前夫妻之间的较量在当年引发了很多话题，虽然卡梅隆和毕格罗都表示要支持对方。卡梅隆有自信的理由，他的影片有技术上的突破，3D的噱头被转化成生动的叙事工具，创造出绝美的画面。而诋毁者认为这是电影业的退步、缺乏想象力的表演，而且人物角色不怎么立体。

而《拆弹部队》则是一部具有现实意义、刺激的动作影片，它涉及当代话题（美国人在伊拉克的战争），试图回避政治立场来阐述我们是否应该进入伊拉克战场的问题。这部影片也并非没有争议，很多老兵站出来说这部影片是否表现了他们的真实经历，还仅仅是好莱坞的噱头。另外，《拆弹部队》另外一个可以与《阿凡达》相提并论的优势在于，导演是个女人，这让奥斯卡评委会有机会在时隔81年之后再一次把最佳导演奖项授予女性。最终，评委会认为《拆弹部队》比卡梅隆的作品具有更重大的历史意义，选择一个关键性的现实题材影片要比选择受大众欢迎的娱乐片，更能维护奥斯卡的威信。但这引发了观众们强烈的不满，实际上，票房收入只有不到5000万美元的《拆弹部队》是奥斯卡历史上最小众、观影人数最少的最佳影片。


2011年，《国王的演讲》和《社交网络》



在哈维•韦恩斯坦与其它大型电影公司的多年竞争之后，韦恩斯坦似乎已经酝酿出一个完美的奥斯卡配方，以至于在2011年，索尼影业彻底失败，而韦恩斯坦则变成了一个与当代社会格格不入的守旧派。毕竟，还有什么会比《国王的演讲》更安全呢？这部影片充满了韦恩斯坦的奥斯卡佐料：历史题材、英国皇家成员、英国演员（科林•费斯、海伦娜•伯翰•卡特）、颇具文学深度的剧本（大卫•塞德勒）、有品味的导演（汤姆•霍珀）、战争危机，再加上一个有缺陷的主人公。

竞争对手是《社交网络》，这纯粹是一部前卫影片：最接近当代现实的题材、互联网的诱惑、跳跃性的思维和叙述、道德边界、电子配乐、导演（大卫•芬奇）具有前瞻性的视觉效果。如果电影产业有一个机会来庆祝自己把握住时代潮流，这部影片是不二之选。但是尽管阿伦•索尔金精彩的剧本赢得了最佳改编剧本奖，但有关脸谱的电影让一群年事已高、不懂得欣赏网络的评委会成员不知所云，《国王的演讲》这种熟悉的风格让他们对自己的决定更有信心。而且费斯在上一年错过了众望所归的最佳男主角奖项（《单身男子》），因此最佳影片、最佳导演、最佳男主角、最佳原创剧本都落在这个安全的选项上。历史会证明这是一部超越《社交网络》的影片吗？或许吧，我们很想知道答案。




原文：

Does the best film always win? Here are some of the bitterest Best Picture battles in Academy Awards history

Admit it: Part of the fun of following the Oscars is the sense of righteous, aggrieved outrage that comes from seeing a movie or performance you think is worthy get snubbed. Sure, we all know that Academy Awards are decided on more than just merit; often, it’s the story behind the story that makes the difference to awards voters.  The politics of what wins can be bitter, as they often reflect differences not just over aesthetics but also over larger issues – trends in the industry, innovations in the medium, the mood of the country.

That may be the case this year, with such movies as Lincoln, Zero Dark Thirty, and Django Unchained sparking debates over history, race, torture, and the historical record. Argo may have become the frontrunner, not just because Hollywood loves the story of Ben “Comeback Kid” Affleck, but also because it’s the least politically objectionable film among the nominees. Offering lessons for this year’s race are the most contentious Best Picture competitions of years past. Read on to learn what was at stake in these contests, why the victors won, and whether history still demands a vote recount.

1942: ‘Citizen Kane’ vs. ‘How Green Was My Valley’

How Green Was My Valley is a perfectly fine film, a multi-generational saga of a family’s triumphs and tragedies that seems tailor-made for Oscar. And no one was a greater admirer of its director, John Ford, than Orson Welles. Nonetheless, it was Welles himself, in the most audacious debut in film history, who challenged the man he called the Old Master for Oscar supremacy in 1942. History has been much more generous to Citizen Kane (pictured), which routinely tops critics lists as the greatest film ever made, than it has to Ford’s sentimental epic, but at the time, Welles was lucky to get any Oscar recognition at all. Having notoriously earned the wrath of media mogul William Randolph Hearst through Kane’s thinly veiled, often unflattering roman è clef, Welles saw his picture suppressed in theaters and ignored by Hearst papers.

Kane was nominated for nine Oscars but won only Best Original Screenplay (Herman J. Mankiewicz shared the award with Welles, who was never nominated again). The film failed to win Best Picture, Director, Best Black-and-White Cinematography, and Black-and-White Art Direction to Valley. (This despite Gregg Toland’s innovative camera work.) Welles lost Best Actor to Gary Cooper in Sergeant York, a film that also beat Kane for Editing. (This despite Robert Wise’s dazzling work with the story’s non-chronological narrative.) At least Kane composer Bernard Herrmann lost to himself, for his score for The Devil and Daniel Webster.

1953: ‘High Noon’ vs. ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’

Oscarologists have long described The Greatest Show on Earth as the worst Best Picture winner ever. That’s not entirely fair. Cecil B. DeMille’s circus epic has more than its share of silliness (especially the subplot involving Jimmy Stewart as a fugitive clown), but it also has the grand spectacle DeMille was known for, including a horrific train crash that was a huge influence on the young Steven Spielberg. Still, it’s in no way a better film than High Noon (pictured), which is not only one of the greatest Westerns ever made, but also a then-timely parable warning against McCarthyite anti-communist paranoia.

And that was its undoing. Its screenwriter, Carl Foreman, was one of the Hollywood Ten (the unfriendly witnesses jailed for their refusal to name names of alleged Communists in showbiz before the House Un-American Activities Committee). At the height of the Hollywood blacklist, even staunch conservative Gary Cooper was slurred for starring in the film and voicing support for Foreman. Cooper ultimately walked back his support and ended up winning Best Actor. Meanwhile, no one represented establishment Hollywood more than the virulently anti-Communist DeMille. Grumblers often complain that the Oscars are more about politics than about merit; this seems to be one time that that complaint was clearly true.

1968: ‘The Graduate’ et al. vs. ‘In The Heat of the Night’

This was such a momentous Oscar race that there’s a whole book — Mark Harris’ excellent Pictures at a Revolution — about it. Harris details how this race was emblematic of the massive changing of the guard then underway throughout American filmmaking. The old-school studio film was represented by Doctor Dolittle, 20th Century Fox’s costly musical flop, which muscled into the race on the strength of Fox’s marketing machine. In the Heat of the Night and Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner were also both conventional studio films, but ones that addressed hot-button issues of race at the height of Civil Rights-era turmoil. The Graduate (pictured) also addressed contemporary issues (the generation gap, the sexual revolution), but in a hip, comical way, and with a folk-rock soundtrack. Bonnie and Clyde was a period drama but the most forward-looking film of them all, borrowing its style from the French New Wave and pushing the envelope with its depiction of sex and violence.

In the end, the Academy split the wealth; Bonnie won Supporting Actress (for Estelle Parsons) and Cinematography; Dinner won Best Actress (for Katharine Hepburn) and Original Screenplay; Graduate won Best Director (for Mike Nichols); Dolittle won Best Visual Effects and Best Song (“Talk to the Animals”), and Heat of the Night took Best Actor (Rod Steiger), Adapted Screenplay, Sound, Editing, and Best Picture. It wasn’t as radical a statement as giving everything to Bonnie and The Graduate would have been, but it was still a sign that old Hollywood was giving way to a new guard.

1977: ‘All the President’s Men’ et al vs. ‘Rocky’

History has judged several of 1977′s Best Picture candidates to be among the greatest movies ever made – the best political drama (All the President’s Men, pictured), the best media satire (Network), and the best character study of a ticking time bomb (Taxi Driver). There was also one of the best musical biopics, the unjustly forgotten Woody Guthrie bio Bound for Glory. Now, Rocky may be one of the best boxing movies, and one of the best underdog stories, but does it really belong in the same league as the other nominees? Perhaps not, but the Academy loves underdog stories – especially when they involve unknown actors who become stars by writing their own movies, as was the case with Sylvester Stallone and his story of a long-shot pugilist.

Plus, the movie had a patriotic, feel-good vibe that contrasted with the grimness and grit of the other nominees. Network did win three of the acting prizes (including a posthumous Best Actor prize for Peter Finch and a Supporting Actress prize for Beatrice Straight’s very brief performance), while All the President’s Men won the fourth (for Supporting Actor Jason Robards). Those two films also won the screenwriting awards, while Director and Best Picture went to Rocky. At least Rocky remains as iconic, in its own way, as the other nominees, even as the franchise it spawned became more and more cartoonish.

1991: ‘Goodfellas’ vs. ‘Dances With Wolves’

In 1980, Martin Scorsese made what may be the finest film of the ’80s, Raging Bull, but lost Best Picture and Best Director to a matinee idol directing his first film (Robert Redford, with Ordinary People). Ten years later, in 1990, Scorsese made what may be the finest film of the ’90s, Goodfellas (pictured), but lost Best Picture and Best Director to a matinee idol directing his first film (Kevin Costner, with Dances With Wolves). Scorsese seemed jinxed; indeed, he wouldn’t win Best Picture and Best Director until 2007 with The Departed. Still, it’s no wonder Goodfellas lost to Dances. A sprawling Western that finally gave American Indians their due, it allowed the Academy to indulge its fondness for weighty historical epics and to right some old wrongs. (Remember, Marlon Brando had famously refused his Godfather Oscar in 1973 in protest of Hollywood’s long history of mistreatment of Native Americans.) Plus, the Academy always likes it when actors make good by creating their own opportunities behind the camera; see Stallone for Rocky, Redford for People, Emma Thompson for her Sense and Sensibility screenplay, and Matt Damon and Ben Affleck for writing Good Will Hunting. Compared to Dances, it’s no wonder Scorsese’s morally ambiguous crime drama left voters cold. At least they couldn’t deny the genius of Joe “How am I funny?” Pesci’s performance and gave him Best Supporting Actor.

1995: ‘Pulp Fiction’ vs. ‘Forrest Gump’

The 1995 battle seemed to mark one of those Hollywood turning points, like the races of 1968 or 2006 or 2011, when it wasn’t merely two movies clashing, but two competing visions of what movies should be. On one side was Forrest Gump, a Hollywood historical epic that broke some new technical ground in digital manipulation of existing film footage (the trickery that allowed Tom Hanks’ Forrest to interact with various long-dead historical figures). Still, it told a fairly traditional story, full of candy-box pieties and accompanied by a Baby Boom’s Greatest Hits soundtrack.

On the other side was Miramax’s Pulp Fiction (pictured), the independently-made, non-linear crime tale that introduced to the mainstream the brash new voice of Quentin Tarantino and his sheer joy in the kinetic possibilities of all that cinema had to offer, from John Travolta’s dancing to Samuel L. Jackson’s verbal fury to Bruce Willis going medieval with a samurai sword to Dick Dale dropping machine-gun surf-guitar licks on the soundtrack. In retrospect, Pulp Fiction seemed to mark the moment when the indies took over from the studios as the most vital force in American filmmaking (a status they didn’t hold for long), but at the time, the seniors who make up the Academy wanted something more traditional. Tarantino and Roger Avary won Best Original Screenplay, but Gump won Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Visual Effects, Best Director (for Robert Zemeckis), Best Actor (for Tom Hanks, even though he’d won the year before for Philadelphia), and Best Picture. The lesson, for Miramax chief Harvey Weinstein: Never let your opponents outdo you in selling traditional, classy, epic fare to the Academy. It was a lesson he learned with a vengeance, as he displayed in years to come.

1999: ‘Saving Private Ryan’ vs. ‘Shakespeare in Love’

Paramount Pictures Many Oscar-watchers still view this one as the ultimate upset. On one side, you had Steven Spielberg, generally regarded then, as now, as the most successful director of all time. That success had bred envy, which had cost him the Best Picture race in 1983 (when E.T. lost to Gandhi) and 1986 (when The Color Purple went 0 for 11, while Out of Africa took Best Picture). Finally, in 1994, the undeniable force of Schindler’s List earned him Best Picture and Best Director. Saving Private Ryan (pictured), another serious epic about World War II, seemed destined to earn Spielberg two more top Oscars.

Its rival was Shakespeare in Love, a period romantic comedy with a literate, witty Tom Stoppard script and sumptuous production values. Oscar tends to favor war epics over romantic comedies, but this one had Miramax chief Harvey Weinstein on its side, and he made sure that voters were impressed by its literary pedigree and by the luminous breakthrough performance of Gwyneth Paltrow. Early in the ceremony, when Supporting Actress went to Judi Dench for one of the briefest performances in Oscar history, it seemed clear that an upset was brewing. Sure enough Paltrow won Best Actress (over frontrunner Cate Blanchett’s remarkable turn in Elizabeth), and while Spielberg did land Best Director, collective gasps were heard ’round the moviegoing world when Shakespeare took Best Picture. Having pulled off a similar victory two years earlier with The English Patient, Weinstein had now proved he was the king of Oscar campaigning. By the way, Shakespeare, among other things, was a backstage farce featuring Ben Affleck; does that mean this year’s competition between Argo and Spielberg’s Lincoln is a rematch?

2006: ‘Crash’ vs. ‘Brokeback Mountain’

If the 2006 race had been a rap battle, you could call it East Coast vs. West Coast. West Coast critics seemed to favor Crash, a movie about Los Angeles, whose characters spent a lot of their time in their cars. A massive ensemble piece that seemed to employ half the Screen Actors Guild (no wonder actors who were Academy members liked it), it purported to make a grand statement on the still-troubling issue of Racism: It infects everybody. East Coast critics, however, found Crash‘s racial politics simplistic and its plotting too full of programmatic twists and coincidences (nearly every character is revealed to be something other than the hero or heel he or she seems at first.)

Instead, they favored Brokeback Mountain (pictured), which deconstructed cherished Western archetypes about cowboys, machismo, and rugged individualism in order to tell mainstream Hollywood’s first gay love story. And while director Ang Lee won an Oscar for his sensitive handling of the material, its three principal actors were snubbed (a particularly galling omission in the case of Heath Ledger, whose breakthrough performance turned out to be the last opportunity to give him a trophy while he was alive, and whose posthumous prize for The Dark Knight is often considered a consolation prize for his being passed over here). And the Angelenos who make up the bulk of the Academy gave Best Picture to Crash. Brokeback screenwriter Larry McMurtry grumbled about homophobia; he wasn’t the only one.  As for which picture history preferred: Brokeback is a staple on cable, while Crash is one of the most popular rentals in Netflix history. So, jury’s still out.

2010: ‘The Hurt Locker’ vs. ‘Avatar’

By the time the Oscars rolled around in 2010, Avatar (pictured) was well on its way to becoming the highest-grossing film of all-time, with James Cameron topping his own Titanic achievement of 12 years earlier. Meanwhile, Hurt Locker was just a tiny, indie-made war drama that almost no ticket-buyers had seen, but that critics had managed to rescue from obscurity. Of course, its director was Kathryn Bigelow, who happened to be one of Cameron’s ex-wives. The battle of the exes became the narrative behind the race that year, even though Cameron and Bigelow had nothing but supportive words for each other throughout the campaign. Cameron could afford to be confident. His movie was a technical breakthrough, one that transformed 3D from a gimmick into a valid storytelling tool, with results that were lavishly beautiful to see. Detractors, however, noted that the story was a retread, the acting earthbound, and the characters less than three-dimensional.

Hurt Locker, however, managed to be both a film of substance and a nail-biting action thriller; it was a movie about a contemporary topic (Americans at war in Iraq) that managed an apolitical stance on whether or not we should have been there in the first place. Not that the film was without controversy; veterans came out of the woodwork to argue over whether the film was true to their experience or a Hollywood hack job. Still, it helped that Hurt Locker, no less an auteur’s achievement than Avatar, was directed by a woman, allowing the Academy to recognize a woman as Best Director after 81 years of failing to do so. Ultimately, the Academy decided that was a more historic feat than Cameron’s. Picking the critical favorite over the populist favorite may have helped Oscar’s credibility, but it provoked head-scratching among moviegoers at large. Indeed, with its theatrical take of just under $50 million, Hurt Locker remains the least popular, least seen Best Picture winner in Oscar history.

2011: ‘The King’s Speech’ vs. ‘The Social Network’

After many years of Harvey Weinstein-vs.-the Big Studios races, Weinstein had seemingly perfected a formula for Oscar-bait pictures, to the extent that, in the 2011 race, the studio (in this case, Sony Pictures) was the underdog and Weinstein was the hidebound traditionalist. After all, what could be safer than The King’s Speech, a movie that had so many elements of the Weinstein Oscar-picture formula: period piece, British royalty, British acting royalty (Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter), literary-minded script (by David Seidler), tasteful direction (by Tom Hooper), wartime peril, and a disability for the protagonist?

On the other side was The Social Network (pictured), which seemed thoroughly cutting-edge: up-to-the-minute topic, Internet savvy, time-jumping and point-of-view-shifting narrative, moral ambiguity, electronic musical score, and sleek visuals from a forward-looking auteur (David Fincher).  If ever there was a moment for the film industry to congratulate itself for capturing the zeitgeist, that would have been it. But while Aaron Sorkin’s canny script won the writer an adapted screenplay award, the Facebook film seemed to baffle an Academy membership made up largely of people supposedly too old to appreciate the Internet, a membership reassured by the comforting familiarity of The King’s Speech. Besides, Firth had been overlooked for Best Actor the year before (in A Single Man) and everyone thought he was due. So Best Picture, Director , Actor, and Original Screenplay went to the safe choice. Will history judge it a better film than Social Network? Doubtful, but we’d “like” to find out.

icarux

好，长知识。