1939---GWTW Still the Winner--Vote for 1967 NOW!- Page 3

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 1:43pm

I prefer:

Thoroughly Modern Millie
The Dirty Dozen
You Only Live Twice
Casion Royale
The Jungle Book

to any of those nominated. But, that's not the point, so I'd go with IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 1:47pm

lildogs---I think 1989 is the next best year, after 1939. Many critics pointed it out at the time, even!

And I'm sure you'll open a big can of worms with the "Driving Miss Daisy" win. So much competition that year, and many great films that didn't even make the top five.

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 1:50pm

That's the problem with that year, is that the best films weren't nominated (GLORY and DO THE RIGHT THING leap to mind)I try to pick years in which all five films are pretty good choices--although Dr. D is A STRETCH, but I didn't nominate them!

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 1:58pm

I'd choose 1941 after 1939...and of course, 1950, at least for the Best Actress category.

OUTSTANDING MOTION PICTURE
Blossoms in the Dust -- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
Citizen Kane -- Mercury
Here Comes Mr. Jordan -- Columbia
Hold Back the Dawn -- Paramount
* How Green Was My Valley -- 20th Century-Fox
The Little Foxes -- Samuel Goldwyn Productions
The Maltese Falcon -- Warner Bros.
One Foot in Heaven -- Warner Bros.
Sergeant York -- Warner Bros.
Suspicion -- RKO Radio

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 1:59pm

I thought about it doodle, but I figured everyone would just vote for CK anyway...

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 2:01pm

Not me. HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY is a far superior film, imo.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 2:02pm

It's tough in the early years when there isnt just 5 noms.

It's interesting to take a look how many years have a dud! (DD comes to mind, lil.)

..and I will never get over ....Right Thing's snubs. that was a freaking masterpiece.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 2:08pm

In 1940, I would stick with "How Green..." That movie hit me on a very emotional level.

Citizen Kane is completely fascinating, perfectly constructed and executed... and I am in awe of its artistry and technical achievement... but it kinda leaves me cold emotionally. The story pulls me in, as well as the heightened, intense, and minimalist acting style throughout (by all).

I would consider it the "best made" movie of all-time, but not the "best" movie of all time. (if that makes sense) "Best" (overall) has to connect on a more human, emotional level... and Kane never has done that for me.

And I'm a wreck at the end of How Green, every damn time. A very powerful film that manages to be both gutsy and poetic simultaneously.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 2:11pm

Ah--I was thinking the films that should have been nominated would be included to see if they would beat a nominee or winner. That's why I mentioned 99.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 2:12pm

I don't count CK as the best anything; and, for my tastes, I would count 1989 as one of the worst film years.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 2:13pm

it's all part of the convo jerb.

I disagree, coureously, about CK. I love Valley, but CK is the greatest and I dont find it that cold...except where it should be.

Updated On: 11/22/06 at 02:13 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 2:15pm

I happen to agree with those who say that Citizen Kane is the greatest film. It's the textbook of filmmaking as it possesses every facet of filmmaking. You could teach almost all you need to know off of that one film.

Updated On: 11/22/06 at 02:15 PM

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 2:19pm

I thought VALLEY was very well shot, but I've never been one for the "struggles of the poor" picture. I find MR. JORDAN, MALTESE FALCON, and SUSPICION more enjoyable than VALLEY.

DD is a huge dud! I would have much preferred to see DIRTY DOZEN in the lineup. Thre's usually at least one clinker in the mix.

I also chose 1967 because of the clash between "new" Hollywood (B&C, GRADUATE) vs. "old" Hollywood (DINNER and DOOLITTLE) and the crossover film HEAT.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 2:27pm

"Middle ground" movies always stand more of a chance to win Best Picture, because they will appeal to more voters over all. The need to be fresh, or at least appear to be fresh and new, without stirring the pot too much.

The really edgy or ground-breaking movies never win (CK, Moulin Rouge, Z, Pulp Fiction, etc.).

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 2:34pm

Heh...show's you about opinions. I agree wholeheartedly about that statement, b21b, but the films you suggest, except for CK, I find mediocre...tho enjoyable and with merit.

Just my op., of course.

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 2:42pm

Well, in this case, the middle ground movie was just that--there are many years in which all the films are rather conventional, pretty much anything made pre-1960--and Oscar does occasionally award the maverick: ANNIE HALL, MIDNIGHT COWBOY, PLATOON...

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 3:25pm

doodle---that's because you're confusing "ground-breaking and edgy" with being "best."

They don't always go hand in hand. I didn't suggest any of those films were better than the ones that won... they just pushed the envelope creatively or technically. That doesn't mean they were better films than the other nominees.

It's possible to break new ground in a crappy movie... and I'll even use one of your (OUR!) favorites... Exorcist II: The Heretic. That film has the first tracking shot in it EVER using a steady cam, when Linda Blair is running through the train. I remember the articles written about it how "revolutionary" that shot was, and how it would change the way we made movies.

And it was THE HERETIC, for cryin' out loud!

[chicolini]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 3:38pm

Oh good - we're on to other years now.
My vote in 67 would probably go to Bonnie and Clyde.

I was thinking about 1939 last night and wondered if the other films were considered a success at the time. Did GWTW blow the rest of them out of the water and that's why the voting was so one-sided? Is it only in retrospect that it looks like one of the greatest years ever?

(And blech to 1989)

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 3:45pm

Well, WUTHERING won the NY Critics I believe and was #2 for the Board of Review...

BOX OFFICE--Not adjusted for inflation

1 Gone With the Wind 77,641,106
2 The Wizard of Oz 4,544,851
3 The Hunchback of Notre Dame ~1,500,000
4 Jesse James ~1,500,000
5 Mr. Smith Goes to Washington ~1,500,000

So OZ was more of a hit than I'd realized though swarfed by GWTW

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 3:48pm

GWTW is still the all-time box office champ in "constant dollars," and it will be forever.

A movie opening today would have to pull in an unrealistic $1.3 billion DOMESTICALLY just to match what GWTW did in its original release.

But then, (aside from the inflation and ticket price factors), you also have to take into account that there was no TV back then, and no home video release to follow. Everyone went to the movies, and you don't have attendance numbers like you did in 1939.

I'm not sure if that's how you're measuring success, by profit margin?

Wizard of Oz was not financially successful in its original release, despite lines around the block, because it cost MGM so much money to make. It didn't turn a profit until its re-release in 1949.

I can't speak for the other films up for Best Picture, but I'm guessing they all made their studios money. They were all well-reviewed, "much heralded" films as well.

Updated On: 11/22/06 at 03:48 PM

[chicolini]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 3:54pm

With so many votes going for it, I figured GWTW had to be huge, but I wasn't sure how big. Not that commercial success necessarily means "best picture", but if the GWTW tidal wave was that big it makes a little more sense to me.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 3:56pm

best12bars: GONE WITH THE WIND's success is not really fair. I mean, going to the movies only cost a cent or a nickel (so it was easily affordable) and cinema didn't have competition from television/DVDs or computers/video games. Thus, people went to the movies more often to be entertained.

Updated On: 11/23/06 at 03:56 PM

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 4:00pm

AND after THE SOUND OF MUSIC came out, it was re-issued again to take back it's box office champ status...so after several "runs" it's remained on top. :)

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 4:01pm

That's why the numbers for GWTW are so staggering. The top ticket price back then (not counting the initial "road show" price, which was $2.50 per ticket for reserved seats)... the regular top price was 35 cents. And many people across the country were paying less than that (probably 10-25 cents per ticket). So if you look at the number that lildogs posted, it's pretty mind-blowing to think THAT many people saw the movie when it came out.

It was and is an unmatched event... but it wouldn't classify it as "unfair." It didn't "cheat" at anything. It was just the biggest hit in cinema history.

[chicolini]

Posted: 11/22/06 at 4:05pm

Sorry lildogs - yesterday you wanted to talk 1939 and I wanted other years. Now you've moved on to '67 and I'm dragging the conversation back to '39.

BTW, I saw the Bogdanovich John Ford documentary last night. Get On Demand going now - it was great. The Jimmy Stewart and John Wayne interviews alone made it worth seeing.