Morgan Freeman, Oscar’s favorite narrator, hosted the tenth anniversary of AFI’s 100 greatest films of all time. My friends called on me to comment on this thing because I’ve seen all the 1998 AFI 100 (a difficult feat requiring a determined friend – my mom).

The anniversary show really hammered home that lists come and go. I was constantly thinking, how can a movie made before 1998 (when the list first came out) move up, or get onto the list if it didn’t make the first cut? How can they then be the “greatest films ever made” if they weren’t considered as such ten years ago?

The only explanation is the AFI voting process is arbitrary. I will admit it is near impossible to create an objective scale (I set out to do this when I created my own blog and failed miserably). But honestly, the way the show was presented and they discussed voting, it seems to be a stab in the dark – hardly a way to crown “the greatest films ever made.”

The show itself was mildly entertaining, especially the interview. Some were merely self promotion (Jodie Foster calling Taxi Driver the best American movie). But there’s nothing like Julia Roberts commenting on Brando in On the Waterfront. Seems to me to be a weird choice. Other interviews and segments ruined the featured movie’s ending (the end of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre – the only good part of the film, and M. Night spoiling One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest). The “episode” ends by crowning the most overrated movie ever, Citizen Kane, the best movie ever made, and promptly ruining the whole movie. Thankfully Peter Griffin already did this by aptly describing the movie as “three boring, boobless hours.”

Nevertheless, I enjoyed the show because I enjoy movies, and I got to see some of the best scenes from some of my favorite classic movies. The show DID provoke some interesting thoughts…

Someone called Godfather: Part II the best sequel ever made. I say, is it the first prequel ever made? Most of the movie focuses on the Corleone we know as the Don’s origin story and how he became the man we see in the first film.

Why was there a “resurgence” for silent movies? Two moved into the top twenty while three silent films that couldn’t even hack it ten years ago stumbled onto this years list. Besides being long and painful as well as hard on the eyes, what do these movies have to offer that lets them shroud their childish antics in “the greatest American films?”
 
I will conclude with this. Once Casablanca got the #3 slot I was begging and praying The Godfather would knock off Citizen Kane, but apparently, the American Film Institute voters are still deluded by a scandal-flagged movie. And once more, Orson Welles’ ADD inducing film gets to stare down the mountain at the superior films it bested.

Could “Avatar” Win Best Picture?

By Brett Hogan

 

Last week, the trailer for James Cameron’s sci-fi experiment “Avatar” debuted. While initially unimpressed with the teaser, I began to wonder: Could this film win best picture? 

 

Buzz has been generating for this movie for years. Years. The technology to make this movie didn’t exist when Cameron conceived it, so he invented it. When is the last time you heard of a director spearheading the invention of anything? The casting started in 2005. Most movies these days, even epics, are done in half that time. I could go on. 

 

The most important thing to take away from all of this is that people are saying this will be the future of movies. Now, I don’t agree with the idea that CGI will become more prevalent than it already is. But I do believe that this will set the bar miles higher for sci-fi. I mean, that is what Titanic did. And that won some awards if memory serves.

 

I’ll bet you’re asking yourself, how can you even suggest that a film like this will win Best Picture when the initial trailer was nothing better than visual stimulation? Well, there are a couple of reasons. First, the Academy has expanded Best Picture to ten films. This doesn’t guarantee anything other than improved chances for most films on the cusp.

 

Second, after last year’s Oscars debacle, which saw the best film of the year, “The Dark Knight,” not only get shafted in awards but nominations as well, the Academy is pulling out all the stops to appease those with the loudest voices in the film industry, the fanboys. Now, the Academy probably didn’t lose anything because of that other than some viewers of the award show. Perhaps if people are again outraged with the winners or nominees, the heads of the Academy would lose their jobs. So this is all about the Academy protecting itself, which is not so outrageous.  

 

 

Third, there is an economic motive here. I’ve heard this film will cost $190 million, not counting the R&D costs associated with Cameron’s inventions or the cost of getting 3-D cameras into every theater in the country. The Academy will do everything in its power to get people into the seats and make this the next “Titanic” or “The Dark Knight.” But the Academy doesn’t have much power, besides nominating and awarding, so they will slap the “Nominated for Best Picture” moniker onto every commercial and print ad to get the people who didn’t believe the critics to relent and see this movie.

 

Of course, all of this is pure conjecture, and no revolutionary film (Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, etc.) has ever won the Best Picture category because it changed the game. Except maybe Titanic. But still, could this movie actually win? My answer is no but a nomination is certain and who knows what could happen from there. We’ll know more come February 2010.