Written by DAVID KEYES / featuring guest speaker DUSTIN ROSE

March 5, 1999

The CINEMA’s two notorious movie debaters are at it again! This time, they have a topic they could debate about forever: the Academy Awards. In the process of debating, they raise an interesting question: what makes a movie a "classic?" Dustin Rose’s thoughts are in bold, while David Keyes’s thoughts are in italics.

There are a number of unexpected surprises in this year’s Academy Award nominees. For Best Picture, I must confess, I have only seen four of the five movies nominated. I failed to see "The Thin Red Line." But for the most part, I agree with the selections. There are, however, a few different movies I would have liked to seen make it. What ever happened to "The Mask Of Zorro" or "The Truman Show?" Maybe even "The Prince Of Egypt?" There’s a trend for the nominees ... all of them are geared towards a more mature audience. All of them are rated ‘R’ except for "Life Is Beautiful," and even that dealt with a very mature issue. What do you think?

It’s not a big surprise, since most of 1998’s best films were rated ‘R.’ What’s suprising is the fact that "The Thin Red Line" got nominated for picture. The movie was overlong, boring, repetitive and depressing. You’re lucky you didn’t see it. Some online critics even called it "The Postman of 1998."

I disagree with your comment that "most of 1998’s best films were rated ‘R.’" There were quite a few good movies with lower ratings. What about "Mulan?" Wasn’t that one of the better movies? Not to over-stress it, but what about "The Prince Of Egypt?" I think the Academy is biased towards animated movies. But there are plenty of others which got snubbed, too. How about "The Truman Show?" Wasn’t that more original than most of the movies selected for Best Picture? It might not have been the greatest movie of all time, but it was the most original screenplay of last year. Doesn’t it deserve a nomination for Best Picture?

Of course it deserved it, but take this into consideration: when was the last time the Academy didn’t shut out a contender? "The Truman Show" and "Pleasantville" were two of this year’s surefire contenders. Jim Carrey didn’t get nominated. Shekhar Kapur didn’t get nominated, even though his picture, "Elizabeth," was. "Gods And Monsters" didn’t get nominated. "Beloved" didn’t get nominated. The list of complaints can go on and on for days. Plus, the Academy has only nominated one animated movie in the past for Best Picture ("Beauty and the Beast" in 1991). If you thought "The Prince Of Egypt" would get the Best Picture nod, you placed your hopes too high.

I hate it when the movie people try to control what becomes a classic. They don’t use any common sense when voting. I think they should adjust the way they make the nominations. Obviously, the people who are in the Academy now can’t pick the right movies. Besides, what is the final deciding point that makes a movie a classic? It doesn’t matter what the critics--or should I say "movie people"-- say. It’s what the public says. If I was a director, I would rather have a box office hit and receive millions of dollars with no awards than have a box office failure and win every award known to man.

Why?

Which one would put the bread on the table?

Naturally, the money. But does that entitle you to make a movie as bad as "Godzilla" and have it become a huge box office success? The common box office smash is not a very good movie. No wonder the Academy doesn’t nominated them often. The better films are usually the non-mainstream products. They’re the ones that should be smash hits. This last year, though, was an ironic exception, because "Saving Private Ryan" was the year’s #1 success both critically and commercially. Meanwhile, "Armageddon," a film I did not admire, was in the #2 position at the box office, while out of the top 200 critically. Would you rather have a critical success like "Shakespeare In Love" or a simple box office hit like "Armageddon?"

It just depends if you want a democracy of a dictatorship. If you want a democracy, then the majority would rule. If you want a dictatorship, then the elite people decide what will be considered a classic. Personally, I don’t want some stupid movie critic telling me which movies are the good ones ... I want to decide for myself.

"Stupid critics?" No one is trying to tell you which movies are classics and which ones aren’t. They Academy Awards exist simply to honor the better films of the year (you may not consider them "classics," but several others do). Would you rather have the Academy influence your decision to see a movie or something like the AFI’s top 100 list?

I would rather choose for myself what I should see. There are plenty of places to read about movies in order to decide what to see and what not to see. People should not go to movies just because of the hype. They should go see a movie because they are genuinely interested in seeing it.

And how is interest generated? From the hype, duh! I see what you’re saying (you make that perfectly clear), but you must admit, the Academy Awards are a better choice of honoring movies than the AFI’s list. At least with the Academy Awards, each year has new and fresh movies to honor. We don’t just honor the same old films over and over again. Imagine how irritating it would be to see "Titanic" win Best Picture year after year after year.

You are right that people get "interested" from the hype, but that is not the "genuine" interest I speak of. There is a time and place for critics, yes, but they shouldn’t have the final verdict as to what does and what doesn’t go down as a "classic."

If you abide by your own beliefs with the movies, then critics shouldn’t matter to you, anyway.

They don’t.

Then it’s settled. By the way, what do you think will win Best Picture?

As for Best Picture, either "Elizabeth" or "Shakespeare In Love" I think will get it. You?

I’d love to see the statuette go to "Elizabeth," but this one’s obviously going to "Saving Private Ryan," hands down.