What Should’ve Won That Could’ve Won: 1988

The Year: 1988
What the Nominees Were: The Accidental Tourist, Dangerous Liaisons, Mississippi Burning, Rain Man, Working Girl
Other Movies That Should Have Been Considered: Martin Donavan’s Apartment Zero is a brilliant film. Die Hard is fantastic, of course.

What Did Win: Rain Man
How It’s Aged: A film the autism community is not a big fan of, certainly. Tom Cruise is an underrated actor and Dustin Hoffman is always great, but ultimately this movie’s version of “idiot savants” has not aged well.

What Should’ve Won: Die Hard

How Hard Was the Decision: Look, do you think I wanted to do Die Hard?? I didn’t want to do Die Hard. But what else is there? I rewatched Dangerous Liaisons thinking that was going to be my pick but it has not aged well. What is supposed to seem delightfully wicked now just seems disgustingly lousy. Mississippi Burning is well made but I couldn’t endorse its portrayal of Hoover’s FBI as being heroes in the civil rights movement. That left Apartment Zero, which is one of my favorite movies, but was so obscure at the time that it seemed far less likely to win an Oscar than Die Hard. So Die Hard it is.

Director: John McTiernan
Writers: Jeb Stuart and Steven E. de Souza, based on the novel “Nothing Lasts Forever” by Roderick Thorp
Stars: Bruce Willis, Alan Rickman, Bonnie Bedelia

The Story: New York cop John McClane flies to L.A. to win his wife and kids back, but ends up in a high-rise office tower that’s been taken over by thieves pretending to be terrorists.

Any Nominations or Wins: Nominations for Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Effects Editing and Best Sound, but no wins
Why It Didn’t Win: The Academy did recognize its technical prowess with some nominations, but it wasn’t a contender for the big prize, as action movies weren’t considered serious awards fodder. It’s only as time has gone by that this titan has come to loom over the other movies of 1988. Many of those have not aged well, whereas this Christmas classic has aged like fine wine.

Why It Should Have Won:

1. The script was famously first offered to Schwarzenegger, then Stallone, and I love them both, but they would have ruined this. Willis is wonderfully vulnerable as the hapless barefoot cop who spends most of the movie just trying to call the police. This is one of those “Bryan Cranston in ‘Breaking Bad’” situations where absolutely no one thought this comedic actor had this part in him except one maverick casting director with a dream.
   
2. This movie has a great collection of ‘80s assholes, including William Atherton, Paul Gleeson and an actor who should have become a huge star in 1988 due to his masterful performance in Apartment Zero: Hart Bochner. That part showed he had leading man qualities, but no one saw it, so Bochner would spend his whole career killing it as minor sleazebags.
   
3. John McTiernan directed a holy trinity of action blockbusters, Predator, this, and Hunt for Red October, but never got material that good again and actually ended up going to jail for a few years for lying to the FBI about wiretapping! No matter how much trouble he’s had, they can never take those three movies away from us.
4. It’s funny how many filmmakers on this list have cited the French New Wave as inspiration. The brilliant cinematographer Jan de Bont and the editors Frank J. Urioste and John F. Link drew from Godard the idea of cutting between moving shots, instead of waiting until the camera had stopped moving. Later movies would emulate this and be terrible, but this movie proved that results could be wonderfully propulsive.
5. Alan Rickman won rave reviews on Broadway in “Dangerous Liaisons” only to be replaced in the movie by John Malkovich. Rickman triumphed in the end, however, because only his movie was chosen for Matt Bird’s What Should’ve Won the Could’ve Won. Rickman does so many things beautifully here, but the one I love is when his character suddenly has to fake an American accent and he gets it almost perfect …but not quite. It’s good enough that we believe John has fallen for it, then we also believe when it turns out he saw right through it. (And he had probably seen Hans’s face from atop the elevator.)
   
6. In the novel, the hero is older and fails to save his drug-addicted grown daughter from falling to death with the lead terrorist at the end. McTiernan was having none of that. He said he wanted to bring joy back to action thrillers, which had gotten too grisly, and indeed he plays Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” diagetically and non-diagetically, and even has Rickman humming it. The results are thrilling. John isn’t having a lot of fun, but Hans is, and so are we.

Ah, 1988: Got ten hours and want to hate your friends?

What Should’ve Won That Could’ve Won: 1987

The Year: 1987
What the Nominees Were: Broadcast News, Fatal Attraction, Hope and Glory, The Last Emperor, Moonstruck
Other Movies That Should Have Been Considered: That’s a good list, but I’d add Raising Arizona and Spielberg’s Empire of the Sun

What Did Win: The Last Emperor
How It’s Aged: It’s beautiful, but ultimately fairly forgettable. Bernardo Bertolucci is a great filmmaker but this is not his best work.

What Should’ve Won: Raising Arizona
How Hard Was the Decision: Hard, because I had to convince myself that the Academy could have passed over fat juicy Oscar bait like The Last Emperor in favor of this quirky comedy. But ultimately, Raising Arizona is just so good that I talked myself into it. (Moonstruck is great too, of course, and would have been a worthy pick. Certain elements of Broadcast News, alas, have not aged well)

Director: Joel Coen (and Ethan Coen. The Director’s Guild made them pick one name.)
Writers: Joel and Ethan Coen
Stars: Nicolas Cage, Holly Hunter, John Goodman

The Story: Criminal H. I. McDunnough (“Hi”) goes straight when he marries policewoman Edwina (“Ed”). When Ed discovers that she’s barren, she convinces Hi to kidnap a baby from a local millionaire with quintuplets. Soon everyone is coming after the baby: Ed’s brother-in-law/boss Glen, Hi’s prison buddies Gale and Evelle, and demonic bounty hunter Leonard Smalls.

Any Nominations or Wins: None! It got Screenplay and Actress nominations at the Independent Spirit Awards.
Why It Didn’t Win: The Academy would eventually learn to love the Coens, but few would have predicted that in 1987. This movie’s reputation has risen and risen in the years since its release, but praise was not unanimous at the time. My favorite pan is from Dave Kehr of the Chicago Tribune, who wrote, “the overlooked form peels away from the slight, frail content, and the film starts to look like an episode of Hee Haw directed by an amphetamine-crazed Orson Welles.”

Why It Should Have Won:

1. This movie breaks all the rules of writing. It begins and ends with ten-minute voice-over montages that set everything up and break everything down. That’s supposed to be the death of filmic storytelling. Why does it work so well? First of all, because it’s so funny it makes you weep. Cage’s monologue is marvelously droll, and the little snippets of what other people say are delightfully quotable. Star Wars uses its famous fairy-tale title card to temper our expectation of realistic physics in that world, and this movie does something similar with its banjo-and-yodel opening music and shaggy-dog-story narration. This establishes a mood that might be described as “tall tale” or “folk ballad.” Once a unique tone is established, they can tell their story their way and get away with anything.
   
2. In the year 2000, Ethan Coen would remember this as “the last movie [we] made that made any significant amount of money”. The Coens would not go on to be big money earners, but their spectacular cinematographer Barry Sonnenfeld would when he graduated to directing his own features (Men in Black, Get Shorty, The Addams Family). Sonnenfeld was famous for stretching budgets, (inventing his own low-rent version of steadicam, for instance) and the camerawork here is sensational.
3. In my books, I talk about how heroes should have a “metaphor family” dictating how they talk, which usually comes from their job or their background, but sometimes it can come from their delusions. Hi tells us (though we don’t necessarily believe him) “See, I come from a long line of frontiersmen and outdoor types,” and that explains his oddball turns of phrase “Her insides were a rocky place where my seed could find no purchase.” “Even my job seemed as dry and bitter as the prairie wind.” “I preminisced no return of the salad days.” This movie is delightfully quotable.
   
4. Another rule of mine this movie epitomizes: Always have parallel characters. Hi’s sister-and-brother-in-law represent his worst fears of becoming a dad, and Gale and Evelle represent his worst fears of returning to a life of crime. If we had just one contrasting couple or the other, then the answer would seem too easy: a Goofus-and-Gallant choice between the right way and wrong way, but seeing these two equally-awful outcomes stresses how hard it is to choose the right path. This movie has lots of voiceover, but we don’t need to hear what Hi’s worries are, because we see the two lives he fears most manifest themselves before his eyes.
   
5. The Coens are famous for their meticulous scripting, and indeed the entire opening montage appears verbatim in the script …with the exception of one very funny line that was cut: “I was in for writing hot checks which, when businessmen do it, is called an overdraft. I'm not complainin’, mind you; just sayin’ there ain’t no pancake so thin it ain’t got two sides.” That’s a great line, so why was it cut? Because, in its attempt to make Hi more sympathetic, this line makes him less so. In the final film, we assume that he is going to jail for stick-up work, a more serious crime for which he offers no mitigation, but because he isn’t telling us that he’s not so bad, we’re more likely to reach that conclusion for ourselves.
6. Cage has done a lot of great work and a lot of not-so-great work over the years, but I would say he peaked early on with this performance. Forget Leaving Las Vegas, this is the movie he should have won an Oscar for. And it’s always worth pointing out that John Goodman has never gotten so much as a nomination, so let’s retroactively give him one as well, for his incredible role as Gale.

Ah, 1987: I had not realized that Charles Atlas was still going strong in 1987.  I could have been the hero of the beach!

What Should’ve Won That Could’ve Won: 1986

The Year: 1986
What the Nominees Were: Children of a Lesser God, Hannah and her Sisters, The Mission, Platoon, A Room With a View
Other Movies That Should Have Been Considered: Blue Velvet

What Did Win: Platoon
How It’s Aged: Despite starring Charlie Sheen, it remains a hard-hitting, deeply authentic story, but ultimately a bit too overwrought and melodramatic to deserve the top prize in retrospect.

What Should’ve Won: Blue Velvet
How Hard Was the Decision: Very hard. I had to convince myself that this creepy movie could have won, which is a stretch, but it’s so clearly the best film of 1986, I convinced myself the Academy could have gotten their freak on for just one year. (It did get a Director nomination, after all!)

Writer and Director: David Lynch
Stars: Kyle MacLachlan, Isabella Rossellini, Dennis Hopper, Laura Dern

The Story: The discovery of a severed human ear in a field leads Jeffrey Beaumont on an investigation related to mysterious nightclub singer Dorothy Valens and a group of criminals who have kidnapped her child, led by psychopath Frank Booth. Over the course of his investigation, Jeffrey enters into a creepy relationship with Dorothy while also romancing Sandy Williams, the daughter of the police chief.

Any Nominations or Wins: It’s unusual for a film to get a nomination for Director and nothing else, but that’s what happened. Lynch lost.
Why It Didn’t Win: Hollywood had originally tried to wrestle with Vietnam briefly with three movies in ’78 and ’79, one of which won Best Picture, but none of those movies showed much sympathy for the Vietnamese. Now there was a second wave of Vietnam pictures that dealt with America’s own culpability more frankly, led by Platoon. Having dropped out of Yale to go fight on the front lines, Oliver Stone was the real deal, and his identity on and off-screen made him the ideal messenger. The man and the moment had met, creating an awards juggernaut that knocked this movie flat, despite being a much better film.

Why It Should Have Won:

1. Make no mistake, this would have been the creepiest movie to ever win an Oscar, with very disturbing sadomasochistic sex scenes, but I’d like to believe the Academy was ready to take a walk on the wild side. Sandy says to Jeffrey, “I don’t know if you’re a detective or a pervert,” which begs the question, “Is there a difference?” Later, Jeffrey asks, “Why are there people like Frank? Why is there so much trouble in this world?” What he really means is, “Why am I becoming like Frank?” Jeffrey feels pain when hit, and even more pain when he does the hitting. We feel it too.
   
2. The first cut of Blue Velvet ran a full four hours, but producer Dino DiLaurentiis had given Lynch complete freedom with one condition: it had to be under two hours. Sure enough, the final cut is precisely one frame shorter than 120 minutes. Lynch then destroyed the cut footage, so you can’t find it, but you can find the original script online and stills from the missing scenes on the DVD. The results are fascinating: Lynch could easily have cut a lot of the movie’s oddball tone-setting digressions, but instead he cut out seemingly-essential plot elements. In the scene pictured below, they find a second severed ear, which explains why the victim is missing two when they finally find him in the finished movie. Why did Lynch make this bizarre choice? Because tone is more important than plot. We can guess that the same people who cut off the first ear cut off the second, and we like that the world is bigger and weirder than what we find out.
   
3. Lynch cut out a lot of character-establishing scenes as well, such as scenes showing Jeffrey already engaging in voyeurism at college, but MacLachlan does it all with very little. Simply the way he says “I found an ear” conveys so much that we don’t need scenes that pre-establish his kinks.
   
4. Ultimately, we love Jeffrey despite his supreme creepiness because he’s so delightfully odd. When on a date with Sandy, at a lull in the conversation, he asks “You know the chicken walk?” and begins enthusiastically demonstrating it. Lynch would make a whole career out of winning us over to disturbing characters by having them show idiosyncratic behavior.
   
5. Hopper did get a Best Supporting Actor nomination that year, but it was for the other movie of his big comeback, Hoosiers. Surely this one helped get him the recognition, though. He is utterly compelling and terrifying as the movie’s nitrous-huffing villain Frank (Lynch wanted it to be helium, but Hopper insisted on nitrous because he didn’t want to talk with a funny voice). Like Jeffrey, Frank cries when he must do violence.
   
6. This is our second film in a row with a shockingly vivid color-palette, and our second in a row with a Shakespeare-inspired hero. (Like Hamlet, Jeffrey has been called home from college to deal with a dying father, told he can probably never go back, and presented with a creepy situation he cannot accept.)
   
7. It’s an interesting inversion of how motivation usually works. Our hero has almost no motivation to get involved in this case: (no one he knows or loves is at risk, he hasn’t been accused of the crime, etc.), he has no reason not to trust the police at first (they seem trustworthy and competent for most of the movie, and they seem to already know all the information he uncovers). Most movies follow the progression of “plot motivates, character complicates.” This one is “character motivates, plot complicates” and shows that can work equally well, in the hands of a skilled writer/director.

Ah, 1986: The first time I was tempted but declined a career in sales

What Should’ve Won That Could’ve Won: 1985

The Year: 1985
What the Nominees Were: The Color Purple, Kiss of the Spider-Woman, Out of Africa, Prizzi’s Honor, Witness
Other Movies That Should Have Been Considered: Albert Brooks’ Lost in America and Allen’s Purple Rose of Cairo are great films. For that matter, Back to the Future is a better movie than Out of Africa. Outside of America there was Kurosawa’s Ran and another great Japanese film, Tampopo.

What Did Win: Out of Africa
How It’s Aged: Not well. Generally considered one of the worst Best Picture winners, this lovingly-shot travelogue is more of an advertisement for going on safari than a meaningful motion picture. The actual story is terribly un-involving.

What Should’ve Won: Ran
How Hard Was the Decision: Hard. I love Witness and Lost in America, but put them head-to-head against Ran, and they just get blown out of the water, so once again, I had to invoke “The Parasite Rule” which states that, very rarely, when everything goes exactly right, a foreign film can win Best Picture. (So far, I’ve only invoked this rule once, for another Kurosawa film, High and Low, but we will see it again.)

Director: Akira Kurosawa
Writers: Kurosawa, Hideo Oguni, and Masato Ide, based on “King Lear” by William Shakespeare
Stars: Tatsuya Nakadai, Akira Terao, Jinpachi Nezu, Daisuke Ryu, Mieko Harada, Peter

The Story: Aging warlord Hidetora decides to divide up his kingdom amongst his three sons, but keep his own army. His younger son tells him he’s a fool and gets banished in return. The older sons quickly turn on Hidetora, and each other, and the kingdom falls into warfare.

Any Nominations or Wins: Kurosawa had fallen out of favor in Japan, which didn’t even submit the film as their entry for Best Foreign Film. Nevertheless it was nominated for four awards. It lost for Director (the only time Kurosawa was ever nominated), Art Direction, and Cinematography, but won for Emi Wada’s stunning Costume Design.
Why It Didn’t Win: After Japan snubbed the film, Sidney Lumet took it upon himself to campaign for the film to get other nominations. The fact that it got a Director nomination is an indication that the Academy took it seriously, but foreign films always face huge hurdles, and no one was particularly surprised this one couldn’t mount them, even in the face of weak competition.

Why It Should Have Won:

1. How do you adapt one of the greatest plays of all time? Step one: fix its flaws. “Lear” is great, but its biggest weakness is that its Gloucester subplot is too similar to its main Lear plot (both about foolish fathers bestowing their lands on the wrong children). This movie eliminates the subplot entirely, but then, ingeniously, it takes some of the evil done by characters in that subplot, and attributes that evil to the main character instead. There’s still a character with eyeballs gouged out, but now it was Hidetora himself who did the gouging, in his younger days. This whole saga is not just punishment for being a vain fool, as Lear was, but the consequences of a lifetime of hideous violence. The story is much stronger when it’s about chickens coming home to roost.
2. Kurosawa’s greatest previous masterpieces were done in black and white, and his color films to this point had not exceeded those, but finally with this film he proved that he could compose symphonies of color, beginning with roiling green fields under an expanse of blue sky, then with the clashing primary-colored banners of the sons, which eventually get covered in just one color: red. (As with any production of Lear, he gets to have great fun with the storm as well.)
   
3. One of the odder things about this adaptation is that it changes the daughters to sons, presumably because it just wouldn’t happen with daughters in Japan, but surely Kurosawa was aware that primogeniture was just as much of a thing in England as it was in Japan and the whole point of the original was how unusual (and, in Shakespeare’s view, foolish) it was to pass your land on to your daughters. Ultimately, this revision works and we do get one great female role, with Mieko Harada as the bloodthirsty powerbroker who engineers the entire tragedy as righteous revenge.
   
4. Nakadai’s performance as Hidetora was partly inspired by Noh Theater (as you can tell from his stagey-make-up) which can be a bit alienating to American viewers, but Kurosawa was always a westerner at heart, and when the arrows start flying and (thousands of) horses start galloping, all stagey-ness falls away and this becomes a David-Lean-style epic for the ages. One of the best things about writing this series is that I get to rewatch these movies that I had only seen before forty years ago pan-n-scan on VHS. This movie demands better than that.
   
   
   
5. The fool is a great character in Shakespeare’s play, but isn’t there for the beginning or end of the story, presumably because Shakespeare intended for him to be doubled with the actor playing Cordelia. Here the fool is present throughout (beautifully played by a non-binary one-namer named Peter) as both comic relief and existential conscience of the film. (His outfits are the one thing in the movie that make me say, “Oh, right, it was the ’80s,” though I suspect that was intentional. He has the perspective of the 20th century.)
   
   
   

Ah, 1985: The politics here are fascinating...

What Should’ve Won That Could’ve Won: 1984

The Year: 1984
What the Nominees Were: Amadeus, The Killing Fields, A Passage to India, Places in the Heart, A Soldier’s Story
Other Movies That Should Have Been Considered: It’s crazy that Leone’s Once Upon a Time in America wasn’t nominated. Sayles made his greatest film, Brother from Another Planet. Germany’s Wim Wenders showed he could also master American cinema with Paris, Texas. Over in China, the so-called “fifth generation” of filmmakers began to explode with Chen Kaige’s Yellow Earth.

What Should’ve Won and Did Win: Amadeus (a third year in a row in which I’m not changing the winner!)
How Hard Was the Decision: Very hard. I dearly love Once Upon a Time in America, Brother from Another Planet and Paris, Texas. But they just couldn’t dethrone Amadeus.

Director: Miloš Forman
Writer: Peter Shaffer, based on his play (which was inspired by Alexander Pushkin’s 1830 play “Mozart and Salieri”)
Stars: F. Murray Abraham, Tom Hulce, Elizabeth Berridge, Simon Callow

The Story: Italian composer Antonio Salieri, working at the Austrian court, becomes wildly jealous of new wunderkind Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and eventually falsely blames himself for Mozart’s death. Many years later he “confesses” all to a priest visiting his insane asylum.

Any Other Nominations or Wins: It won Picture, Director, Actor for Abraham, Adapted Screenplay, Art Direction, Costume Design, Makeup and Sound. It lost Actor for Hulce, Cinematography and Editing.
How It Won: It was a bit of longshot win over Places in the Heart. The Academy loves bio-pics, but this is something altogether weirder than that (focused just as much on Salieri as Mozart.) The strong list of nominees split the major awards, and somehow this movie slipped in as winner.

Why It Won:

1. I took away Forman’s Oscar for One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest but this one has aged much better. His persistent theme, going back to his early Czech masterpieces, is anarchy breaking forth into a world of respectability, and Mozart, more even than Cuckoo’s McMurphy, is his ultimate avatar
2. Yes, you may say, but Tom Hulce (best known outside of this for Animal House) is no Jack Nicholson, and that’s true, but I still think he does a great job. Forman cast mostly-unknowns in the leads so that star wattage wouldn’t distract from his story. One can’t help but wonder what if would have been like if they had stayed with the Broadway cast, with Ian McKellen as Salieri and Tim Curry (!) as Mozart, but we got what we got and I won’t get upsot. Hulce wins me over with his high-pitched alarm-blast of a nervous laugh.
   
3. Twyla Tharp does the choreography for the recreated operas and found that she couldn’t go over-the-top enough for Forman (as she lays out in the excellent making-of doc on the Blu-Ray). This doesn’t feel like a stuffy period piece at all, its portrait of Vienna decadence feels altogether more phantasmagorical.  In the doc, Forman talks about being forced to watch Soviet-approved biopics of Russian composers and swearing he would never do anything like that.  He didn’t. 
   
4. I have generally tried to avoid Director’s Cuts for this series, preferring to review the print that actually won, but the original of this one seems to be lost media, so I watched the expanded version, bumped up from 161 to 181 minutes. My wife knows the film much better than I and she confirmed my impression that the extra 20 minutes were not essential but also not extraneous. The main difference is that we hear more of Mozart’s music and that can’t be a bad thing.
5. Salieri is angry at god for giving more talent to Mozart and the film creates many very human moments that drive that home, such as when Mozart takes the welcoming piece Salieri has written for him and improves on it. I’ve been humiliated by colleagues more talented than me. The idea of devoting an entire play-turned-movie out of such jealousy-turned-rage is inspired.

Ah, 1984: McDonald’s famously lost a bunch of money on this when the communist countries boycotted and the US won everything (which was later parodied with Krusty the Clown on “The Simpsons”)

What Should’ve Won That Could’ve Won: 1983

The Year: 1983

What the Nominees Were: The Big Chill, The Dresser, The Right Stuff, Tender Mercies, Terms of Endearment
Other Movies That Should Have Been Considered: Sayles’ Baby, It’s You, Allen’s Zelig, and Bergman’s Fanny and Alexander

What Should’ve Won and Did Win: Terms of Endearment
How Hard Was the Decision: Very hard because Terms of Endearment is not an all-time classic, but it was a weak year. It came down to this or Tender Mercies, so I just watched both, and I surprised myself by picking this one. Tender Mercies is very good, and Robert Duvall gives a legendary performance, but the movie just felt too slight compared to this.

Director: James L. Brooks
Writer: James L. Brooks, adapted from the novel by Larry McMurtry
Stars: Debra Winger, Shirley MacLaine, Jack Nicholson, Danny DeVito, John Lithgow

The Story: Houston teen Emma Greenway gets away from her hyper-critical mother Aurora and marries hapless English professor Flap Horton, moving first to Iowa then Nebraska. They raise three kids, but eventually Emma dies of cancer and Flap agrees to have Aurora raise the kids back in Houston. (Aurora also has an fling with the astronaut next door.)

Any Other Nominations or Wins: MacLaine and Winger went up against each other for Best Actress and MacLaine won. Nicholson and Lithgow went up against each other for Supporting Actor and Nicholson won. It also won Picture, Director, and Adapted Screenplay. It lost Art Direction, Editing, Score and Sound.
How It Won: The movie was a surprise hit (second only to Return of the Jedi at the box office), the Academy loves a good whole-tissue-box tearjerker, and, let’s face it, the picking were slim.

Why It Won:

1. I’ve recently took away the Oscars of two other family-drama tear-jerkers, Kramer vs Kramer and Ordinary People. This movie isn’t as good as those two, but I’m letting it keep its Oscar because the competition is weaker. Of course, I didn’t rewatch those movies, and maybe I was scared to, trying to protect myself emotionally. This time I had no choice but to rewatch, and it wrecked me. I hadn’t seen it since I had cancer and I had kids (not at the same time, thankfully). This time, the movie’s sentimentality felt well-earned, closely-observed, and emotionally-devastating.
   
2. Duvall is great in Tender Mercies, but this one has not one but two all-time-great roles for its two lead actresses, creating a tragic circumstance where only one could win Best Actress. For the record, they got it wrong. MacLaine is deeply moving as a problematic mother turned middle-aged lover, and she was overdue for an Oscar, but Winger is called upon to show more emotional range. She proves that she was one of the great actresses and her too-short period of getting great roles (though she has continued to work in minor roles) seems like a tragedy.
   
3. I reluctantly passed over The Last Picture Show, which was also based on a Larry McMurtry novel (and also featured Polly Platt as more-than-just Production Designer). And “Lonesome Dove” was a miniseries, not a movie, so this is my one remaining chance to honor him. The fact that one person could turn out three such wildly different versions of Texas’s story (rural, urban and inbetween, historical to modern-day, male-led and female-led) and break your heart with all three, shows a massive talent.
4. James L. Brooks was a master television maker (from “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” to “Taxi” to “The Simpsons”) making his film debut here as both writer and director. He brings some TV habits over (the heart-tugging score is laid on a little thick) but he proved that he could do great work in this medium as well. He maintains his special gift for making you laugh and cry (and before you claim “The Simpsons” doesn’t make you cry, remember the note saying “You are Lisa Simpson.” Tearing up, aren’t you?)
5. When Emma tells her mom she’s marrying Flap, her mom tells her “You are not special enough to overcome a bad marriage.” It is to Brooks’ and MacLaine’s great credit that they can still get us to root for her after that and other criticisms. Acid-tongued characters are frequently compelling, and they can even become sympathetic if handled with great delicacy. 
   
6. Emma keeps catching herself starting to do the same things to her kids that her mom did to her. I’ve never seen a movie better at showing how much work it is to police yourself from doing that, something I know something about.

Ah, 1983: An iconic ad for a truly crappy product. I grew up in the cassette era, which was the worst recorded music ever sounded.

What Should’ve Won That Could’ve Won: 1982

The Year: 1982
What the Nominees Were: E. T. the Extra Terrestrial, Gandhi, Missing, Tootsie, The Verdict
Other Movies That Should Have Been Considered: Sophie’s Choice, The World According to Garp and Victor/Victoria come to mind. Not much going on overseas (the various New Waves had all crested.)

What Should’ve Won and Did Win: Gandhi
How Hard Was the Decision: It was hard. All five of these movies are very good, and Gandhi has not aged perfectly. They cast an actor who was only half-Indian and had to put brown make-up on him, which is a major mark against the movie.  (Ben Kingsley’s birth name was Krishna Bhanji, and he was from the same province as Gandhi, but he’s very fair-skinned without the makeup.)  It was very tempting to give this Oscar to Tootsie, which is great, but ultimately not as momentous as Gandhi.

Director: Richard Attenborough
Writer: John Briley
Stars: Ben Kingsley, Candice Bergen, Edward Fox, John Gielgud

The Story: Mohandas Gandhi gets thrown off a train in South Africa in 1893, so he becomes a civil disobedience leader, first in Africa and then back in India. Eventually he secures independence for his country, only to be assassinated by a fellow Hindu for being too conciliatory to the Muslim minority.

Any Other Nominations or Wins: It won Picture, Director, Actor, Original Screenplay, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume Design, and Editing. It lost Makeup, Original Score and Sound.
How It Won: E.T. had already become the most successful movie ever made by the time the awards rolled around, and was considered a juggernaut, but bio-pics are famously Oscar-bait. Ultimately E.T. and Tootsie split the “popular movie” vote and Gandhi was able to squeak out a win with its “serious movie” vibes.

Why It Won:

1. Kingsley is miscast in that he has the wrong skintone, but his performance is incredible and he deservedly won Best Actor (even though Paul Newman for The Verdict was overdue to win). Actors love to play enigmatic characters, and Gandhi will frequent respond to serious questions with just a shrug and a change of the subject. Gandhi is forced to give a few speeches, but his devastating actions always speak louder.
   
2. David Lean was still alive and making movies, but Attenborough had realized that Lean was never going to turn his eye to this particular subject, so it was up to him to make the best Lean movie that Lean never made. Ultimately, Attenborough lacks some of Lean’s cinematic artistry (who doesn’t?) but he matches his scope. Gandhi is the genuine revolutionary that T. E. Lawrence only imagined himself to be and this is the epic he deserves.
   
3. Briley wrote very little else, but deserves his Oscar and a place in film history for this sensitively observed and stirring script. Gandhi is valorized but it’s also clear that he was such a martyr (sometimes needlessly) that he drove everyone around him crazy.
4. This movie is three hours and eleven minutes long, but not a moment seems slow or wasted. I wouldn’t want it to be a moment shorter. Some subjects deserve this treatment. If we saw an achievement of this scale (the freeing and tragic partition of a country) play out in less time, we would feel cheated.
5. Indian filmmakers were upset that the Indian government invested millions of dollars into this production, understandably insisting that this was an Indian story that should have been told by Indians, but no one can accuse Attenborough of favoring the British, who look terrible here. This is a movie about a great evil and Attenborough shows that unreservedly.
   
6. It is to this movie’s enormous credit that it didn’t create one British person to be a nemesis that kept recurring throughout Gandhi’s long struggle. That’s not how life works and it would have been reprehensible to pretend it did. Instead he faces a steady procession of bureaucrats over many years, some more canny than others.

Ah, 1982: E.T. in a beer ad? It was a slippery slope from here to the point where the Lorax was selling SUV’s.