What Should’ve Won That Could’ve Won: 1974

The Year: 1974
What the Nominees Were: Chinatown, The Conversation, The Godfather Part II, Lenny, The Towering Inferno
Other Movies That Should Have Been Considered: Scorsese had another great one with Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore. And if we grant that the Academy should have been more accepting of comedy, then we have to acknowledge that Mel Brooks released both Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein that year!

What Should’ve Won and Did Win: The Godfather Part II
How Hard Was the Decision: Very hard. Chinatown is an equally great movie, but Coppola wins the tie because of what we now know about Polanski. I am factoring “retrospectively problematic” into my equations.

Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Writers: Coppola and Puzo again, still adapting material from the same novel
Stars: Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton, Robert De Niro

The Story: We flashback to Vito’s origins (now played by De Niro) in the early 1900s and show Michael’s moral collapse in the 1950s, as he gets tripped up by the Cuban Revolution, televised mafia hearings, and his wife leaving him.

Any Other Nominations or Wins: It won Picture, Director, Supporting Actor for De Niro, Adapted Screenplay, Art Direction and Score. It lost Actor for Pacino, Supporting Actor for Michael V. Gazzo and Lee Strasberg, Supporting Actress for Shire and Costume Design
How It Won: The juggernaut was still going from the first one and momentum carried it through. Equally good reviews, added to somewhat-diminished but still very strong box office (especially impressive because the epic 3:21 running time meant fewer showings per day) were enough to win over the Academy and stamp out Chinatown’s chances.

Why It Won:

1. We all know from her later work in Rocky that Shire was a very good actress, but how on Earth did she get a nomination from this instead of Keaton, who is stunning here? Kay is still shell-shocked from the events of the first movie until she finally gets her own and does what no rival don can do: Ruins Michael’s life.
   
2. De Niro almost got cast in the small role of traitorous chauffeur Paulie in the first movie, but thankfully passed, leaving him available for the much stronger role of young Vito. Sharing a role with Brando is a tall order, but De Niro is just as much of a generational talent, and rose to the challenge. He mimics the gravelly mumble a bit but decided not to stuff any cotton into his cheeks to replicate the jowls.
   
3. Coppola has said, “I had two films that didn’t make sense together. They were shot in a different style; they had a different smell to them. My friend George Lucas said to me, ‘Francis, you have two movies. Throw one away. It doesn’t work.’ But I had this hunch that if I could ever make it work, it could be fantastic.” In the end, Coppola was right and Lucas was wrong. Neither half of this movie would be satisfying on its own, but informing each other, bookending the events of the first movie, they’re profound. And the different looks (or “smells”) compliment each other nicely.
4. The sequence in which young Vito stalks Don Fanucci across the rooftops above the Feast of San Gennaro, then descends into a building to shoot him with a towel wrapped around his gun is one of the most stunning in the history of cinema. When the gun going off lights the towel on fire, we can tell that Vito hasn’t done this before, but his calm reaction assures us that this won’t be his last hit.
   
5. The first film has about ten legendary lines, but it’s easy to forget how many of Michael’s memorable quotes come from this one (such as “My offer is this: Nothing”) It’s also embarrassing to admit that one of his most quoted lines (“Every time I think I’m out…”) actually comes from Part III, about which nothing more will be spoken.
6. There is no opening speech about America this time, but the metaphor of America-as-mafia still comes through loud and clear. When the mobsters and heads of supposedly-legitimate corporations plunge their knives into a cake with a map of Batista’s Cuba, we understand that it’s not just the mafia that’s being condemned. (And they actually had the courage to say the words mafia and cosa nostra this time!)
   
   
   

Ah, 1974: My parents would serve these as suggested, then I, as a little kid, would take them out, suck the salt off them, and put them back in the glass dish. I was a little monster

What Should’ve Won That Could’ve Won: 1973

The Year: 1973
What the Nominees Were: American Graffiti, Cries and Whispers, The Exorcist, The Sting, A Touch of Class
Other Movies That Should Have Been Considered: The Academy missed out on most the great American films that year, including The Last Detail, Scarecrow, Mean Streets, Serpico, Badlands, and Paper Moon.

What Did Win: The Sting
How It’s Aged: It’s delightful. I considered sticking with it just so I could watch it again. But ultimately, it doesn’t quite have the dramatic heft of our winner, which was a very similar movie.

What Should’ve Won: Paper Moon
How Hard Was the Decision: A very hard choice between Mean Streets, Serpico, The Sting and Paper Moon. Mean Streets and Serpico are masterpieces, but if I chose either, that would mean that I might have to do three (or maybe even four, depending on what I choose for 1975) Italian-American crime sagas in a row, and that’s tiring (of course, at the time, they couldn’t’ve known that might be a problem, but I’m granting myself retrospective vision.)  That left the two con-man movies, and Paper Moon edged out The Sting.  

Director: Peter Bogdanovich
Writer: Alvin Sargent, based on the novel “Addie Pray” by Joe David Brown
Stars: Ryan O’Neal, Tatum O’Neal, Madeline Kahn and John Hillerman

The Story: Petty con man Mose Pray stops off at the funeral of a former lover only to get saddled with a kid named Addie who may just be his daughter. He first intends to palm her off on relatives, but she starts helping him with his cons and they bond, so he keeps her around.

Any Nominations or Wins: Kahn and Tatum went up against each other for Supporting Actress and Tatum won (she’s still the youngest winner of a competitive Oscar). It also got nominations for Adapted Screenplay and Sound but lost both.
Why It Didn’t Win: It’s surprising that it didn’t get a picture nomination, since the Academy liked it well enough to give it Best Supporting Actress. It is, of course, very similar to The Sting (both about depression-era conmen) and maybe the Academy decided it could only have one movie in that vein.

Why It Should Have Won:

1. This movie is best remembered for Tatum O’Neal’s performance as Addie, and it remains one of the all-time great marvels of acting. Obviously it helped to have her real father as her co-star, giving his own best performance, but she acts circles around him and everyone else, as outwardly hard-as-nails, but secretly very self-conscious Addie. When her little moments of weakness poke through her exterior, it’s heartbreaking every time.
   
2. Kahn, who was in 18 minutes of the movie, was not happy about having to compete for Best Supporting Actress with Tatum, who was in all but 3 minutes. Indeed, Tatum should have been nominated for (and won) Best Actress and Kahn should have won Supporting, because she’s also phenomenal as a floozie who travels with the pair for a while, before Addie gets rid of her. Kahn, like everyone else in this movie, would never get a part this good again.
   
3. Alvin Sargent wrote a wide range of screenplays, from Ordinary People to Spider-Man 2 (the Tobey Maguire one, which remains one of the best super-hero movies). At 103 minutes, this is a master class in economy that today’s screenwriters desperately need to take.
4. Bogdanovich’s mentor was John Ford, and watching this movie’s astounding rural-Kansas compositions, one can’t help but think of the scene in Spielberg’s The Fabelmans where Ford (played by David Lynch) teaches a young Spielberg where to put the camera. Clearly, Spielberg wasn’t the only one Ford gave that advice to.
   
5. But the real star of this movie is unfairly credited merely as the production designer. Polly Platt was Bogdanovich’s wife until he left her for Cybil Shepherd, the star of their movie The Last Picture Show. Astoundingly, Platt was willing to keep working with him and found this novel then did most of the work of making this movie happen. Listen to Karina Longworth’s excellent (but long!) season of “You Must Remember This” about her to learn more. Bogdanovich’s first four movies, the ones he made with Platt, are all brilliant films. After this movie, their working relationship finally fell apart and Bogdanovich never made a great movie again.

Ah, 1973: Romantic!

What Should’ve Won That Could’ve Won: 1972

The Year: 1972
What the Nominees Were: Cabaret, Deliverance, The Emigrants, The Godfather, Sounder
Other Movies That Should Have Been Considered: John Huston’s Fat City was a late masterpiece.

What Should’ve Won and Did Win: The Godfather

How Hard Was the Decision: Surprisingly hard. Everybody knows that The Godfather is one of the most worthy winners in Oscars history, but I have even more affection for Cabaret, which would have won most other years in the 70s if I could only move it. I was tempted to take this Oscar away but I just couldn’t bring myself to do it.

Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Writers: Coppola and Mario Puzo, based on Puzo’s novel
Stars: Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan, Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton

The Story: Mafia don Vito Corleone refuses to take up drug dealing, which ignites a mob war. His son Santino aka Sonny gets shot up at a toll booth. His law-abiding son Michael gets drawn in and volunteers to assassinate a rival boss and a chief of police, then gets exiled to Sicily. Michael comes home to take over the family entirely from Vito, who dies of a heart attack while playing with his grandson. Michael finally orders the assassination of all of the family’s enemies.

Any Other Nominations or Wins: It won Picture, Actor for Brando and Adapted Screenplay. Caan, Duvall and Pacino were all nominated against each other for Supporting Actor and all lost. It also lost Director (to Bob Fosse for Cabaret), Costume Design, Editing and Sound. Nino Rota was nominated for Best Score, but then it was decided that he had borrowed from a previous score and the nomination was revoked.
How It Won: The critics loved it and it was a big hit with audiences, too. The movie became a phenomenon, and thus a shoo-in (but Fosse’s director win means that the Academy also knew that Cabaret was great.)

Why It Won:

1. Universal wanted a cheapo quickie, so they hired Corman-vet Coppola, but Coppola had a vision. He hadn’t yet distinguished himself as a director, but after he was hired for this movie he won an Oscar for writing Patton, and he clearly decided that a mafia film could rival that one in scope: Longer running time, more epic sweep, more to say about the nature of America. Both movies begin with a fixed camera as a man gives a long speech about believing in America, but this one (delivered by the wronged undertaker Bonasera) is more devastating.
   
2. Coppola had a secret weapon: Casting director Andrea Eastman. Pacino, Duvall, Caan and Keaton, had all made a few film appearances that hadn’t set the world on fire. Eastman saw in them the potential for greatness, when put together in the right combination.
3. If the studio had had its way, the movie might have starred Kirk Douglas as Vito and Dustin Hoffman as Michael. Two great actors, but they would have been horrible in these roles. Coppola and Eastman insisted on Italians playing the Italian characters, and that authenticity is crucial.  
   
4. The production design is perhaps the greatest of all time. This truly feels like the ‘40s. But, to its credit, it doesn’t look like a movie shot in the ‘40s at all, not only because it’s in color, but because cinematographer Gordon “Prince of Darkness” Willis creates sumptuous blacks that look like nothing seen onscreen before. This feels like real life. (And I love all the incongruous background noises in many scenes, creating a startlingly realistic soundscape as well.)
   
5. This is certainly the most violent movie we’ve looked at, and it’s kind of hard to take for that reason, but you have to hand it to the movie for coming up with so many unique and shocking ways to kill men (or just leave a severed horse head in their beds.)
   
6. There are 13 deleted scenes on the DVD. As is frequently the case with great movies, many of them add interesting elements, but you can see how they were cut for pacing. There’s just one that I really miss, where Vito expresses contempt for Michael’s medals after the wedding and Michael is just as contemptuous back to him.  This is key for setting up the gradual transformation of their feelings about each other, but it happened in the middle of a storyline that had to go. The art of filmmaking is as much about what comes out as about what stays in.

Ah, 1972: Tragically premature prediction...

New Episode of "A Good Story Well Told" on Big Trouble in Little China, with Kate Milford!

Acclaimed children’s author Kate Milford joins us to talk about one of her favorite movies, John Carpenter’s cult classic Big Trouble in Little China. Will she be able to win us over to its charms?

What Should’ve Won That Could’ve Won: 1971

The Year: 1971
What the Nominees Were: A Clockwork Orange, Fiddler on the Roof, The French Connection, The Last Picture Show, Nicholas and Alexandra
Other Movies That Should Have Been Considered: I can understand how they overlooked Harold and Maude, but how could they ignore the greatness of McCabe and Mrs. Miller??

What Did Win: The French Connection
How It’s Aged: It’s one of the best movies ever made. A crackerjack action-thriller but also a profound meditation on good and evil. I desperately wish I could let this movie keep its Oscar. But…

What Should’ve Won: Harold and Maude
How Hard Was the Decision: An almost impossible choice between The French Connection, Fiddler on the Roof, The Last Picture Show, and Harold and Maude, all of which I dearly love. But I had to go with my personal favorite of the year, and maybe all-time, Harold and Maude. Ultimately, when deciding between movies, my test is always, “did it make me laugh and cry” and this movie always makes me laugh out loud and cry like a baby.

Director: Hal Ashby
Writer: Colin Higgins
Stars: But Cort and Ruth Gordon

The Story: A holocaust survivor teaches a morbid young man how to love life, then commits suicide herself, devastating him.

Any Nominations or Wins: Cort and Gordon were both nominated for Golden Globes in the comedy categories, but neither won, and it got no attention from the Oscars at all.

Why It Didn’t Win: Initial reviews were poor (Rex Reed called it “a sick, demented little movie”) and box office was poor before it developed a cult, so it didn’t have a chance.

Why It Should Have Won:

1. The original cut was three hours and producer Charles B. Mulvehill says in the Criterion commentary that you wanted to strangle the characters for being so uplifting for so long. The final cut is 91 minutes without cutting any scenes out, just cutting everyone down (especially good advice from Maude) and it’s a marvel of speed. Every storyline has three quick scenes, all intercut together: Three funerals with Maude, three therapy scenes, three visits with Uncle Victor, three computer dates set up by his mother, intercut brilliantly, each scene starting late and ending early on a question that is answered by a smash-cut. This is one of the all-time best screenplays.
   
2. The Graduate’s use of Simon and Garfunkel songs was great, and Midnight Cowboy’s over-reliance on one Harry Nilsson song was less so, but this movie surpasses them both in its inspiring use of Cat Stevens’ catalogue. Stevens points out in a special feature that he was worried because “this is a comedy and my music is quite serious” but that’s what makes it work. There’s a lot of profundity in the music that doesn’t have to be in the script.
3. For 1970 I considered Ashby’s brilliant first film The Landlord and I’ll be considering more 1970s films of his as we go along (the 80s are not to be spoken of). He looked like a hippie (that’s him standing between Harold and Maude) but he was in his 40s and a lapsed Mormon, so he had a unique perspective on the counterculture. This is the best “hippie” movie of the era, but Maude (as the ultimate Manic Pixie Dream Old-Woman) is an odd vehicle for those values.
   
4. Suicide comedy is inherently distasteful, but this movie takes the topic very seriously while still milking it for fun. Somehow, it works. It’s revealed in the commentary that Ashby’s father committed suicide when Ashby was 12 and he discovered the body, so he was bringing a lot of pain to the movie, and yet each scene where Harold’s mother finds him seemingly dead is freshly hilarious. I love that it’s never made clear how Harold is surviving all of these suicide attempts (we can imagine a way for each one, but the movie gives no clues) until his third date when the date decides to join him in his mock-attempt, but quickly checks to make sure it’s a collapsible knife.
   
5. When Harold catches a glimpse of Maude’s holocaust tattoo, he realizes that, no matter how much we might think we know and love someone, it’s possible to be totally unaware of the depth of their hidden pain. That realization is at the heart of literature, and living in general.
   
6. The acting on Ruth Gordon’s face when she tells Harold she’s taken the pills, still trying to be upbeat, is a master class in complexity. She had won an Oscar a few years before for Rosemary’s Baby (and been nominated before for her screenwriting) but c’mon, if this isn’t an Oscar performance what is? (It’s only on second watch that we realize to our shock that she’s been saying all movie long that she’s going to commit suicide at the end of the week, but tossing off the lines in a way that we don’t take seriously, nor does Harold.)
   
7. When Hollywood makes movies about older-women relationships, it always casts a woman who is barely older than the man, if not younger (Anne Bancroft in The Graduate was only six years older than Dustin Hoffman, and the leg on the poster was that of an even younger woman). This movie, to put it mildly, does not do that, to its enormous credit. Now this is an age gap.

Ah, 1971: For the man that has everything...

What Should’ve Won That Could’ve Won: 1970

The Year: 1970

What the Nominees Were: Airport, Five Easy Pieces, Love Story, MASH, Patton
Other Movies That Should Have Been Considered: Little Big Man is a little problematic but mostly excellent. In Europe there was The Conformist, The Red Circle and Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion

What Did Win: Patton
How It’s Aged: I rewatched it, and it’s a brilliantly made movie, but Nixon infamously screened the movie twice before deciding to secretly and illegally expand the Vietnam war into Cambodia, lest America finally lose a war. And I can easily see how it pushed him in that direction. Pauline Kael nailed it when she said “The Patton shown here appears to be deliberately planned as a Rorschach test. He is what people who believe in military values can see as the true military hero—the red-blooded American who loves to fight and whose crude talk is straight talk. He is also what people who despise militarism can see as the worst kind of red-blooded American mystical maniac who believes in fighting; for them, Patton can be the symbolic proof of the madness of the whole military complex. And the picture plays him both ways—crazy and great.” For willingly and knowingly inspiring jingoistic madness, I have to take away this movie’s Oscar.

What Should’ve Won: The Ballad of Cable Hogue
How Hard Was the Decision: Tremendously hard. As opposed to 1971, when I will have to make an almost impossible choice between five masterpieces, 1970 had very slim pickings indeed. First I was tempted to stay with Patton, before dismissing it for the reasons listed above. Then I rewatched MASH for the first time in 35 years and Hoooo-boy has that movie aged badly (These countercultural cut-ups are “sticking it to The Man”, by which I mean that what they’re actually doing is treating women like crap.) So I was stuck. Should I go with Five Easy Pieces, which does at least bother to look askance at its hero’s mistreatment of women? Should I invoke the Parasite Rule yet again and go with The Conformist or Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion? (Undoubtedly the best two movies of the year, but I couldn’t convince myself either could win an Oscar.) Then the answer hit me like a bolt out of the blue. This is certainly an unconventional pick, but it’s a great movie, and gets the award for being the best non-problematic movie of 1970.

Director: Sam Peckinpah
Writers: John Crawford and Edmund Penney
Stars: Jason Robards, Stella Stevens, David Warner, Strother Martin, Slim Pickins, L. Q. Jones

The Story: A laid-back outlaw is abandoned by his no-good buddies in the middle of the desert. Wandering until he’s on the verge of death, he finally finds water, right where the stagecoach companies happen to need a watering hole. Teaming up with a randy preacher and big-hearted sex worker, he follows an arc that mirrors the rise and fall of American capitalism, (all while pursuing the world’s laziest quest for revenge.).

Any Nominations or Wins: Nothing
Why It Didn’t Win: It was unconventional, but so were other nominees in 1970. But this one, unlike those, was a big old flop, and that still eliminated most movies from consideration.

Why It Should Have Won:

1. This is a “blank check movie.” Peckinpah had a huge hit with The Wild Bunch, and Hollywood presumably wanted more of the same, but he wanted something gentler. He had earned himself a blank check and he was going to cash it. The only thing the two movies have in common is that they’re both about the death of the Old West, for both good and ill.
2. In his rare chances like A Thousand Clowns and this, Robards proved himself to be a great leading man, but Hollywood only caught up to his kind of characters when he was already getting a little old. If America had embraced his brand of shambling cynicism ten years earlier, he would have been one of our biggest stars. He's absolutely magnetic here.
3. After finding water on public land, Robards buys it cheap and then shoots dead anyone who won't give him ten cents to drink it. Business is usually portrayed as a malevolent evil or an abstract good, but this movie shows it to be no different from any other institution: something we create to serve us until we wind up serving it. As Thoreau said "We do not ride on the railroad, it rides upon us," a truth that Robards finally realizes a little too late. His ambition drives his society forward until he slows down just enough for it to run him over.
4. Even in the "free love" early '70s, there was a stark divide between the actresses who engaged in naked shenanigans and those who got taken seriously. Stevens was a former playboy bunny who got lots of "go-go girl" roles but didn't get anything serious until Peckinpah saw something great in her. The worst crime of this movie's lack of success was that not enough people saw what should have been a breakthrough performance. This is one of the sweetest on-screen love stories you'll ever see.
5. Like other movies I’ve promoted over the years, including Blast of Silence and Brother From Another Planet, this is a modestly-budgeted movie that isn't ashamed to extrapolate one small journey into a grander parable about the stages of man. It's surprising to see something this funny and laid back quietly accrue so much meaning. It sneaks up on you.

Ah, 1970:

New Episode of A Good Story Well Told on Tremors with Benjamin Zelkowicz!

Author and animator Benjamin Zelkowicz joins us to share his love of the 1990 Kevin Bacon creature-feature Tremors, and the three of us have a good old time mining it for story insights.  Check it out:

What Should’ve Won That Could’ve Won: 1969

The Year: 1969
What the Nominees Were: Anne of a Thousand Days; Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid; Hello, Dolly!; Midnight Cowboy; Z
Other Movies That Should Have Been Considered: It was an excellent year for American film. Five alternate nominees could have been Alice’s Restaurant, Medium Cool, Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice, The Wild Bunch and They Shoot Horses Don’t They? In addition to Z (which got nominated!), My Night at Maud’s was great overseas.

What Should’ve Won and Did Win: Midnight Cowboy
How Hard Was the Decision: Sort of hard. I was also drawn to The Wild Bunch and Z. Of course, the big knock against Midnight Cowboy is that it seems like the sort of movie that could never win an Oscar, but somehow it did win, and who am I to disagree with this daring pick?

Director: John Schlesinger
Writer: Waldo Salt, based on the novel by James Leo Herlihy
Stars: Jon Voight, Dustin Hoffman, Brenda Vaccaro, Sylvia Miles 

The Story: Texas stud Joe Buck moves to Manhattan to become a gigolo, but instead becomes a homeless bum, befriending a consumptive scrounger named Enrico “Ratso” Rizzo. When Ratso is nearing death, they try to escape to Florida but arrive too late.

Any Other Nominations or Wins: In addition to Picture, it won Director and Adapted Screenplay. It lost twice for Actor (Hoffman and Voigt were pitted against each other, but both got shot down by John Wayne), Supporting Actress for Miles, and Editing.

How It Won: Hollywood could only suppress the youthquake for so long. Academy president Gregory Peck had been aggressively recruiting younger Academy members for years, and here they finally asserted their power, anointing an X-rated and utterly scuzzy film. Wayne would make fun of the New Hollywood at the ceremony, “I’m an American movie actor. I work with my clothes on. I have to. Horses are rough on your legs and your elsewheres.” But Wayne’s win aside, things were changing fast.

Why It Won:

1. The bond between Joe and Ratso is one of the most intense ever put on screen, not exactly gay but not not-gay either. Joe never stops razzing Ratso (including calling him Ratso) until the moment of his death, only to discover then that this was the only love he has ever known (and probably will ever know.)
   
2. The blacklist was well and truly over by now, allowing ex-communists like Salt to write with impunity, and bring the wounds of that time along with them. Ratso is constantly afraid that Joe is going to turn him in (Salt himself was named by the friend who had been best man at his wedding.)
3. Joe is often consumed by nightmarish flashes of his traumatic Texas past, but Salt points out in the Criterion documentary, “There was no flashback that took place in the past. Every flashback took place in that moment in his head. A flashback is only valid if it’s a flash-present.” This is a good way to write flashbacks, and can be seen in many of the British New Wave films that launched directors like Schlesinger. Because the flashbacks are so brief, we never get a full picture of Joe’s traumas, but we get enough.
   
4. Voight, as he became more villainous in his offscreen life, was consigned to villain roles in later life (and has a lot of fun with them) but he was astounding in his brief period as a leading man, bringing an intense empathy to his characters (the kind that he himself would later lack.)
5. When I moved to NYC from the south, I found that there were four stages of being acclimatized: First, being confused when people don’t say excuse me, then realizing that they’re actually offended when you say it to them, then you stop saying it, then finally you start taking offense when others say it to you. Like me, Joe realizes around that point that he has to get out. (I ended up moving there and away three times)
   

Ah, 1969: