awallaceunc wrote:I don't really think that Oscar nods and wins hold much weight, though. For one, it's not fair to compare 1992 to 1994, they were different years. Oscar ceremonies are only measurements of the year that they evaluate. Furthermore, I don't really think much of the Academy's taste, and view it as a contest of politics, rather than quality. I value my own assessment of a film far more than there's. So while it does say something about a film's reception within Hollywood for that year, I don't find that to be a worthy argument for superiority of a film. Just my $0.2
Just your 20¢? ~_^
My thoughts exactly.
Beauty and the Beast pulled off an incredible feat by being nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, but that's not exactly a valid measure for its quality. The Oscars are really a self-preening, political ceremony that usually pick the Flavor of the Month (or Year, I should say) to win. How else can you explain
A Beautiful Mind winning in 2001?
Its historical significance shouldn't be a factor, either. "It ushered in a new era..." so what? That's talking more about the
series of films in the early 90s, and their combined quality on a whole, than it is speaking of the individual film in question - BatB.
I guess it really is mostly about personal preference. I don't think BatB
sucks, as someone put it - I think it's a marvelously made film - but it just doesn't move me that much. Yes, even when Belle's weeping over the Beast, strewn across his chest.
On the other hand, I've got a great weakness for animal flicks. I don't think it's the "cute animal" factor, but something more uh - allegorical? The symbolism in animal flicks resonate with me, for some reason. For me, an animal character is more sympathetic than a human, and I can relate more easily to an anthropomorphized animal - I dunno why. It just works for me. Much better than dancing teacups, anyway.
