Best Picture 1991

Finally at the end of this year. Lots to look forward to in the group and stuff I haven't seen before. Will be good to close out this year and move on!

1991 Best Picture

The Silence of the Lambs

I'll be honest, I've never actually seen this film all the way through before now. I've seen it piecemeal while at a friends house or bored on a Saturday afternoon while flipping channels or through the scenes that get shown over and over when talking about this film. So it was nice to finally sit down and watching from start to finish because I finally got the best representation of the film as a whole. Most people remember Hannibal Lecter and all of his quotable lines and even Buffalo Bill and his scenes, but I think a lot of people say those lines having not even seen it or only having seen those specific scenes kinda like me. Now I know why Buffalo Bill says 'It puts the lotion in the basket or it gets the hose again' and I've got the context for it besides just a throwaway line. It's also a bit weird when people call this a horror film to me because while it has some scary elements, I was never on edge or terrified or freaked out. It's more of a psychological thriller which most people refer to it as also but the horror label has always irked me. I think of it as just a really great film that stands up even today and even with all the quotable lines and parodies that have happened since. I don't think of it as purely a genre type film. The acting in the film is obviously amazing as the two leads were rewarded by the Academy and deservedly so. But what I also like about it is how well paced the film is. It never detours into extraneous crap, just focusing on the two leads and the investigation and moving from one scene to the next very efficiently. I like that there's no subplot about Foster's love life or something ridiculous like that. It tells it's story and does it economically. The music is great, the cinematography is great and the whole vibe of the film works so well. It's a really well made film and it makes everything else this year look silly by comparison. This is an all-timer and one of the better decisions by the Academy for BP. It's crazy, too, to think that this film came out in February and did so well at the Oscars. Nowadays, February is a dumping ground for bad films and the Oscar contenders come out at the end of the year. I guess that's what happens when a film can transcend labels by being a classic.

Beauty and the Beast

Okay, so this was such a great way to end my watching of the 1991 films. A Disney classic that I haven't seen in years that I was really looking forward to seeing because I remember it was great way back when. Plus, it's only 84 minutes so it was like a nice, quick palate cleanser after watching The Silence of the Lambs. And I absolutely love that it was included in this Best Picture group. It was the first ever animated feature to be nominated in BP and came in the middle of a time where Disney was pumping out classics almost year after year, so this is a good representation of the art form and studio at that time. The animation is beautiful and story is simple, yet engaging. The songs are great, the voice acting is wonderful, and the feeling it brings with it can't be quantified. It's almost an experience to watch the film again because the Disney films give such a sense of joy and happiness and nostalgia. Now I am viewing this with a ton of nostalgia and memories of being a kid but even if I was watching it back then, I'd want this to be a BP finalist and be glad that it's not just a token nomination. Because honestly, if The Silence of the Lambs wasn't here, this would be your winner over the other films in this group, without a doubt. It's just a great film to watch. Lumiere and Cogsworth are funny and Gaston is a good, smarmy villain. This film is mostly here because The Little Mermaid got so much love the year prior and the Academy is always a year or more late to any trends. But still, this film is great and a classic and deserves its nomination.

Bugsy

I feel like gangster films this late in the century really need to do something special or unique or at least have to be really visceral and realistic to stand out above all the myriad of gangster films that have come before it. I don't think Bugsy quite fits this profile. Bugsy isn't a bad film, by any means, it's just not one that people will come back to over and over and think of as a classic. It's got some pretty great acting from it's eponymous lead in Warren Beatty playing Bugsy Siegel, the gangster who moved out to LA and turned Las Vegas into a gambling haven. It's got some decent supporting acting and the chemistry between Bening and Beatty is incredibly tangible (makes sense that they got together while filming this). And strangely I enjoyed the music in this film, mostly while Bening and Beatty were getting it on, but it was something I noticed and thought was great. For me, Bugsy is almost too slick and polished feeling. It feels too Hollywood and while it can be entertaining and I understand it's nomination, it doesn't quite satisfy a craving for gangster picture. Beatty can be too much of a star to believe he's a ruthless, notorious gangster even if his switching between fake good guy and raging psychopath is intriguing to watch. It's almost about how much time Beatty can get onscreen and I wish the film had delved into Bugsy the man a lot more. He seemed like a very complex guy and I would have liked to know how he got to be the way he was instead of seeing him schmooze everyone to make more money. The romance part actually felt a little more realistic because Bening at least fought back just as hard as Beatty was giving it out and at least they didn't make her into a pushover, Barbie doll woman. She at least had some life in her performance and wasn't a stock, love interest character. So while Bugsy has a lot of parts that work well, it's still dwarfed by some of the other competition in this category, including the winner. It's entertaining but nowhere near Best Picture winner worthy.

JFK

Alright, so this film seems to come down on one or two sides for people: those that either believe or enjoy the conspiracy theory hokum or those like me, who think watching three and a half hours of it is a bit too much. Now don't get me wrong, JFK is certainly entertaining at times. I love big ensemble films like this where there are tons of stars interacting, some going against type, giving really interesting performances. That's the main draw for me here is watching all the different performances. I was intrigued that Tommy Lee Jones was chosen to represent the film out of all of them because I felt there were some other great performances in this film. One of the drawbacks is that you really have to pay attention closely if you want to be able to follow along with the myriad of conspiracy theory plots. Yes, you should pay attention to every film you watch but you'll be severely lost if you don't pay attention here. It's layered and thick but not so much that you need to have a degree in Kennedy Conspiracy Theories. The film is boiled down to a New Orleans Attorney General learning from some gay guys they arrest that the plot to kill Kennedy goes deep and Kevin Costner, the Attorney General, pursues the lead trying to unravel the complicated mystery. I'll admit when the characters start rattling off "facts" and "truths" the film is interesting because you either agree or try to pick it apart. The ending at the trial where the events of the assassination are spelled out and all the inconsistencies and peculiarities and bizarre coincidences are mentioned, yeah, you perk up a bit and think about everything. But like one of the characters, a great Michael Rooker, who adheres to what America is all about and can't fathom a conspiracy to kill the President asks how can the Mafia, the Communists, the Cubans, the CIA, the Army Intelligence, the whoever all coordinate without there ever being a leak about their plans since? I have a hard time swallowing all the mumbo jumbo just like Rooker that we are force fed here. Like yeah, there's some compelling evidence, but also some ridiculous stretches. So I choose to just not concern myself with the intricacies of the "plots." It just doesn't matter to me. A great leader was killed who could have continued to do great things and let's move on and watch movies. JFK is a bit long, obviously, but I like that it tackles a subject that most would be unwilling to even try to take on. Oliver Stone has done this for years and years and takes on Snowden this year. At least he tries even if they are to varying degrees of quality. JFK is entertaining whether you take it seriously or not and we need more films like this.

The Prince of Tides

I'm not entirely sure how this film made it into the Best Picture group. Actually, yes I am: Barbra Streisand. The Academy is infatuated with anything she does it seems and she gets love for awful films like this. For real, The Prince of Tides is not a very good film. It's about a guy whose sister tries to kill herself and the sister's shrink wants a family member to go to New York to talk to her. Nolte ends up going and talking to Streisand the shrink. Family issues are discussed and secrets are told and convoluted love plots occur. Seriously, it's like everything was filmed separately and just put together and called The Prince of Tides. The motivations of the characters often don't make sense. I didn't understand why Nolte and Streisand fall in love and have awkward love scenes other than this kind of film just demands it on principle. It was like Streisand was following a formula and just went with the romance part because that's what it said to do. Nolte basically just abandons his family and lives in New York City for awhile hanging out with Streisand's character and teaching her son how to play football. Then we find out his wife cheated on him and doesn't want him back for awhile and Nolte confesses about the traumatic events in his youth and he hooks up with Streisand. It's all very weird and never fits together well. From scene to scene, I was wondering why this or that was happening because it didn't make sense from what I had just watched. The motivations and reasons make no sense and I'm left wondering what the heck the Academy voters saw in this insipid little film. It feels very self indulgent for Streisand and like an exercise in new acting techniques for Nolte. It's a mess of a film that makes little sense in meaning and in being nominated.


This group has such a strong winner that even though the other films don't stand up as being that great save the Disney classic on here, it doesn't matter because all anyone remembers is The Silence of the Lambs. It's a great winner and my winner, too. Next up would be Beauty and the Beast which could have won if not for the actual winner. Imagine an animated film winning Best Picture, almost happened. As for 3rd and 4th, well it comes down to I'd rather watch Bugsy on an endless loop instead of JFK. JFK has some great acting and lots of stars but the conspiracy theory hokum is a bit too much for me. Bugsy needed to be a lot more gritty and less Hollywood for me to take it seriously. Bringing up the rear is The Prince of Tides which is just a bad film. I didn't like it, didn't get it, and don't want to see it again. Though the winner dwarfs all the others, I wish the category had been a bit stronger.

Oscar Winner: The Silence of the Lambs
My Winner:  The Silence of the Lambs
Beauty and the Beast
Bugsy
JFK
The Prince of Tides