Best Picture 1984

Not much to say. I hope I get back into the swing of things and update regularly. I've only seen the winner so I'm curious to see how the others stack up. I'm just ready to move on.

1984 Best Picture

Amadeus

I love this film. It's one of my all time favorites and is my Mom's favorite if I'm not mistaken. I always saw the box cover of the VHS of this when growing up and always thought it was some sort of Egyptian themed film like Stargate. Weird comparison, I know, but I'm glad I eventually watched it because I fell in love with both F. Murray Abraham and Tom Hulce's performances way before I ever got into this project and really started my appreciation for film and acting. The fact that they blew me away as a kid should speak volumes to how brilliant and transcendent their performances truly are. The film is about Abraham's Salieri being jealous of Hulce's Mozart. That's the simple description but it is so layered that you should watch it at least twice. Now according to real life, Salieri and Mozart got along well and all of this is fiction. I don't care because the events in this film are riveting and compose one of the greatest films ever. There is so much to love about this film, though! It makes the classical music of the era feel fresh and it makes the operas they are composing extremely interesting. So much so that I'd love to watch what they created just to understand them better. They are filmed in such an engaging way that you start enjoying the scenes and the themes and the music and everything. And I love how music plays into the film, as it should, but not in a grating, obvious way. It's not like oh, Mozart created this tune and it gets played or we see how some famous piece is shoehorned into the film. No, everything is organic and you don't mind that you don't recognize everything straightaway. The music is awesome in this because the story uses it to great effect. The film is also super funny. It's not obvious at all and is very contextual but I was laughing a lot because of the sly humor injected into the film. It keeps everything fresh and from becoming a dry film about old composers. The main story is the draw - Salieri vs Mozart. Salieri is jealous but also very respectful and admires what Mozart is able to do. There's a lot going on about God and how He chooses his vessels that makes for a much deeper understanding of the story. Again, there is so much going on with this film that you need to watch it a couple times. I think you get a better appreciation fro the film that way. You can see that Constanze is not just all boobs but a pretty shrewd woman and a great performance, too. I feel like this film is criminally left out of all time great film discussions and even great Oscar winner discussions. This is an all time film and people need to see it.

The Killing Fields

This film threw me for a loop. When you hear this film being about journalists trying to get out of Cambodia to avoid the Khmer Rouge, you think it'll be a politically tinged film exposing all the horrors in a typical Hollywood fashion. Something like Salvador springs to mind or even like Platoon with what you might get but this film goes a different route. It hits the ground running and doesn't let up much until an hour and a half in and even then there are very few slower, introspective moments. I went back and forth in my head on whether or not this was a weird film to me. There's a scene where Sam Waterston and Haing S. Ngor are getting people/family onto choppers to flee Cambodia and there is this pulsing, horror/thriller music going on in the background that really sort of changes the feel of the film, it's kind of awesome but also somewhat out of place. I got used to the 80s horror type music and it makes the film more interesting than the typical white guy with minority friend trying to get out of a bad situation thing. I guess you can say it makes it more stylistic and feels less like a formulaic Oscar film. The film itself is about Waterston and Ngor who are journalists in Cambodia when the US starts dropping bombs and then things go south really quickly and the Khmer Rouge take over. The film is all about Ngor who is incredible in a role that he lived through in real life. Why he was relegated to the Supporting category, I don't know, but good thing because he earned the win and probably wouldn't have beat F. Murray Abraham. The rest of the actors are great, too, with a young Waterston in a conflicted, tormented role and John Malkovich as a hotshot, abrasive photographer. I think the structure of the film is what I like the most. While other political films or historical ones like this will be a sequence of events with a character in the middle of all of it, this film lets everything happen in the background and the characters we follow react to things. Sometimes we get dropped into the middle of a scene that otherwise might have played out in full. That keeps the focus on the characters and doesn't just become a history lesson. And believe me, Dith Pran is worth focusing on. It's a very interesting film and brings to light a subject that most people aren't very well versed in (although this film doesn't exactly make anyone a subject matter expert on Cambodia) but it was never going to win against the juggernaut of Amadeus and that's okay. I'm definitely glad I got to watch this film if for nothing more than Ngor's performance.

A Passage to India

I was definitely worried that this would be a long, boring, British period piece but I'm happy to say that I actually thought it was very good. I know David Lean did a couple epics in the 60s and this was his return after like 15 years away but you always wonder if a director returning after a hiatus still has it or not. The film actually has a great pace to it which was the big worry that it would be very slow and boring but it zips along and has a very interesting story. Judy Davis and Peggy Ashcroft venture to India to see Ashcroft's son who is thinking about marrying Davis. The two are appalled at how the British living in India treat the native Indians and they want to go out and experience all the sights and sounds and talk to real people and dive into the culture. So the beginning part starts off this way and it's a little stuffy but the performances are good and of course India looks great. Luckily, the story takes a darker turn almost when Davis goes to visit some caves and an incident occurs. Dr Aziz, who was friends with Ashcroft and Davis, is accused of raping Davis. It's fascinating because this woman who was so into the culture and being friendly with the native people has a frightening experience in a cave and then allows other British people to pressure her into a rape accusation against a so-called friend. The rest of the film is the trial and everything else involved with the aftermath. It's compelling stuff and Ashcroft, Davis and Victor Banerjee (Dr Aziz) are all terrific. I feel that Banerjee should have had an acting nomination himself, he's that good. If they wanted, the Academy could have stuck him in Supporting and created a really diverse group for that category. It's a shame he wasn't nominated. My one huge beef with the film is that Alec Guinness is in brown face portraying an Indian spiritual guy. This is completely inexcusable even in 1984. Like what the hell was he thinking that he agreed to it and what the hell was David Lean thinking in allowing it to happen?? Just cast an actual Indian actor, it's not that hard. And honestly, that little detail brings the film down a lot. I can't vote for it to be my winner because it's just an absurd thing for a modern movie to have in it. And it's not even a little joking nod and wink to the audience or anything like that, he plays it straight. Anyway, the film itself is pretty good and I was surprised that it was so easy to watch and get into. You see films like this on the list and don't know what to expect from them, so it's nice to see the Academy isn't too full of itself and that the film is somewhat deserving of the honor. It was never going to win, but at least it was an entertaining film.

Places in the Heart

I was going to say that I wonder why the Academy fell in love with this film to the tune of seven Oscar nominations (winning two), but they obviously liked Sally Field at the time and, more importantly, chose this from the myriad of farming films that came out in 1984 as the representative of that type of film for Best Picture. I feel it's partially a statement on the cultural atmosphere at that time with the whole Farm Aid thing kicking off in 1985 so this was clearly in the hearts and minds of Hollywood before that. And I think that they thought this was the best representation of that niche over the other Best Actress nominated films of Country and The River. The film is about Field whose husband is killed by a drunk black boy in 1930s Texas. She starts a cotton farm on her property to try and save her home and provide for her kids. She enlists the help of Danny Glover, a black drifter she befriends and who helps her plant and pick her cotton, and more importantly, not get ripped off when selling it. She goes through a number of challenges like the bank demanding more money be paid on her loans, a tornado tearing through the farm, the KKK beating up Glover, and others. She rises to the occasion each time and becomes a less timid woman and much stronger than she ever was before. It's a decent story and easy to see why it would appeal to the Academy. Except, there is a subplot to the film that is absolutely pointless and frivolous that involves Fields' sister getting cheated on by her husband. I have no idea why it was ever included in the film because it breaks up the real story with a needless soap opera type story. I don't care about those characters because they don't factor into the main story at all besides the woman being Fields' sister. It really kills the vibe of the film and makes no sense. It also drags the impact of the film down because when you think of the farming story you then also think of the lame subplot that's leeched onto it. So that makes the overall product not as good as it could, and should, be.

A Soldier's Story

I had never heard of this film before and knew nothing about it and never heard anyone ever mention it, so I was definitely curious about how a majority black acted film could get an Oscar nomination for Best Picture. It's kinda cool how I'm watching this and writing about it mere days after Moonlight wins Best Picture (in a shocking way) because the two have a lot in common. They are majority black acted and both got BP, Supporting Actor, and Writing nominations. Of course, Moonlight won all of those while this film did not, but certainly this helped lay the ground work in some small way. It's one of the few black-centric films to get a Best Picture nod and that's really impressive because it's the one everyone knows the least about. I've at least heard of Sounder and The Color Purple, but this one remained a mystery. It tells the story (weak pun) about a black unit in the South in the early years of WWII and their Master Sergeant, who is a dick, is killed. A black officer (which is completely unheard of at the time and almost everyone had never seen one before) from DC is called in to investigate. At first it's thought maybe the local rednecks or KKK did it but then the film turns into this whodunnit, mystery film that is legitimately intriguing and completely sucks you in. There is heavy use of flashbacks but it's done in a way that you are waiting for the next time so it can unravel a bit more of the mystery. It's great that the black officer is the one leading the charge and gaining some respect (and earning some hatred) for thoroughly trying to do his job. He's a stranger in a strange land and the story does a good job of just presenting things as they really are. Meaning it doesn't over sensationalize the race stuff, which I like. The acting is really great all around and even features three black, Oscar nominated actors in Howard E. Rollins, Jr., Adolph Caesar, and Denzel Washington - I wonder if that's ever happened before? Denzel plays his typical early film self where he is angry black man out to prove he's something. He's good though, but Caesar is the standout and deservedly rewarded with an Oscar nomination. I just love how this somehow snuck into the Best Picture group because it seems so topical even today. I concede that others might not be so enamored with the story and how it's told but I love it. Yes, there are some musical cues that made me want to punch whoever responsible for making it seem so jaunty and jovial at times. This is not a Driving Miss Daisy type of film so the music shouldn't reflect that tone. But that's a nitpick and I do wish more people would check this film out.


An interesting group, definitely. Amadeus is an all time great film. It's one of the best ever and it's an obvious, easy winner. As for the next four, well, The Killing Fields is good because of Dith Pran and his performance. It's an important film (like most of these, honestly) and sheds light on a little known slice of history. It's well done and comes up second to a wrecking ball. I really liked A Soldier's Story because it seems topical even 30 years later and is really well done. Maybe I like it because of my soldier background but it's a good film, too. A Passage to India ends up fourth because it has a strong acting performance from Banerjee but it also is an up and down film. Places in the Heart is the de facto farm film for the year and the best representation of the three that could have been. Sally Field buoys it and makes it a contender but it's an easy 5th here. An interesting array of choices but there is only one real choice this year. I'm glad the Academy got it right.

Oscar Winner: Amadeus
My Winner:  Amadeus
The Killing Fields
A Soldier's Story
A Passage to India
Places in the Heart