'Slumdog Millionaire' wins Oscars' triple crown like half of last 20 best pix
It stands to reason that, if Oscar voters believe a film is the best of the year, they think it's the best directed and written too. So we should not be surprised that "Slumdog Millionaire" won all three of those races at the Oscars. After all, "No Country for Old Men" did just that at last year's Oscars as did "The Departed" the year before. However, only half of the last 20 best picture Oscar winners have pulled off the same feat. Besides those two most recent champs, they were:
"The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" (2003)
"A Beautiful Mind" (2001)
"American Beauty" (1999)
"Forrest Gump" (1994)
"Schindler's List" (1993)
"The Silence of the Lambs" (1991)
"Dances With Wolves" (1990) and
"Rain Main" (1988)
While the best pic prize has historically lined up with best director, five of the last 20 winners were not helmed by the best in the business according to Oscar.
"Crash" (2005): Paul Haggis may have won an Oscar for his script but DGA champ Ang Lee took the best director award for "Brokeback Mountain."
"Chicago" (2002): DGA winner Rob Marshall lost to Roman Polanski ("The Pianist").
"Gladiator" (2000): Ridley Scott ("Gladiator") watched double nominee Steven Soderbergh win for helming "Traffic."
"Shakespeare in Love" (1998): John Madden lost to DGA winner Steven Spielberg ("Saving Private Ryan").
"Driving Miss Daisy" (1989): Bruce Beresford wasn't even nominated and DGA champ Oliver Stone won for helming "Born on the Fourth of July."
Only 13 of the last 20 best pictures won Oscars for their screenplays, though four of the seven that lost their script race did manage to win best director:
"Million Dollar Baby" (2004) lost adapted screenplay to "Sideways."
"The English Patient" (1996) lost adapted screenplay to "Sling Blade"
"Braveheart" (1995) lost original screenplay to "The Usual Suspects"
"Unforgiven" (1992) lost original screenplay to "The Crying Game"
Even though "Titanic" swept the Oscars in 1997, James Cameron did not even rate a nod for his original screenplay with the Oscar going to "Good Will Hunting."
And in a special class of dubious distinction are two best pictures that lost both directing and screenplay races:
"Chicago" (2002) lost adapted screenplay to "The Pianist"
"Gladiator" (2000) lost original screenplay to "Almost Famous"
Photo: Fox Searchlight
David Watkin: cinematography winner, "Out of Africa" (1985)
James Whitmore: supporting actor nominee, "Battleground" (1949); lead actor nominee, "Give 'em Hell Harry" (1975)
Richard Widmark: supporting actor nominee, "Kiss of Death" (1947)
Stan Winston: makeup and visual effects winner, "Terminator 2" (1991); visual effects winner, "Jurassic Park" (1993); makeup nominee, "Heartbeeps" (1982), "Edward Scissorhands" (1990), "Batman Returns" (1992); visual effects nominee, "Predator" (1987), "The Lost World" (1997), "A.I." (2001).
Photos: Buena Vista, MGM
RELATED:
Sean Penn is the ninth actor to win two lead Oscars
Will Oscar winners return to the race next year?
Cheers and boos for the Oscars show
Oscars TV ratings bounce back with Hugh Jackman as host
Oscar winners were predicted by guild awards
Get Gold Derby on Twitter. Join the Gold Derby Group at Facebook. Become friends with Tom O'Neil on Facebook. Get Gold Derby RSS feed via Facebook. RSS Feedburner. RSS Atom.
for a movie that cant seem to get much revenue at the boxoffice goes to prove my point that this is a piss poor movie and should not be rented or gone to the movies to see it.
just download it. and watch it for free.
Posted by: Adam Override | February 24, 2009 at 02:02 PM
Movies are not primarily about solving social problems.
It is after all an art form. Telling a good story is the main objective. Rest is secondary.
Movies are not even about truth.
So dont fault a movie that it is not addressing the social evils. There are social workers and politicians for that! Why dont we ask them these questions
Posted by: Able Lawrence | February 24, 2009 at 04:51 AM
About the article: ... more useless statistics that historians would probably care about.
About the movie, screenplay, and direction:
Amazing! Hats off to the team for portraying the stark contrasts in Indian society with such vivid colors. And the kids were just amazing. The love story and the way it's all weaved together in the script all adds up to make it the most refreshing movie experience of 2008.
Regarding the previous comment:
Brijesh, dont take offence in Danny Boyle's portrayal of the other end of the Indian diaspora. The movie was in no way portraying the slums as a lesser form of living, nor was it being apologetic about the rise of capitalism in the other end of the spectrum. It is a story of two brothers growing up, with one choosing love & compassion, and the other greed & power. In fact the movie does the exact opposite and shows the slums full of life. And the show in India does give out Rs.2 crore (7 zeroes in a crore) which is Rs. 20 million. Millionaire doen't just apply to American dollars... you do know there are other valid currencies in the world... and a million is just a number with 6 zeroes... right?
Posted by: Vijay Arunkumar | February 24, 2009 at 12:32 AM
It's incredible incredible...Loss that a movie like slumdog millionaire wins 8 oscurs and joins the league of movies like Gandhi...
I have seen Mumbai slums very closely, and felt the movie is nowhere even close to addressing the problems in Mumbai slums...The movie gives a foriegn view of Mumbai slums...
Like "Oh you poor guy...You must be so unhappy..."... " I am not..."... " No you are so unhappy...U r too scared to accept it... "
It's a glamorous entertaining movie...Not even close to perfection...There are big currency blunders in the script...Watch it(20 miilion $, 20 million RS???)
If there is one slumdog who became millionaire, it's Danny Boyle...Nice work man...You know what sells on Oscars..
Posted by: brijesh singh | February 23, 2009 at 10:02 PM