You've hit on what is to me (and possibly others) a very touchy subject because it deals with what it is that makes certain movies great.
Technically speaking, yes, "Citizen Kane" should probably have won Best Picture that year. It was a pioneering effort and a landmark film which is still awesome to behold. "HGWMV" is an absolutely gorgeous film which I will watch whenever it's on, but it did not change the shape of film history.
I've never really thought of the Oscar as indicative of cinematic greatness. Generally it's always seemed to me to be something of a popularity contest. It rewarded box-office performance and the flavor of the month. Yes, sometimes, the right movie is awarded. Often not. In 1933 the Best Picture Oscar was won by "Cavalcade"...this in the year of "King Kong", which wasn't even nominated. In 1943 Paul Lukas in "Watch on the Rhine" beat out Humphrey Bogart in "Casablanca" for best actor.
"Alternative Oscars" by Danny Peary is an informative (and fun) read. It talks about Oscar politics through the years, including the 1941 awards, which you make reference to. That "Kane" didn't win is something you have to chalk up to the politics of the time. Welles was considered an upstart and had pissed off a lot of very important people, not the least of whom was William Randolph Hearst.
That being said, "Citizen Kane" is a dazzling film that changed the course of cinematic history. I can watch it in rapt amazement and be dazzled. It's brilliant on all fronts...but I find it difficult to warm to...I've never developed an affection for it, whereas I adore "How Green Was My Valley". It continues to move me after repeated viewings. If that makes me less of a cinematic connoisseur, so be it. On the other hand, one of my top ten favorite films is "The Devil and Daniel Webster" which very few people know of these days (although it won the Oscar for best score that year). I feel no great need to have my favorites validated by an Oscar or by mass agreement from other movie fans. It's nice, but not essential.
cinefreak
reply
share
misspaddylee
19 years ago
Well put, cinefreak. The oscars are fun for trivia lists and as a guide to what has been popular or acclaimed throughout the years. Like you, my personal favourite or best movies do not need committee validation, and your feelings on CK and HGWMV parallel mine.
The Oscars telecast doesn't interest me as it did when I was a teen and I think one reason (besides it being a boring show) is that with the proliferation of entertainment programs and channels, these "stars" are everywhere. There's a glut on the market. When I was a kid it was a big deal to see movie stars but now, you just wish they'd go away!
Thank you for reminding me of The Devil and Daniel Webster. Walter Huston's outstanding performance should be more well known.
You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead.
reply
share
nateba
19 years ago
"Thank you for reminding me of The Devil and Daniel Webster. Walter Huston's outstanding performance should be more well known".
Top notch movie and for me the perfect Halloween flick. All that Currier and Ives early Americana stuff, that Oscar-winning Bernard Herrmann score and the great Walter Huston as Mr. Scratch. And that wonderful fade-out. I don't understand why it isn't better known.
cinefreak
reply
share
MuttsCutts
19 years ago
Actually grapes of wrath came out in 1940, while gone with the wind and wizard of oz came out in 1939, but the grapes of wrath still lost to rebecca
reply
share
DukeToshiro
19 years ago
Oh, well my mistake then.
I'm a cotton-headed ninny-muggins.
reply
share
bradford-1
18 years ago
Does THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER exist on home video? I haven't seen it in years, when it used to be a staple on commercial TV.
reply
share