Rocky won for best picture, John G. Avildsen won best Director for Rocky, while Scorsese wasn't even nominated. Kidding me? Whatever you think of the film itself, just from a directing standpoint, this is one of the best, top ten ever I would say. For shame.
The academy is stupid, they only go for the "safe" choice, rather than the groundbreaking cinema that will be remembered for years to come. They did it with Taxi Driver, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Pulp Fiction, Fargo, Citizen Kane, they didn't even nominate Fight Club, and many other movies over the years.
sharegroundbreaking cinema is not always better, by default. Rocky is still a 3 1/2 -4 * rated film, so there is no exact-winner. (why because Sly stars in it?)
shareNo, Rocky comes nowhere close to the class of films that he mentioned. Groundbreaking is tossed around so much that it has lost its meaning. Rocky is okay, but it isn't a top 10, top 25 or top 100 film of all time like those movies.
The other problem is that merit is not necessarily based on stands the test of time, another phase that's also tossed around. Even so, just as many people fondly remember ROCKY (or other noms) as they do TAXI DRIVER. Those on the board are being very subjective.
shareWhile Taxi Driver is more challenging, innovative, and (maybe) compelling, Rocky needs viewed in the context of the time without the decades of sequels clouding opinion. I'm not saying the Oscars got it wrong or right that year, but the first Rocky was a fine film. It was well-written, well-acted, affective, and innovative in its own right.
shareFor f-ck's sake, stop comparing films just because they were released in the same year. You make it seem like John G. Avildsen and crew were thinking "hey we gotta make Rocky because Marty is making Taxi Driver and we have to beat it at the Oscars. Our story is feel good and the Academy will eat it up!"
Films are made independent of the other films made in the same year. Taxi Driver is great film. Rocky is a great film. Network is a great film. All the President's Men is a great film. Carrie is a great film. All flawless films, 10 outta 10 to me, except Carrie (9/10). Awards shows are just pointless beauty contests. It's not the films' fault that they're subjected to it.
Religion should be made fun of. If I believed that stuff, I'd keep it to myself. -Larry David
For f-ck's sake, stop comparing films just because they were released in the same year.
You make it seem like John G. Avildsen and crew were thinking "hey we gotta make Rocky because Marty is making Taxi Driver and we have to beat it at the Oscars. Our story is feel good and the Academy will eat it up!"
Taxi Driver is great film. Rocky is a great film. Network is a great film. All the President's Men is a great film. Carrie is a great film. All flawless films, 10 outta 10 to me, except Carrie (9/10).
Awards shows are just pointless beauty contests. It's not the films' fault that they're subjected to it.
Historically, the Academy has not usually celebrated dark, unsentimental films such as Taxi Driver. (Naturally, there have been a few exceptions.) Rocky, conversely, is exactly the kind of triumphal movie that the Academy tends to reward, and the celebratory, bicentennial, cathartic post-Vietnam/Watergate mood may have also possessed something to do with the choice.
The fact that Taxi Driver at least received four nominations (three in "major" categories) is somewhat impressive in that sense. Conversely, The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976), not an entirely dark film but a Western (not the Academy's favorite genre, historically), received only one nomination (Best Original Score, a category in which Taxi Driver also netted a nomination). Of course, outside of making its way onto Time's top-ten list, Josey Wales received a dim critical reception, as did most Clint Eastwood movies (directed or otherwise) in those days. Nowadays, many people consider Josey Wales a classic of the genre, perhaps the best Western of the 1970s. Orson Welles later stated that it belonged with the great Westerns of John Ford and Howard Hawks.
The Academy Awards are hit-or-miss by nature, and they should be understood more as a reflection of what Hollywood and "cultural elites" (sometimes pandering to popular taste) tend to favor at a given point in time—for any number of reasons. Sometimes those reflections represent keen critical judgment, and sometimes they do not. Even then, smart and honest people can differ in their evaluations.
On a more basic level, the Academy Awards constitute a promotional gimmick—a means of promoting the industry. Back in 1961, historian Daniel Boorstin wrote about "pseudo-events," referring specifically to the recently completed presidential debates. The Academy Awards are also "pseudo-events," as are major league baseball playoff series.
One can see a link to Boorstin's book here:
https://www.amazon.com/image-What-happened-American-dream/dp/B0006AXNK8
And here is a later edition:
https://www.amazon.com/Image-Guide-Pseudo-Events-America/dp/0679741801
I would highly recommend his writing.
When the Academy fails to nominate or award a film or an individual that one deems especially deserving, disappointment is a legitimate response. That said, the Oscars are best understood as a series of reflection points, one that may or may not dovetail with actual filmmaking quality.
I take exception to the argument that awards shows are 'pointless' - they are in fact a celebration of the medium(s) that they give awards to. It's meant to award genuine achievements, and encourage folks to see the winning movies/actors/plays/whatever. It's meant to be a 'boost' to the industry that is hosting the show(s).
share