It seems like a lifetime ago that Best Picture Oscars were awarded to films the ran the emotional gambit. Some made you cry, some made you laugh, some sing and dance, while others thrilled and wowed their audience. Those days are long gone, as Academy voters seem dead set on awarding the big prize to the film that ponders the deepest philosophical question. Or the film that makes you feel horrible. Saddest of the lot and you’re being released in December. You sir are in like flint.

The opportunity exists to award Best Picture to a no-holds barred horror film. Or groundbreaking science fiction epic. Laugh out loud comedy? Sure, why not? And if the best picture of a given year happens to be tear jerker, so be it. But some levity is needed and there’s no time like the present.

Let’s take a trip down memory lane and visit the past 2 decades of Best Picture winners.
SPOILER ALERT: If you’re reading this, hopefully you’ve seen these films.

1986 Platoon: Vietnam War. Pretty sore subject. Not the feel good movie of the year.
1987 The Last Emperor: Dry as a bone.
1988 Rain Man: I guess you can laugh at the handicap.
1989 Driving Miss Daisy: Funny at times.
1990 Dances With Wolves: Very little dancing.
1991 Silence of the Lambs: It’s a horror film.
1992 Unforgiven: It’s a western.
1993 Schindler’s List: Nothing screams depression like the holocaust
1994 Forrest Gump: Despite the high body count (Forrest is like an albatross), it’s funny.
1995 Braveheart: Just violent enough to qualify as a popcorn flick.
1996 The English Patient: WWII is not funny, unless its in Italian.
1997 Titanic: Sweeping romance.
1998 Shakespeare in Love: Cute and charming.
1999 American Beauty: Dark and odd.
2000 Gladiator: see 1995.
2001 A Beautiful Mind: Schizophrenia is never funny.
2002 Chicago: Took 30+ years but the Musical is back!!
2003 Return of the King: Take out the trolls and dragons, it’s a fairly somber film.
2004 Million Dollar Baby: Death and despair via women’s boxing.
2005 Crash: Racism in Los Angeles.

20 Films
2 Westerns
1 Musical
1 Fantasy
3 Dramedies (Driving Miss Daisy, Forrest Gump, Shakespeare in Love)
1 Horror
And a whopping 12 Dramas.

More than half of the last 20 Best Picture winners have been dramas. No love for laughter?

It’s easy to say comedies haven’t been up to par to win Best Picture. But the 90’s are littered with fantastic comedic Best Picture nominees. So why no wins? Annie Hall back in 1977 was the last true comedy to win, nearly 30 years ago. It’s easier to make someone cry than to make them laugh. But the notion exists that comedies are less important, therefore less accepting of Best Picture wins. In a world of constant terrorist threats, raging mother nature, and global conflicts, could there be a better time to show the magical power of a great comedy?

Comedy has become a dirty word as far as the oscars are concerned.

You're reasoning is point on and I can't see the Oscar voters shifting their opinions.

Sci-Fi is the most poisoned calice in the Oscar pecking order. When was the last time a sci-fi scooped the top prize?

Actually never, Star Wars came closest.

ROTK was the first fantasy film to win. Only took forever.

If I'm correct, ET and A Clockwork Orange are the only other sci-fi films ever nominated.

Looks like you're right.

Is Dr. Strangelove considered Sci-fi?

In some circles. Satirical comedy for most sane people.

Oooh.... I found this page that lists Oscar nominations and wins by sci-fi films: (only up to 1997 though)

http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~b2506017/sf/oscar.htm

They consider Young Frankenstein sci-fi?

Jaws is kind of one too, maybe. On the borderline like Dr. Strangelove.

Jaws is horror, moreso than Silence of the Lambs.

With a touch of sci-fi... I think. I haven't seen it recently enough, but sharks like that that don't actually exist right?

Seems fair.

If you wanted to be really anal you'd have to classify most Sci-Fi movies as Sci-Fantasy since their footing in pure hard science is tenuous at best.

arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Metropolis - Sci-fi
Dracula - not Sci-fi

Ok you win there

You've pretty much summed up my issues with the Oscars (and all award shows, really) in one post, loyal.

I've never understood why genre film = junk in their eyes. It could be because of all of the old blood still invested in the Oscars. When they were active in the biz, genre films were seen as B-level material stepping stones to other, "better" opportunities.

Part of the blame has to fall into the studio's lap as well. They insist on only marketing a certain type of film as Oscar material. I'd like to see what would happen if one year a studio decided to push a great horror film really hard around awards season. If it's as good as people are saying it is, Pan's Labyrinth could prove to be a very interesting predicament for both the academy and the studio handling it.

But can you name a horror movie in the past 10 years that REALLY should've been in the oscar race? Not a movie you really enjoyed but a movie that most would say would deserve to be up for oscars.

I would probably consider Pan's Labyrinth more of a drama/fantasy mixed with horror elements, then just a horror film.

The horror genre just doesnt produce such films that are of that prestige, atleast not for a very long time and same goes for other genres aswell.

Dramas will always be the most powerful type of films and thats why they win.

If a horror film can be as good as Silence of the Lambs, I don't think Oscar would have problem honoring it. Academy certainly has bias, but I don't fee it is not just toward comedy or "lightweight" stuff. Otherwise, Chicago wouldn't have won over The Pianist, or SiL over SPR. Except for American Beauty, they haven't liked too dark of stuff either. Fim noirs like Pulp Fiction and LA Confidential lost to more sweeping/uplifting ones, while many others like Memento and Fight Club were pretty much completely ignored. IMDb Top 100 are filled with films which were passed over at Oscar, but not many of them are comedies, so I think if we just discuss about bias against comedy, it exists among general public as well. People tend not to give it as high of a score, even if it's equally good. Same for horror and musicals. I don't necessarily see particular bias against them from the academy comparing to the rest of us. Academy's real bias is against films that don't fit the normal mold, whether it's quirky comedy like Eternal Sunshine or ones from Tarantino or just plain good blockbusters like Batman Begins and Spider-Man, where they can be easily embraced by the rest of us. If you compare academy and WOKJ's awards the past couple of years, that's where the difference shows up, not as if we are nominating sci-fi or horror movies for the main categories ourselves.

Kill, I also think it's hard to attractive the type of talent and to care for horror projects to the point where they could be real contenders. I'm hard pressed to think of a recent horror film that's worthy, but using the "if it ain't drama" silent mandate, it possibly wouldn't matter how highyl regarded the horror film was.

To Xiayun's point, the exclusion of films like Spiderman II and Eternal Sunshine highlights exactly why the Oscars need a hug. A film can be light and fun and still worthy of Best Picture.

I would never consider Silence of the Lambs horror. It's as much horror as Se7en and The Bone Collector... It's thriller.

All in all, though, I agree with Loyal. I don't think there will ever be a more lauded and beloved superhero flick than Spider-Man 2/Batman Begins, so I don't think we'll EVER see a BP nomination for such an adaptation. Which is sad because both were deserving.

As far as horror goes...The Sixth Sense is the closest thing to real horror that was nominated in the recent year (I consider it horror). The Ring should have been nominated as well (not winning, though).

I agree about Silence of the Lambs, though I opted to lump it into horror because its listed as such elsewhere. Then you're talking 13 dramas over the past 20 winners. It's nuts.

Batman Begins last year and Spider-Man II prior, represent the apex of their genre. I can't say the same for Capote or any of the 5 nominated Best Pictures last season. I would love to see the nomination ballots over the years just to see how close some films came to making the 5.

It saddens me that if The Fountain turns out to be one of the best films of the year, its automatically handicapped.

Well, at least for some years, I have a hunch...

In 2005 it was Walk the Line, I am really certain on that one.

I think in 2004 Hotel Rwanda (over which I had a huge argument with andaroo back then, heh) came in as the 6th film, behind Ray or Finding Neverland.

In 2003 Cold Mountain sounds right (two acting noms and seven noms overal!)

2002...not sure...maybe Adaptation? I mean it did get three acting noms...

2001 - probably Black Hawk Down

2000 - Almost Famous (definitely)

1999 - Being John Malkovich?

What do you think?

See, I LOVE Batman Begins, it's one of my favorite movies, but do I think it should be a movie honored with a best picture? My biased fanboy side says yes, but the sane side says no.

When I think of oscars I think of movies driven by characters and story, movies that impact you and say something to you.

Theres plenty of movies that are in my top 50 or whatever that werent nominated and nor should they be, just because I liked them doesnt mean they're films that should be honored with a best picture, when you think of the oscars you think of a certain type of film, sometimes that trend is broken if a certain type of movie has that touch of something special about it. I dont think this should change nor do I have a problem with it.

2002, Quiet American or Road to Perdition? Far From Heaven perhaps?

1999, if there was a god, Toy Story 2.

Rest seem right.