And the Oscar Didn't Go to ... Pulp Fiction

The Academy Awards are coming up this Sunday. While we're excited to enter multiple pools and prep themed food with our families, we're also kind of depressed about the whole thing because we're really disappointed with the nominees. (No Gosling = No Go!) And we know we'll be even more disappointed with the winners. Because, well, it's happened plenty of times before ...

THE YEAR: 1995

  • Forrest Gump
  • The Shawshank Redemption 
  • Four Weddings and a Funeral 
  • Quiz Show

THE WINNER: Forrest Gump, a.k.a. that actually really charming, All-American weepie made for box-of-chocolate lifers and starring Tom Hanks.

WHY IT (PROBABLY) DIDN'T WIN: Quentin Tarantino's hyperactive, bad-ass motherfucker of a flick, which featured a brunette Uma Thurman twisting at a diner and then near-overdosing, Ving Rhames getting raped and terrorized by two men and a "Gimp," and John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson shooting the shit about Big Macs (or rather, Royales with Cheese), was probably a little too violent and foul-mouthed for most voters' elderly tastes. Although they did present Tarantino with the Best Original Screenplay trophy that same year.

WHY IT SHOULD HAVE: Unlike Gump (which is great in its own, superbly saccharine way), Pulp Fiction was groundbreaking for its time period. With its exploitation-style exposition and run-on sentence heavy script, it was both an action movie for people who didn't like action movies, and a drama for people who didn't like drama. And more importantly, due to its over-the-top references and not-so-slight nods, it was a film for people who, like Tarantino, loved films a bit too much. And you know the Academy appreciates that. (See: 2012 Best Picture nominees The Artist and Hugo

Maybe if QT had kept the swearing and sex on, well, the QT, and amped up the sepia and subtitles, he would have been golden. But then the movie wouldn't be so fucking tasty. Or Tarantino.

No comments:

Post a Comment