|
Christopher Lee said he was going to leave the Academy if Jackson wasn't going to win this year. There are big interests behind the Academy's choices. LOTR didn't deserve 11 awards, especially the best picture, best achievement in editing and best achievement in directing ones. The choices of the Academy are very limited most of the time. When a movie starts a trend, like it happened for Titanic too, or for Chicago last year, you can be sure that the movie will win even when it doesn't fully deserve it. It's not simply a reason of "good" and "bad" movies. As Spank and Rei said, it's simply senseless to give this kind of awards to a movie like LOTR, that instead deserved all the special and visual effects, make-up etc. awards. And I can't see why a movie like 21 Grams wasn't among the nominees for the editing category. You can like or dislike it, but that movie's editing is simply genial, while LOTR's one is pretty average and linear. Another example: I could think more of Clint Eastwood win the prize for the achievent in directing, because at least his movies always show an actual view and peculiar style of the director. Making a movie like Mystic River speaking of directing efforts is different than making a neutral movie as LOTR IMO. I mean, the director of a spectacular movie like LOTR has probably less control over the movie's direction, due to productive issues, to the impressive amount of staff members, to the fact the greatest part of the work is done during the post-production process, which is not in the hands of the director, as everybody knows. I think Star Wars is a different case. All the movie is in Lucas' hands, because he's at the same time the creator, the producer and (in some cases) the director. Star Wars and LOTR are movies which, apart from their spectacular aspects, are born from completely different methods of work and production.
|