What's Best Picture Worth?

It's been almost two weeks since the annual Academy Awards, where the film "The King's Speech" earned the highest honors as Best Picture, and still the complaints and analysis of the proceedings continue. This was one of the most derisive year's for movies, with the public split over which film should win.

The proceedings — and many of the complaints that followed — have led a number of people to analyze the process, and the history of top award winners. Steven Spielberg, who presented the Best Picture award, even referenced the traditional griping that follows the show. He mentioned the names of several Best Picture winners. Then he mentioned the names of several films that were passed over for Best Picture. The obvious inference being that sometimes the cream doesn't rise to the top with the Academy voters.

Spielberg should no. After all, his 1998 film "Saving Private Ryan" wasn't named Best Picture. More than 12 years later, it's still revered as one of the best films he ever made, and the definitive World War II film of the last 25 years. The film that won Best Picture that year — "Shakespeare in Love." Yeah, that might have been a mistake...

If you look at the list of the Top 250 films on Internet Movie Database, a website devoted to films and film lovers, there are many exceptional films that were passed over. One of the highest rated films of all time according to fans that vote on the site is "The Shawshank Redemption." Indeed, more than 15 years after its release, the film is still considered a classic. But in 1994, Academy voters didn't feel that way, as it missed the Best Picture prize.

A couple weeks ago I listed winners from five different decades. Many of the films on that list were featured in a similar piece that chronicled the least deserving Best Picture winners. "Ordinary People," a fine film, won in 1980. "Raging Bull," still considered a classic, was in contention but didn't win. In 1990, Kevin Costner's passion project, "Dances With Wolves," took the top prize. That same year, "Goodfellas," which is considered a definitive mob film and one of Martin Scorsese's best films, was snubbed. In 2000, "Gladiator" won the top prize. Many at the time — including myself — felt the film "Traffic" was more deserving.

When I was listening to a recent podcast by Bill Simmons that touched on this topic, he suggested that the Academy should institute a five-year waiting period before handing out awards to make sure the winners accurately reflect what is the best, not just what is the most popular at the moment. When he went though the list of 2005 films, it was hard not to be convinced some by his argument.

I have long been frustrated by what is selected as THE BEST film of each year. I watch hundreds of new films each year and consider myself to be pretty discerning. Each year I make a list of my pick of the best films of each year. Without fail in the last eight years since I have been making the list it seems like the winner is never one of the two films I have at the top of my list.

Only two years has there been an exception. In 2004, I thought "Million Dollar Baby" was the best film, and it captured the Best Picture prize. In 2007, I thought "No Country For Old Men" was the best film, and it captured the Best prize. But those are the rare exceptions.

Consider the last three years. In 2008, my top films were "The Dark Knight," which I also picked as the best film of the last decade, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and "Gran Torino." The winner that year, "Slumdog Millionaire." It's still a quality film, but what's shocking is "The Dark Knight" wasn't even nominated that year. Were the awards to be held today, I doubt that would be the case (at least I hope).

In 2009, my top two films were "Up In The Air" and "Inglorious Basterds." Both films were nominated for Best Picture, but the winner was "The Hurt Locker." While I prefer "The Hurt Locker" to "Avatar," it's hard to escape the feeling that the best film of that year got passed over.

The same goes for this year. My top two films were "The Social Network" and "Inception," and my guess is that in five years both those films will be remember for their artistry and craft, while "The King's Speech" will remain a nice historical docudrama.

So what's the point? It's this — film criticism is subjective. Selecting Best Picture winners is subjective. To really understand the worth of a film, you have to wait until it has some historical context. On that spring night in 1999, I'm sure many voting members were satisfied with their choice of "Shakespeare In Love." A decade later, you can bet many are filled with regret every memorial day when "Saving Private Ryan" airs.