From the archive: Spielberg's List
Ahead of the Oscars in 1994, Barry Norman correctly predicted a night where Hollywood's top awards body finally recognised the industry's most successful director, Steven Spielberg…
Radio Times Archive
- Barry Norman
This article was originally published in March 1994 with the subheading: "Spielberg's List is 12 Oscar nominations long. But will the world’s most successful film director go home empty-handed again? Barry Norman places his bets and predicts a night of glory for Spielberg’s acclaimed Holocaust drama Schindler’s List."
Ad
At the ceremony on 21 March, Schindler's List won seven awards, including Best Picture, Director and Screenplay – while Tom Hanks, Holly Hunter, Tommy Lee Jones and Anna Paquin also took home Oscars in their respective categories.
It’s hard to remember a time — no, it’s pretty nearly impossible to remember a time — when the outcome of Hollywood’s annual Oscar election seemed quite such a foregone conclusion as it does this year.
Is there, for instance, much point in any nominated director other than Steven Spielberg even bothering to turn up for the ceremony? Could not the American Academy save a lot of time and bother by simply sending Tom Hanks the statuette for best actor through the post? Does anyone truly believe that Schindler’s List will not win the award for best picture? And if by chance it doesn’t, isn’t there a serious risk of a riot breaking out?
Even now, though the odds are shortening all the time, anyone who placed bets on Spielberg, Schindler’s List, Hanks and, for best actress, Holly Hunter in The Piano, would almost certainly clean up. Of course, as we discovered in our own most recent political equivalent of Oscar night — the 1992 general election — there is always the chance of a belated groundswell in favour of other candidates, but it doesn’t seem likely.
Steven Spielberg and Liam Neeson on the set of Schindler’s List in 1993. Alamy
And yet if you look at the way the nominations were distributed, the results should be much less predictable than they appear. Schindler’s List has 12 nominations, The Remains of the Day and The Piano have eight each, The Fugitive, somewhat bewilderingly, has seven and such a spread would, in normal circumstances, suggest a close race.
For a variety of reasons, however, no such thing is expected. That Tom Hanks is regarded as a shoo-in for best actor is largely attributable to political correctness. Hanks gives a fine performance in Philadelphia, though no better than that of his co-star Denzel Washington (who isn’t nominated) and not as good as those of Anthony Hopkins in The Remains of the Day and Daniel Day-Lewis in In the Name of the Father. What gives him the edge is that he plays a gay, Aids-afflicted lawyer in the first big budget Hollywood film to deal with that subject and the voters will wish to recognise the effort, while applauding themselves for their own social consciousness, by bestowing an award. Since neither the film nor the director, Jonathan Demme, is nominated, the most effective way to do that is to acknowledge Hanks.
RT's March 1994 cover featuring Steven Spielberg. Radio Times Archive
In the case of Schindler’s List, the widespread feeling is that a) this is an outstanding film, probably the best of those nominated, which also deals with an important subject — the Holocaust; and b) it provides the perfect opportunity to compensate America’s most successful director for the neglect he has suffered in the past.
That being so, the chances are that Schindler will reap a large number of Oscars, including one for Steven Zaillian’s best adapted screenplay.
Holly Hunter’s position as favourite for best actress owes something to the fact that, in The Piano, she refuses to speak and therefore, like Hanks, is in some way afflicted. Oscar voters have always had a penchant for actors playing people who are or appear to be disabled — Jane Wyman in Johnny Belinda, for example, or John Mills in Ryan's Daughter and Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man.
Hunter’s strongest competition is probably represented by Debra Winger, in Shadowlands, and, again partly for reasons of political correctness — talented black performers having been so often ignored in the past — Angela Bassett, who played Tina Turner in What’s Love Got to Do With It. But that situation is odd in itself because only a few months ago Hollywood hype indicated that the popular choice for best actress was Michelle Pfeiffer in The Age of Innocence. Yet as it turned out she failed to get a nomination.
Which brings me to the point that when, in retrospect, we look back on the 1994 Oscars it’s very likely that the biggest surprises will lie not in the list of winners but in the list of those who were not even regarded as contenders.
Among the questions we may then ask ourselves are: why was Martin Scorsese’s The Age of Innocence overlooked in all the four main categories (best picture, director, actor and actress); why was Anthony Hopkins chosen for The Remains of the Day and not for Shadowlands, in which he was even better and why, if Robert Altman was nominated (most deservedly) as best director, was his film Short Cuts not included among the best five pictures when it was undoubtedly a great deal better than The Fugitive, as, come to that, was Shadowlands?
Barry Norman on an RT photoshoot in the 1990s. Radio Times
What we may also find ourselves reflecting upon was the way British (and Irish) hopes, so high on nomination day, were so sadly confounded on Oscar night. Ralph Fiennes (Schindler’s List) or Peter Postlethwaite (In the Name of the Father) could run Tommy Lee Jones (The Fugitive) close for best supporting actor and Emma Thompson (In the Name of the Father) is in with a shout for best supporting actress. But otherwise I think this will not be one of those years, so famously heralded by Colin Welland after Chariots of Fire, when "the British are coming." The British will surely come to the ceremony but I fear they will, for the most part, return empty-handed, for this has all the hallmarks of a year when Oscar celebrates America.
Yet who can really tell which way the 4,600 or so voters will jump? Many years ago I went to an Oscar nomination screening at the 20th Century Fox studios in Beverly Hills. I arrived early and watched in amazement as the room slowly filled up with what appeared to be the oldest people in the world — all windswept toupees, Crimplene safari suits and gold medallions nestling in tufts of white chest hair. I’m tempted to say that the men looked no better but I imagine you’ve got the point.
There was a cocktail party, followed by dinner and then the film. This, as it transpired, was the wrong order, because we were barely into reel two before half the assembled crumblies were asleep. Now, since the film was a total turkey called Lucky Lady this slumber may have been as much a form of silent criticism as the result of all the booze and food or, just as importantly, the late hour and the age of the audience, but I wouldn’t bank on it.
A large proportion of Oscar voters are elderly and if the present lot follow the sleep patterns of their predecessors and tend to nod off during everything except, let us say, The Fugitive, they could still present us with some unforeseen results on the night.
Personally, I don’t think it will happen. For once I believe all the oracles and soothsayers will be proved correct, though I know of one man who will not, right now, be half as confident as I am, and that is Steven Spielberg.
Ad
He, I am sure, still has memories of 1985 when his film The Color Purple gained eleven nominations — and won nothing at all. The nightmares attendant upon such an experience will not be assuaged until Monday night when, as both producer and director of Schindler’s List, he holds an Oscar in each hand.
Authors
Barry Norman
Ad
Ad
Get the Christmas double issue
Too much to watch at Christmas? Let Radio Times do the choosing to find something the whole family will enjoy.
Loading...
Ad
Loading...