General Discussion : Do best picture and best director always go to the same film

[nauru]

Seems like a waste of space if they do, sort of winner take all.

[CMonster]

I don't know if you've heard of this new magical thing called the internet, but it is full of information you can gugle(sp?). I don't know, you may want to look into it, it could have the answer to your question.

[Darbicus]

1927/28
BP: Wings
BD: Frank Borzage/Seventh Heaven

1928/29
BP: The Broadway Melody
BD: Frank Lloyd/The Divine Lady

1930/31
BP: Cimarron
BD: Norman Taurog/Skippy

1931/32
BP: Grand Hotel
BD: Frank Borzage/Bad Girl

1935
BP: Mutiny on the Bounty
BD: John Ford/The Informer

1936
BP: The Great Ziegfeld
BD: Frank Capra/Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

1937
BP: The Life of Emile Zola
BD: Leo McCarey/The Awful Truth

1940
BP: Rebecca
BD: John Ford/The Grapes of Wrath

1948
BP: Hamlet
BD: John Huston/The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

1949
BP: All the King's Men
BD: Joseph L. Mankiewicz/A Letter to Three Wives

1951
BP: An American in Paris
BD: George Stevens/A Place in the Sun

1952
BP: The Greatest Show on Earth
BD: John Ford/The Quiet Man

1956
BP: Around the World in 80 Days
BD: George Stevens/Giant

1967
BP: In the Heat of the Night
BD: Mike Nichols/The Graduate

1972
BP: The Godfather
BD: Bob Fosse/Cabaret

1981
BP: Chariots of Fire
BD: Warren Beatty/Reds

1989
BP: Driving Miss Daisy
BD: Oliver Stone/Born on the Fourth of July

1998
BP: Shakespeare in Love
BD: Steven Spielberg/Saving Private Ryan

2000
BP: Gladiator
BD: Steven Soderbergh/Traffic

2002
BP: Chicago
BD: Roman Polanski/The Pianist

2005
BP: Crash
BD: Ang Lee/Brokeback Mountain

There has been a split 21/84 times, otherwise it has happened 1 out of every 4 Oscars.

[Stewball]

Seems like a waste of space if they do, sort of winner take all.

Yeah, the director should get the award for best picture. The director has artistic control (no matter what the contracts say) and is the most responsible for what shows up on the screen--certainly not the producer, of which there are 10 or 20 for modern films it appears. Their role is important (financing), but it ain't art.

I'm still waiting for an explanation for why Ridley Scott didn't win BD for Gladiator which won best picture in 2000, instead of Soderbergh for Traffic--and that's just the first of many examples that stick in my craw. About the best you can hope for with awards shows is them getting at least one major award right. I need to be the one to auditing and certifying the Oscar voting instead of Price Waterhouse. I'd get it right even if it didn't match up with the votes cast......or if a film/actor wasn't even nominated.

[TheDenizen]

Oh god, I forgot that Gladiator won Best Picture. Thanks for reminding me

Proof that awards shows are meaningless. Gladiator was an abortion.

[ayall]

Gladiator was an abortion.

Ya it wasn't.

Gladiator is a great film.

"Strength & Honor" "Shadows & Dust"

Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix; incredible job all around.

[TheDenizen]

Russell Crowe sucks, the CGI was garbage, Joaquin was a joke (though he's been good in other stuff, his performance in Gladiator was baaaaaad) and the writing was painful....one eye rolling moment after another.

Just an opinion, and example of how awards shows consistently reward stuff that doesn't appeal to me. Hence why I find them to be utterly without merit...

[ayall]

Russell Crowe sucks, the CGI was garbage, Joaquin was a joke (though he's been good in other stuff, his performance in Gladiator was baaaaaad) and the writing was painful....one eye rolling moment after another.

Just an opinion, and example of how awards shows consistently reward stuff that doesn't appeal to me. Hence why I find them to be utterly without merit...

I couldn't disagree with you more.
Russell Crowe is a great actor has proven so in tons of films; The Insider, A Beautiful Mind, American Gangster and he did an amazing job as Gladiator. I had heard his off-screen personality is questionable, but so are many such as Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson (who are also great actors).
Joaquin is another great actor, and I thought his performance in Gladiator probably carried him up the Hollywood ladder.
The CGI was great for the time, and the fight scenes were terrific. Ridley deserved that best director and it's a shame he didn't get it. One of the main characters actors died (Oliver Reed) and Ridley managed to use CGI to recreate that actor so the movie could be complete!

The only valid criticism of the film would be that the story was fiction.
Considering history has provided us with a wide variety of fucked up and entertaining stories from the Roman Empirical times, it could be claimed that it wasn't necessary to conjure up a fake Gladiator story.

[TheDenizen]

My ratings for Russell Crowe: 9 films, average rating: 41.1, average Tier: 3.2, and that's with the results being heavily skewed by a single T9 ranking (for 3:10 to Yuma).

I think he's a pretty crap actor, but you don't agree....and that's OK. I have very questionable taste.

For example, I preferred Oliver Reed when he was starring in nunsploitation and Italian crime films.

[nauru]

Hollywood needs a lot more big-budget sword and sandal flicks. Roman Republic/Empire sword and sandal flicks. Instead they seem to focusing on some kind of resurgence of westerns which is a grave disappointment for me to say the least.