"621"

We all make mistakes. From leisure suits in the ‘70s, to “hypercolor” clothing in the ‘80s, to rat tail haircuts anytime, we Americans are notorious for making choices that seemed like good ideas at the time. Despite our less-than-stellar judgment, we tend to demand more of our finest institutions. In particular, we expect our most prestigious award-givers to choose the right winners. Is that too much to ask? Take the Academy Awards (please!). Today, we thought it might be fun to go back through history and point out the most obvious mistakes in the history of the Oscars. Focusing on past recipients of the three major awards (Best Picture, Actor and Actress), we’ll identify the times when Oscar really fell down on the job. And, sad to say, it’s happened more than once.

Over the years, some film directors have had their own so-called stock companies. We’re not talking Wall Street stocks, folks, but rather groups of actors they felt so comfortable working with that they cast them in their projects time and again. The great John Ford’s stable of thespians was perhaps the biggest and most prolific in Hollywood history. In fact, some of its members appeared in the iconic director’s films over twenty times; bit player Jack Pennick worked with the filmmaker a whopping 41 times, although several of his roles were uncredited. Of course, starting in the forties, John Wayne was Ford’s favorite star. “The Duke,” who also had an abiding off-screen friendship with “Pappy” Ford, could be seen in 24 Ford enterprises, all starring roles in some of Ford’s most iconic work (you can see some of these movie titles at the end of this article).

It boggles the mind that only a couple of generations back, women were sometimes referred to as “the weaker sex.” That’s not only sexist, but misleading.  Plenty of tough, cunning, even deadly female characters have graced the screen over the past six decades that prove this idiotic saying wrong.   Here are an even dozen.

Two gunslingers stand toe-to-toe in a dusty crossroads… on the left, a powerfully built man donning a cowboy hat and wearing a leather vest and bandanna; on the right, a tall, cool customer in a serape, with a rope burn ‘round his throat.     You duck down inside an old barrel and hold your breath… a tumbleweed rolls by… and the church bells chime…. bong… bong…bong... (Cue the “Waah Waah Waah Waah Waah” of Ennio Morricone’s signature soundtrack theme).     As far as I’m concerned, the only man thick-skinned enough to stand up in a town square to the cool, rattler squint of Clinton “Clint” Eastwood, would be the Duke himself (better known as John Wayne). But on which would you stake your claim when facing a hail of bullets?

Movies are palaces of the imagination, showing us places we can’t go, either because they are closed to us, or too far away, or they never existed in the first place. Place is a star in its own right, and the places where movies are set are often the key to the psychology of the piece. Sometimes the setting, and set, is found already built, seemingly just waiting for a camera to come and create an iconic image. And then there’s the house (or an entire city) that must be built from scratch in order to realize the director’s vision. These are sets that go way beyond the functional — they actually advance the mood, flavor, and drama of the piece. We invite you to open the door to these houses with stories to tell.   

Everyone knows Welles, Huston, Kubrick, Spielberg, Scorsese and Nolan. But what about Leisen, Hill, Hiller, Boorman, Mann and Sayles?  For every “name” director, there are several others we feel deserve more recognition. They may have had successes—critical and/or financial—but for some reason they’ve tended to fly under the radar. Here are six filmmakers whose legacies deserve our respect and appreciation. Even though their names may have faded from memory, their finest work lives on, as you’ll soon discover.

Did you know that both Lincoln and Kennedy have 7 Letters? Did you know that both were shot on a Friday? Just as uncanny is the connection between genial superstar Tom Hanks and his folksy predecessor, James “Jimmy” Stewart.   If there was any question that the two share cinematic auras for their respective generations, it was blown away when Hanks inhabited Stewart’s role from “The Shop Around the Corner” in the slick remake “You’ve Got Mail”. Their parallel command performances – studies in “aw shucks,” regular guy humility – make them both exasperatingly lovable middle-class heroes – everymen doing extraordinary things. The two stars’ respective charm-laden film careers have a great deal in common too, running the leading man gamut from drama to thriller to comedy (Stewart’s “The Philadelphia Story” is a little classier than Hanks loving on a sheep in “Bachelor Party,” but you get the idea).

The cinema has given us many great gangster films, showcasing some of the nastiest, shiftiest, most venal criminals in the world. On paper, their deeds are rotten, maybe even murderous, putting innocent people at risk and defying the forces of law and order.  Yet very often, you still sympathize with these characters; you may even root for them. After all, usually their backs are up against the wall. You sense that poverty and dysfunction placed them on the wrong side of society. Born into the right circumstances, they coulda been contenders. You glimpse a trace of honor, even goodness in them. Whenever there’s talk of the greatest films ever made, gangster pictures always figure in. You know the usual suspects, but we’ve rounded up ten of varying ages that we think are... well, for the ages.