It's been said that time, above all else, is the best measuring stick when determining the worth of a movie. I've heard it suggested that the Academy Awards would be better served if they operated on a tilt of ten years, meaning if that were the case then this years awards, honoring the films of 2013, would actually serve to honor the films of 2003. This is a bold sentiment and while there's no real way this can or will happen, it's certainly fun to think about. When looking back ten years, many factors come in to play, the most notable of those is legacy. The way the system stands now, there can be, at best, only an assumption of legacy. If you went with a ten year scale, you'd get a much better look at exactly which films have held up better over time. Hell, you can even get a better perspective on individual performances within each film. I'm sure you've heard of the phrase, "ahead of its (or hers/his/their) time." This brings up a whole bunch of new possibilities. What performances have aged better than others? Maybe we see a director, ten years later, who's influenced cinema more than whoever took home that award ten years ago. What we're doing here, in honor of the impending ceremonies mind you, is outlining the six biggest categories of the Academy Awards. I'm talking the four acting categories, director and of course, Best Picture. We'll take a look at who was nominated, who won and whether or not time has possibly changed minds. I look forward to debating with you in the comments section so let's get started...
I'm married and live in New York with my wife and pets. I'm a writer and definitely not a comedian (just ask my wife). I've successfully linked my twitter, goodreads, facebook and google+ pages although the successful aspect of all that is up for debate. I also started my own blog on wordpress and have just finished my first novel, The Violent Winds. Now it's time to try and trick some unsuspecting fool into buying it.
