I have a feeling that, in 20 years or so, people will look back on the 2002 Oscars and be mystified by the amount of hoopla surrounding "Chicago." Looking at it now that the hype has died down, it proves itself to be a very very entertaining film but not much more; what someone 20 years from now won't be witness to is the context in which the film was initially released, and the degree to which the cultural climate at the time was was perfectly poised to foster a public mania for this particular story and this particular way of telling it.
I wonder if much the same thing happened with "Tom Jones." I saw this probably ten or so years ago and thought it was light-hearted and breezy, but I couldn't for the life of me understand how it could have been universally liked enough to win the Best Picture Oscar in 1963. I guess it does have a kind of groovy style about it that was in line with the direction of pop culture during that time period -- it certainly makes two of its Best Picture contenders from that year, "Cleopatra" and "How the West Was Won" (the only two I've seen), look like hopeless dinosaurs staggering from the remains of an out-of-touch Hollywood. But still....
Grade: B
I wonder if much the same thing happened with "Tom Jones." I saw this probably ten or so years ago and thought it was light-hearted and breezy, but I couldn't for the life of me understand how it could have been universally liked enough to win the Best Picture Oscar in 1963. I guess it does have a kind of groovy style about it that was in line with the direction of pop culture during that time period -- it certainly makes two of its Best Picture contenders from that year, "Cleopatra" and "How the West Was Won" (the only two I've seen), look like hopeless dinosaurs staggering from the remains of an out-of-touch Hollywood. But still....
Grade: B