Favourite Film Endings: The Usual Suspects

My checklist for a great film includes a good ending – and it gets extra brownie points if it’s a twist ending too. I don’t know what it is that is so effective about twist endings – but I think it’s mainly that feeling of chills and slight bewilderment I feel while I walk out of the theatre as the credits roll.

So I thought I would share with you a couple of my favourite endings.. starting off with the neo film noir The Usual Suspects... SPOILERS (obviously)….

The Usual Suspects

Director: Bryan Singer

Release Date: 25 August 1995

The Line Up

One line up. One question. One of the most famous twist endings in cinematic history.

The twist here is a somewhat Chekhov’s gun, because we are introduced to the idea of the mysterious ‘Keyser Soze’ at the very beginning of the film – infact it was Keyser himself who delivered the film’s opening line – “How ya doin’ Keaton?”. With the exception of the ending - we never actually see Keyser in the flesh from head to toe but, based on Verbal’s account (whether it be completely true or not at all) we quickly understand that Keyser Soze, whoever he may be, is certainly someone to be feared.

The one thing I like about this particular twist ending is that it does take you down the right path. From very early on the film we can quite easily make a safe assumption that the ending will reveal the true identity to Keyser Soze – which in turn leads you down another path with asking yourself ‘ok, who *exactly* is Keyser Soze?’ Is it a character who we’ve already been introduced to? The film cleverly leads us to a false assumption that Keaton is in fact Keyser Soze. In fact when Gabriel Byrne was interviewed not long after the film was released he stated that he was almost certain that he was Keyser Soze. We are introduced to the idea that Kujan has about Keaton being Soze almost at the very end of the film, therefore leading us to the false assumption to Keyser's true identity. Plus I think 'proving' this evidence on Keyser's true identity to Verbal Kint gives a slight ironic twist to the ending. 

When it was first revealed to me that the somewhat shy, introverted ‘cripple’ Verbal Kint (played by Kevin Spacey) is infact the dreaded Keyser Soze, I immediately hit the scene skip button right back to the beginning and proceeded to watch the film with a completely different view on it. I watched every single action and listened to every single word from Verbal Kint. When Verbal Kint sits alone in the interrogation room, silently scanning the notice board – I came to the assumption that he must just be bored on first viewing. However, when I watched this scene a second time, I soon realized that my first assumption was wrong, and now I just thought “You cunning little sod.” (.....I still love you Kevin). Also who can forget that long concentrated stare at the bottom of Kujan's coffee cup - which would inevitably allow Kint to come up with the blackmailing lawyer "Mr. Kobayashi".

Throughout the film, there are clues to Keyser’s true identity. Here’s a couple which I have picked up on…

1. ‘Keyser Soze’ roughly translates from Turkish and German to ‘King Blabbermouth’ – after the line up scene, Verbal explains to the other ‘suspects’ that he was given the nickname Verbal (his real name being Roger) because he was often too talkative.
2. In the interrogation room, Verbal explains that he used to get dehydrated a lot as a kid and that his piss would often be really thick and come out like ‘snot’.. at the beginning of the film we see Keyser urinating to be quite heavy.
3. Keyser is seen at the beginning of the film with a gold watch and lighter... we then see Verbal using similar items later on in the film.

So was Verbal’s story all true or just completely made up on the spot? Personally, I think it had elements of both, but I suppose it can be anyone’s guess. Let's take Mr. Kobayashi for example - we did indeed see Spacey get into a car with Pete Postelthwaite (who did portray Kobayashi in Verbal's account) - which could highlight elements of truth to the story. However Verbal never mentions him until after he gets a glance at the bottom of the coffee cup..... perhaps he is just giving a false name to the character.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist. On the other hand the easiest trick Kevin Spacey ever pulled was convincing the world he was a damn fine actor! 

Top Ten Films From The 1930s

L’Age D’Or

Director: Luis Buñuel

Release Date: October 1930

Three years after the twenty eight year old Luis Buñuel brought us the controversial and startling Un Chien Andalou (1927), came this “romantic film performed in full surrealist frenzy.” L’Age D’Or opened in Paris of October, 1930 and was presented to the Board of Censors as a mad man’s dream, and there was an unsurprising level of protest, particularly from the non-surrealist conservatives, when it eventually premiered at Studio 28 in November of the same year.

The film consists of a series of interlinked short vignettes with a common theme of both “sexual instinct and the sense of death.” The majority of these sequences portray the story of a man and a woman (played by Gaston Modot and Lya Lys respectively) whose attempts to remain deeply in love are constantly hindered by commonplace society. The film opens with a documentary on scorpions, which was in fact a 1912 scientific documentary to which Buñuel himself provided its commentary, before fading to a scene on a beach with starving bandits weakly ambling their way along the coast whilst a number of bishops perform a bizarre ritual. Time seems to pass by quickly and the bishops are reduced to skeletal forms and their memories are honoured by boatfuls of aristocrats and other distinguished individuals. The ceremony is soon interrupted by the loud intimate activity between the man and the woman – leading to the man’s humiliating public arrest. Further scenes are set at an elegant party, and the couple have seemed to have rekindled their love but they still experience the occasional interrupts to their romance. An orgy is depicted in the final sequence, with a place card entitled “120 Days of Depraved Acts” (referencing Marquis de Sode’s 120 Days of Sodom) where the libertines are ready to emerge from the orgy. The woman is soon greeted by a leader, who is clearly representative of Jesus, and taken back to his castle with her final scream leading onto the final image of the film – her body on a crucifix accompanied by carefree and reasonably cheerful music.

  

The iconic toe fellating scene

Despite the surreal nature of the film, perhaps there is a moral in that sexual repression can breed to violence, which could relate back to the opening sequence of the film. A scorpion, with its heterogeneous articulations, including its venomous sting, highlights the colourful, diverse and sometimes deadly aspects of love.

City Lights

Director: Charles Chaplin

Release Date: 6 February 1931

A silent film that came from the man who believed that, even at a time of vast improved sound technology, the use of speech would desecrate the beauty of cinema. This “comedy romance in pantomime” is, I think, the film that accentuates Chaplin’s true talent as a film star with its beautiful mix of melodrama, romance and comedy. Chaplin was unsurprisingly nervous to release a silent film to talkie craving audiences but inevitably City Lights turned out to be highly successful and the most renowned film of Chaplin’s career.

The plot centres around The Tramp, one of Chaplins most loved and memorable on-screen characters, who relies heavily on the power of body language rather than speech to express himself and thus blends adequately into a silent film. After saving a millionaire from suicide and touched emotionally by a blind flower girl (Virginia Cherrill) the Tramp tries his best to woo and restore the sight of the girl which thrusts him into a variety of tasks that often go slightly off-field while his awkward on-off friendship with the unpredictable millionaire present him with a different set of crazy antics.

The Tramp (Chaplin) helps the blind flower girl (Cherrill)

As fascinating as the melodramatic effect in City Lights is, it does contains some of Chaplin’s greatest comedy vignettes (the memorable fixed prized fight and the saving of the millionaire for example).

Although it is not necessarily a ‘silent’ film, as it did have a soundtrack, it still shows how the charm and power of film can be accentuated simply by emoting feelings without the use of dialogue, and, in particular with City Lights, can result in the most astounding memorable scenes. I think this is very important and as a mild Aspergic, I think sometimes everybody talks too much, and I disagree with the idea that bigger and louder in films is really better.

The Tramp has appeared in many of Chaplin’s productions, yet this is the film that sheds light on all his characteristics showing him to be a kindhearted loner with only the best intentions. There is also a tender moment with his character where the blind girl does not judge him negatively only because she cannot see his shabby appearance, yet when her sight improves she doesn’t change heart.

Beautifully acted and directed, all on Chaplin’s part, and a film that provides a wonderful balance between laughter and passionate drama that concludes to a deeply moving climax, this is certainly a landmark in cinematic history.

Dracula

Director: Tod Browning

Release Date: 14 February 1931

Despite Bram Stoker’s late 19^th Century novel being adapted to the big screens many times, few can top or even match Tod Browning’s early talkie, filmed in late 1930 and released in February of the following year. This was not the true first adaptation of the novel per se, what with Murnau’s Nosferatu (1922) and Browning’s own silent film London After Midnight (1927), however it could be easily deemed as giving birth to a new subgenre of vampire films.

The Breakthrough star of this film was the Hungarian Bela Lugosi. This new major role was certainly a giant step from his previous roles (he had, in fact portrayed the Count before on Broadway) and would inevitably create a typecast for him, which would, I suppose like with all typecasts would be both a blessing and a curse. Surprisingly, despite being his most iconic role and being a huge part of not just to his film career but also to his general life (he requested to be buried in his costume) he was not the first choice for the role and was only chosen after Browning’s original choice of Lon Chaney was thwarted by his early death. Some critics even believe that Chaney’s death blew out the light of Browning’s directing spirit and while I do disagree with this slightly I do believe that his directing had slight faults in some scenes – with the lackadaisical climax depicting the Counts easy defeat conveyed by a soft off-screen moan, and seeing as I am a huge fan of effective climaxes I really think Browning could’ve worked the ending a little better.

When people are asked to envision an image of Count Dracula I would assume they would picture the ‘Dracula’ who Lugosi portrayed – a cape wearing, white faced, beautiful and deep eyed handsome man with equal charm and sinister characteristics, and not the original Count as described in Stoker’s novel – an repulsive and grotesque monster. I don’t know whether in all cases it is better to be true to the book or make a character your own.

Lugosi as Count Dracula 

Nevertheless, despite being quite traditional in its technique of filming, such as sticking to simple drawing room centred script, the film still manages to captivate and retain the creepy atmosphere of the novel using simple filming techniques such as the use of pinpoint lights on Lugosi’s eyes. In addition to this I believe that it was Lugosi’s slow pacing and subconscious squeezing of his mother-tongue accent into his speech makes it all the more creepier, those silent pauses “I em…… Dracula” and “I nevair dreeenk……. vine” etc made him a unique as a horror character.

M

Director: Fritz Lang

Release Date: 31 August 1931

Believed to be loosely based on the case of the serial killer Peter Kuerten from Dusseldorf whose crimes to place in the early 20s, though vaguely disputed by Lang himself, this is, in my opinion, the best serial killer film ever made. Fritz Lang came up with his personal favourite picture because he desperately wanted to re-establish himself as a popular director after giving up working on silent films when he considered Metropolis (1927) and Girl on the Moon (1929) to be failures, even before their success was truly recognised by critics. With Hollywood at the time being used to all-singing cheerful musicals and theatrical adaptations it was certainly a big step to introduce audiences to psychological thrillers. Originally entitled “The Murderers are Among Us”, Lang changed the name to M not because of, contrary to popular belief, fear of prosecution from the Nazis, but simply because he felt it had a more punchy and interesting feel to the title. The film is, certainly for its time, quite quirky in its story telling, presenting a sequence of montage-like scenes, commonly accompanied with narration (a relatively new device at that time), which illustrate a town in terror.

Peter Lorre shines in his first major starring role as the serial killer, which provided a huge increase to his acting career and would subsequently be cast as quirky villains in future roles despite at first being a comedic actor. His portrayal is completely multidimensional with his palpable differentiation between the evil killer and the pleading young man in the courtroom. The murders and, it is implied, molestation of the children are conveyed by striking yet simple images and sounds – such as Beckert’s infamous whistle of Grieg’s “The Hall of the Mountain King” before each murder and the balloon of Elsie – his first victim. This simplicity with the murders suggests that maybe Lang was trying to convey the pathetic lifestyle of a serial killer along with the frenzy of police investigation.

 

 Peter Lorre as the disturbed Beckert

The finale consists of one of the most powerful monologues in film history in which Beckert, who has been put on trial, pleads his case to a kangaroo court made up of policemen and families of the victims. The difference between free will and determinism is highlighted in this monologue, where Beckert claims that his accusers have only chosen to commit crimes and that he was compelled to commit them as the voices in his head told him to. Lorre’s performance during this scene as the desperate wide eyed murderer terrified by at the prospect of receiving a summary justice, forces the members of the trial, and the audience, to look into the depths of psychosis.

I think what is most interesting about M is that it combined features of past criminal films such as The Public Enemy (released the same year) and inhumane monster films, such as the ever popular Dracula and Frankenstein,  portraying a human monster committing crimes beyond any apprehension. 

Freaks

Director:  Tod Browning

Release Date: 20 February 1932

Exceeding all expectations of a horror movie, this gutsy film by Tod Browning conveys a range of art-house and horror, having the ability to both frighten and move the audience in equal measure. The movie could also be seen as a documentary in someway, with its strong use of realism, expressed Browning’s exceptional decision to cast real circus ‘freaks’ in a period of makeup and costume cinema that was not used to authenticity.  

Based on a short story “Spurs” by Tod Robbins, Freaks has been subjected to extreme controversy, more than what any film had seen before hand, despite cut after cut after cut. Browning, who was at the time, famed for his adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, became so overwhelmed by all the negative reviews that he actually attended screenings with rocks in his pocket in case any audience members attacked him. Freaks is believed to have been the film that ruined Browning’s directing career, because of the hatred towards the picture he had real difficulty finding any proper directing jobs and so, in 1939, gave up acting completely all together. However I believe that Browning’s short lived career was not the fault of his film making on Freaks but the ignorance to the film’s message of the audience, this message being who in this world really are the true ‘freaks’.

Providing a simple plot summary won’t really give the story true justice because I believe this is one film that, like a piece of art, has to be seen to be believed.

The film opens at a Freak Show at a circus with a barker addressing the public and telling them all about their latest attraction – the Human Duck, and introduces her as “the most astounding, living monstrosity of all time”. We, the audience, do not see her at first, but the screams of disgust and horror from the crowd are apparent that she is truly grotesque. After the commotion from the crowd towards her appearance, the barker proceeds to tell her story.

This ‘Human Duck’ was once a beautiful trapeze artist named Cleopatra (played by Olga Baclanova) who is adored by a circus midget named Hans (played by Harry Earles), frequently showing his affection by buying her numerous gifts. Despite his kind gestures Cleopatra makes fun of him and secretly begins dating the Strong man behind his back, however when it is apparent that Hans has inherited a fortune, Cleopatra and the Strong Man devise a simple murderous plot: she will marry him then kill him. During the famous wedding feast scene Cleopatra subtly spikes her newlywed’s drink throughout the celebration and Han’s friends, who happen to be circus ‘freaks’ are obliged to accept her as “one of them”. Highly offended by this she reacts with disgust and in her drunken state screams “YOU DIRTY SLIMY FREAKS!” and throws wine all over her party guests. This erratic behaviour and her foolish act of drunkenly kissing the strong man at the dinner party arouse suspicious within the Freaks and with Hans himself, who has survived the first poison attempt. Hans eventually grows wise to the poison attempt but plays along with it, spitting out every drink she gives him while her back is turned. Enough time passes when the freaks, humiliated and disgusted by Cleopatra’s behaviour decide to exact a brutal revenge – chasing her into the woods and mutilate her off-screen. We are then brought back to real time and the barker finally introduces the audience to Cleopatra’s new form, with legs removed, left eye gouged out and tongue cut out squawking like a duck.

Olga Baclanova’s fate

The ‘freaks’ in the film were not, with the exception of Harry and Daisy Earles – already in the acting industry, the world’s greatest actors by any means, but they were believable in that you can relate to people you wouldn’t otherwise see in the real world. I certainly had my favourite and least favourite freaks in the film. I loved the handsome cheeky smiling Johnny Eck (half boy) and the lovable simple minded Schlitze (the microcephalic), yet I found Josephine Joseph (the supposed hermaphrodite) to be pretty gaff.

The film isn’t completely coldhearted as it does delve into elements of romance and love – who could not be touched by the sweet relationship between Venus and Phroso the Clown, and there are light elements of comedy as well – shown with Rosco Ate’s overexaggerated stammer and his problem with his fiancee’s sister – who just happens to be her conjoined twin.

One of the greatest flaws of humanity is that we often treat differences in others with superiority rather than tolerance – we fight to maintain our superiority over out-groups, instead of just accepting that they are different. I believe humanity often treat smaller outgroups with the greatest discrimination and with severe birth defects being pretty rare, it is unsurprising that this film received such an uproar at the time.

I believe that this film, not just in the storyline but in the reaction to it as well, truly highlights our inability to tolerate others who are different to us, and what exactly makes someone a ‘freak’. I believe this to be one of the most important messages that we often forget as a society.

Duck Soup

Director: Leo McCarey

Release Date: 17 November 1933

“Take two turkeys, one goose, four cabbages, but no duck, and mix them together. After one taste, you’ll duck soup the rest of your life” was Groucho’s description for the title of this Marx brothers classic madcap comedy. Released at a time when technology sounds was vastly improving, providing a great opportunity to grasp the attention of new audiences. This was actually the last film to feature all the brothers, as the group’s straight man, Zeppo, officially left the comedy team to become an agent in March 1934.

The film is only seventy minutes long yet this short gem is packed with fresh and funny visual and verbal gags with flawless comedy timing, providing brilliant satire of dictatorial leaders and fascism. It highlights the pretense mannerisms of political leaders (with Groucho’s Firefly as president), the incongruous nature of government (the cabinet meeting scene) and the war being fought over unnecessary little things (shown by a number of the war scenes).

A film that made fun of politics during a time of a great depression, particularly with Roosevelt’s struggle against Hitler’s rise to power, it is unsurprising that this classic was not only devoid of any awards, but was also both a critical and commercial failure – with audiences really taken aback by political disrespect, especially with Groucho’s line “And remember while you’re out there risking life and limb through shot and shell, we’ll be in here thinking what a sucker you are.”, and some even insulted – as it was banned in Italy for a short while. The film was not truly appreciated until 30 years later when it was discovered by a new generation of sixties college students and film museums which allowed it to achieve its immortal status as a comedy film.

Groucho as Firefly 

This film was more than just a great physical comedy film, in that it also had expert script input and with the Marx’s brothers blessed with a witty approach to dialogue it is unsurprising that Duck Soup has remained a classic for over seventy years while other comedies of that period have remained overlooked. The plot line is simple yet is strong enough to provide support for some of the funniest comedy sequences in film history including the mirror sequence involving Groucho meeting ‘himself’ in a door way.

The people of a small town in New York called Fredonia complained about the use of its name in the picture, to which the brothers responded with “Well, change the name of your town and stop ruining our picture!” – classic Marx there!

The Black Cat

Director: Edgar G. Ulmer

Release Date: 7 May 1934

The biggest hit for Universal that year, this film provided the first, of eight, screen teaming of monster film legends Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi. Thanks to the combined bizarre sensibilities of the director, Ulmer and the poetic soul of screenwriter Peter Ruric this is probably the most cantankerous and the artiest of the original Universal horror films. Believed to be loosely based on the immortal story by Edgar Allen Poe this tale of diabolism operates on different levels, depicting aspects of revenge, betrayal and European post-war affliction. Also its themes of necrophilia, sexual repression and atypical behaviour have lead critics to consider it to be the first psychological horror film in America.

One of the main themes of the story is the battle between good and evil science, and centres around two main characters Dr. Werdegast and Poelzig (played by Lugosi and Karloff respectively) and centres around a main theme of a battle between good and evil science, with Werdegast actually representing good despite the disturbing shortcomings to his character throughout the film. Young honeymooners played by David Manners and Jacqueline Wells (who I believe were templates for Brad and Janet in The Rocky Horror Picture Show, 1975) are the unfortunate houseguests caught between the wax-work obsessed Poelzig and the vengeance obsessed Werdegast.

 

Boris as Poelzig was simply credited as Karloff

This film is definitely beyond reasonable limits and even clichéd in some parts with Karloff’s lispy Latin when performing his rituals, however I love a film that keeps you guessing and with this film’s presentation of ambiguous metaphors that attenuate the ending, The Black Cat is a perfect early example of this.

Bride of Frankenstein

Director: James Whale

Release Date: 22 April 1935

A surprising mix of horror of comedy, this classic horror masterpiece was the follow-up to the successful 1931 box office success Frankenstein (also directed by Whale), and turned out to be far superior to its predecessor. Generally considered to be one of the greatest monster movies of all time, Bride of Frankenstein is a spectacular, creepy, bizarre and humorous film.

There are sharp contrasts between light comedy, thanks to Whale’s particular sense of camp humour, and horror allowing the audience to be creeped out one minute then lightly entertained the next. The humanization of the Monster, despite Karloff’s reluctance, made him much more believable and complete to Mary Shelley’s novel and his need for a mate makes it very touching. The comedic elements of the film are mainly enhanced by the house maid (Una O’Connor) and the wonderfully devilish Dr. Pretorius played by Ernest Thesiger, who forces Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) to give life again. The bride, played by Elsa Lanchester, remains to be one of the most astounding and visual captivating characters of all time with her somewhat grotesque image (her mummified body, swan-like hissing and Egyptian style hairdo) still being a highlight of a horror genre. Despite the film’s light comedy theme Whale does not neglect the haunting mood of Mary Shelley’s character and novel by expertly bringing the influence of German expressionism into the imagery of the film.

Karloff and Lanchester as The Monster and The Monster’s bride 

I believe it to be the perfect original Halloween film, in that it is not really scary per se, but crazy and good fun, allowing the audience to be lightly disturbed but enjoy themselves at the same time. The script, written by William Hurlbut and John Balderston, beautiful weaves between both horror and comedy accompanied by music composed by Franz Waxman – which in my opinion is a little overused, but not necessarily a bad thing if you do want to go over the top with your movie.

The movie’s legacy and brilliance is mainly due to Whale’s affection for horror and his quirky sense of humour – making this one of the best horror comedies around.

Mad Love

Director: Karl Freund

Release Date: 12 July 1935

Peter Lorre delivers his very best performance in his American film debut, in my opinion and also Charlie Chaplin’s opinion too, as Dr. Googol, a surgeon who is overcome with desire and a warped obsession for the young and beautiful actress Yvonne (played by Frances Drake), which is made clearly apparent when he reacts strongly to a scene in a play where Yvonne’s character is tortured and even more so when he is utterly stupefied when he learns of her engagement to a man named Stephen Orlac (Colin Clive). When Stephen’s hands are mutilated in a train accident Yvonne pleads with Googol to reconstruct them to which he does – using the hands of murderer Rollo the knife thrower as the donor, leading to drastic consequences.

This is one of the very first films to really delve into deep sexual desire and general obsession, and the destructive consequences that occur when they are desecrated or when we go too far (I mean we all know what happened to Annie Wilkes and Alex Forrest don’t we) and thanks to Lorre’s brilliant gift of combining his striking yet lovable physical appearance with his precise perception of insanity, we are held to a strict belief to his character’s psychoticism.

Lorre as Googol 

I do believe that this film belongs to Mr Lorre but I cannot help but praise the direction of Karl Freund whose visual style of shady lighting and sharp angles help to paint the world inside the mind of a disturbed man plagued by obsession, and this is particularly seen with Googol’s disguised encounter with Orlac and when Googol looses all sense of reality and engrosses himself into his Pygmalion-Galatea identity.

Despite only receiving positive reviews in recent years, I believe that Mad Love to be an entertaining endeavour into our morbid world and nothing short of the ultimate creepy Gothic tale.

The Wizard of Oz

Director: Victor Fleming

Release date: 25 August 1939

Based on the turn of the century novel by L. Frank Baum, this delightfully dark and twisted fairy tale and also a first rate musical (and even I say this not being one for musicals as such) has become a cherished favourite, beloved by successive generations. We all known this film for transforming Judy Garland from a talented young star to a movie icon, but at a personal level it is hard not to see this film and keep the images (yellow brick road, the beautiful green village of Oz), the characters (the comical Cowardly Lion, the kindhearted ‘heartless’ Tin Man), the songs (the iconic ‘Over the Rainbow’ and catchy ‘We’re Off to See the Wizard) and quotes (‘There’s no place like home’, ‘I got a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore’) out of our memories.

I will not delve too much into the simply condensed plot as I am sure there are few who are not aware of it: a young Kansas girl named Dorothy (Garland), who dreams of a better place ‘over the rainbow’, is whisked away in a tornado with her beloved dog Toto to the magical land of Oz. Here she meets lovable and memorable characters and learns the importance of becoming aware of the qualities you thought you never had.

 

L-R Bert Lehr as The Cowardly Lion, Ray Bolger as The Scarecrow, Judy Garland as Dorothy Gale and Jack Haley as The Tin Man 

The film is brilliantly adapted from the novel, which I did read once as a small child, and even though it does leave out quite a few scenes from the book, it really does highlight the beauty of the story.  However despite being the most famous adaptation of Baum’s novel it was certainly not the first as it was brought to the stage in 1902 in Chicago and even been adapted into little known silent films with the earliest being in 1908.

This childhood favourite was nominated for a number of Oscars but surprisingly only won two, then again it was up against the unbeatable overrated Gone With The Wind, but who really needs the opinion of the Academy to decide whether a film or actor is good or not. I decided on that when they went for Julia Roberts over Ellen Burstyn in 2001. And it certainly hasn’t kept it from remaining in the hearts of millions.