Agree with some of these. Especially "Birdman" and "Crash" (of course).

https://www.insider.com/oscar-winnin...nist-in-2003-9

While I don’t necessarily disagree with a lot of the choices. Most of the article felt like, “Why wasn’t Hollywood as ‘woke’ then as it is now?”

I’m not sure judging Lawrence of Arabia, which is 60 years old, because it used brown face is really fair.

Most of the choices were pretty forgettable though. Can’t really argue. I know most people mention Crash as an example of a worst Best Picture winner but if you ask me, Chicago was shit then and it’s still shit now.

That's all this article is about when all you are doing is complaining about actors who are not the right skin color or sexual orientation. Anyone with a functioning brain would understand that the world is not the same from what it was in 1962 and putting Alec Guiness and Anthony Quinn in brownface in Lawrence of Arabia wasn't a big deal at the time.

I don't disagree with a few of these but I hate the reasoning on some of them especially the ones that say another movie should have won. You can go back to many years and make that same argument. That doesn't mean the movie isn't still good. Also it seems like the definition of "standing the test of time" means not having problematic elements yet they completely ignore a lot of 20th century films.

At least they didn't again cite Ordinary People as undeserving. I'm so tired of hearing that.

Ben Affleck playing a half-mexican man is whitewashing, too. Get a grip. I don't get how some people don't understand how they are undercutting important issues by being mor Catholic than the Pope. Speaking of the pope Jonathan Pryce played an Argentinian in The Two Popes, what a racist.

Jesus fuck, half the criticisms here are that some films weren't "woke enough". Idiotic.

Anyone who doesn't recognize Lawrence of Arabia for the masterpiece it is -- even with the casting of white actors in Arab roles -- they have no business writing about movies.

And in Evita. Then again most Argentines like to think they're Italian so...

Article written by:
I guarantee she has not even seen half the films she listed, or even heard of them before doing a google search on "Oscar winners that were on the wrong side of history"

And let's not even get into Pryce's casting in Miss Saigon.

Click bait gonna click bait. It's why journalism and thoughtful, measured commentary is dead in 2021.

Applying contemporary norms and ethics to stuff made 50+ years ago. Fascinating... in a very stupid way.

The family of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio (aka Pope Francis) fled Italy in 1929 to escape facism.

...and those who don't are German.

Not particular fan of Argo but Tony Mendez was a pretty light dude. It's more offensive that someone with more gravitas didn't play him in the film.

I find it equally amusing and ignorant how most of the Woke Crowd thinks that "Hispanic" must mean a swarthier, accented, Afro-Mestizo type. Good fucking lord, get some sunlight and take a look at the real world.

Martin Sheen changed his stage name, because casting agents thought he didn't look like Ramon Estevez. I guess even 50 years people still think he more of a J. Edgar than a Ramon. People want to be woke but have a stereotype in their heads how Hispanics, Middle Easterners have should look like and could only be played by actors of these ethnicities.
Don't get me wrong Joel Edgerton as an Egyptian is a weird casting choice, but Ben Affleck as a half-mexican is totally fine. No one cares if Giancarlo Esposito plays an African-American or an Chilean, but if Christian Bale plays an Israelite it's whitewashing.

Yeah they do and yeah it is.

Or Margarita Cansino

Fair enough, yall "Hispanics" cover all skin tones from Blackitty Black to Wonder Bread White. But just like many other cultures whose skin color phenotype covers a wide range, more often than not the "white one" is what pushed as the "norm" or "preferred" representation. Darker versions are treated as "exotic" to appeal to European Male fantasies or worse, as if they don't exist. White people in Hollywood have traditionally and to this day push this. It's not a 50 or 60 year old problem that went away when Hollywood got "woke". Trust me, Hollywood ain't all that "woke".


Woke people are trying to show all the range of how people look and get more people work while non woke only want the white versions to get these roles.

One article that hasn't stood the test of time:

https://www.insider.com/oscar-winning-movies-that-didnt-deserve-it-2019-2

They should really call it "Triggering Film Buffs"

Does anybody have an answer for the topic or are we just going to dogpile on the article?

I guess the answer is eventually "all of them". Nothing stands the test of time. Ozymandias and all that.

If the question is supposed to be undeserving Oscar winners, the first thing that comes to mind is the Documentaries that only won because they cheated the system by refusing to screen the film. At the time, you could only vote by attending all five of the nominee's screenings. If you didn't hold one of those screenings, then you prevented anyone else from voting except for the people you showed your movie to.

Lawrence of Arabia still holds up as a classic.

If Chicago came out in the last 5 years no way would it win best picture.