HISTORY OF THE OSCARS EDITORIAL

That's a wrap, folks!  The 85th Academy Awards have run their course and what we have left now is, did they get it right?  Or more importantly, will history consider them right?  No one wants to be the South at the end of the Civil War, but you can always come up with an alternate version later on, but enough about politics...aw, bullcrap.  Everyone knows the Oscars (and Hollywood) are all about politics.  Not necessarily governing politics, although that comes into play quite frequently, but more of a high school type of politics.  So-and-so becomes prom king/queen because enough people like them/ admire them/ don't give a damn so they throw away their vote/ etc, and people are largely voting for what they hope will make them look good.  In the end, all movies are subjective and we all have the odd highly-acclaimed movies we hate (for me, the deadly bore, TREE OF LIFE (2011) or any of Terrence Malick's movies, really) and the occasional low appeal movies we love (me, I love PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END (2007)), and you can't really say which great movie is the greatest, because in many cases, you're comparing apples to oranges compounded with variations of human taste and relevancy.  Mainly, the Oscars are a big fat commercial for Hollywood, specifically their movies.  Winners and nominees can use it as a marketing point, emblazoning their count across the disc packaging, and it gives a reason for their movies to be talked about.  Furthermore, the awards bring in-industry credibility to the the winners (and to a lesser extent, the nominees), giving them something to pad their resume with, and usually comes with a bunch of job offers the next day.  Directors who win, usually with a few other awards for their film, often get to try their dream project after, such as Peter Jackson, who swept the Oscars with THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING and left the ceremony on a plane to begin work on KING KONG (2005).
A Few Examples of Notorious Best Picture Losses:
The most recent example of film widely considered superior losing to a lesser-loved film was probably the Oscars for 2005, when CRASH, a well-received, but unremarkable urban drama/thriller won in an infamous upset against the awards juggernaut and cultural icon that was BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, although there was a bit of a spat, though a less surprising one, in for 2010, when Tom Hooper's fine but safe royal drama, THE KING'S SPEECH beat David Fincher's Internet Age Citizen Kane, THE SOCIAL NETWORK.
Still, what's a notorious loss at the time and what is later is not always, or necessarily often, the same.
FORREST GUMP, Best Picture Winner 1994, was a box-office smash, 2nd biggest of '94, next to THE LION KING, was a case of the genuine people's favorite and is still a much beloved film, but not one, but two major classics have since blossomed from that year, removing all doubt that FORREST GUMP was not best pick.  The two films, both nominated for Best Picture, were Quentin Tarantino's iconic masterpiece of non-linear storytelling and rich dialogue, PULP FICTION, and Frank Darabont's "man-weepy", THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, which currently holds the highest ranking of user reviews on the Internet Movie Database (IMDb).  While PULP FICTION managed to nab an award for Best Original Screenplay, SHAWSHANK not only went home empty-handed, but didn't even garner a nod for Best Director, losing that nomination spot to Woody Allen for BULLETS OVER BROADWAY, which nobody can tell you anything about.
The most famous Best Picture loss amongst critics is 1941's CITIZEN KANE, losing to HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY, and politics play pretty heavily into that one though.  CITIZEN KANE clearly, though unofficially, dealt harshly with the legacy of yellow journalism tycoon William Randolph Hearst, a man with unlimited resources and power in the media industry.  When the film won its single award, for Best Original Screenplay, the occasion was marked with jeers from some in the audience.
FARGO lost to THE ENGLISH PATIENT in 1996, GOODFELLAS to DANCES WITH WOLVES in 1990, STAR WARS to ANNIE HALL in 1977, APOCALYPSE NOW to KRAMER VS. KRAMER in 1979, THE GRADUATE and BONNIE AND CLYDE to IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT in 1967, and Alfred Hitchcock never won a single Oscar for directing, while only one of his films (REBECCA (1940)) ever won Best Picture.  Funnily enough though, it was THE GRAPES OF WRATH that probably should have won that year (John Ford won for Best Director), while many of Hitchcock's films are considered greater than REBECCA, such as VERTIGO, PSYCHO, NOTORIOUS and REAR WINDOW, to name a few.
Still, all of these examples of history offering a new opinion to what was begs a new query, being; just because a film is considered the greater in future years, does that prove the previous opinion wrong?  Perhaps further history will re-justify currently derided past decisions, perhaps not.  But then again, perhaps it's a futile argument, but contemporary issues, sentiments and personal taste are ever changing and weigh so heavily on our opinions.  Movies will always be subjective.