Why did Chariots of Fire win?

OGP, CofF, and Reds. All very good movies. Only one could win. Very close call, but I thought OGP should have won also.

She beat Diane Keaton in "Reds", Marsha Mason in "Only When I Laugh", Susan Sarandon in "Atlantic City" and Meryl Streep in "The French Lieutenant's Woman".

I prefer Chariots of Fire even though I like this film very much. I'll be as fair as possible in the WHY part of this and leave personal feeling out of it.

Chariots of Fire was awarded for being a daring film. Remember that this was before independent films were the "In" thing. Chariots was almost never to be because no major distributor would pick it up. Alan Ladd Jr. took a chance on a historical English epic. Compare that to Jane Fonda aquiring the rights to Thompson's play of OGP because she wanted her daddy to play the part of Walter Thayer. Academy voters tend to be influenced by that type of thing--as in who put more trust in themselves and the material--reverse nepotism aside.

COF also is a very great film with terrific performances from a cast that I'll dare to wager you can't name three of its actors off the top of your head. What was so daring about OGP's casting? It is the last film of any consequence of the screen's greatest actress and one of the top five actors of all time. It is well written, yes. You'd expect that it would have to be for Fonda and Hepburn to sign on. But this was Hepburn's FOURTH academy award! Fonda had already had a lifetime achievement award and Hanoi Jane had already won for Klute. There are only so many ways, shapes and forms that you can say "Hollywood Royalty". Five young english kids acting in a period piece haven't got a chance against that kind of stacked deck...hence reason number two: Hollywood likes to spread the wealth at a certain point (i.e. Tom Hanks has only won twice even though he's probably been deserving of two since Forrest Gump).

I'd also say that On Golden Pond, for all the wonderful writing and acting it put forth...GULP...struggled with a plot. What was the central theme? At first it was the pugnacious Fonda being told off, then fifteen minutes later it was why daughter hates dad, then fifteen minutes later it was, "Hey let's play grandparents!", and then it was mortality in the end. It was just well enough acted to get away with this problem. Chariots seemlessly pulls a TRIPLE time change in the first five minutes of the film...a remarkable feat of writing that is underappreciated even to this day. It also has a well understood goal that all characters and audience members know for the duration of the film. Reason Number Three: Plot plays a big part in Best Picture.

What exactly did Chariots win finally? Three of the major awards went to OGP while only two went to Chariots. This to me sums up the question best. OGP was an actors and writers movie ONLY. It had no scope...it could have been filmed for 50 grand minus actors salaries of course. Chariots really only took home best picture and director because of all the things OGP didn't have. It was a period piece, with costume designs, art direction, makeup, cinematography and of course music. This is even more attractive when you consider that it pulled off these items so generally associated with a large studio projects on just a shoestring budget. Chariots was the better UNDERTAKING in the voters eyes...OGP had the better acting and writing, which I'm sure everyone here agrees with. Reason Four: It was the Better OVERALL PICTURE when you look at EVERY area of award voting.

Both are great films. Play this Oscar game until your head falls off, you can. 1981 was just a year that the little guy managed to win.

My two cents...I'd like to hear everyone else weigh-in.

t-dedon, i think you are absolutely right!

I was actually surprised this one was nominated at all. In a way, the nominatin was the win.

While I never miss the telecasts, I rarely give much credence to Academy Awards. I think it takes more than a "who's popular right now?" moment to provide a film's or a performance's real value. And while the 'Academy' sometimes gets it right (UNFORGIVEN, TERMS OF ENDEARMENT, THE GODFATHER films), more often than not it is woefully wrong (DRIVING MISS DAISY over the not-nominated DO THE RIGHT THING; ROCKY over NETWORK, ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN and TAXI DRIVER; IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT over BONNIE AND CLYDE and THE GRADUATE; and, the most egregious -- FOREST GUMP over everything).

With that in mind, I may be the only one so far to voice this opinion, but I am a great fan of Louis Malle's ATLANTIC CITY, and my appreciation of it has only grown over the years. While I feel all the arguments made have merit, for me ATLANTIC CITY greatly trumps CHARIOTS OF FIRE and even ON GOLDEN POND in the areas of writing and Malle's sure direction, and Burt Lancaster gives one of the finest performances in an entire career of fine performances. Henry got his OScar for a career filled with great performances where he SHOULD have won -- THE GRAPES OF WRATH, TWELVE ANGRY MEN, ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST. Burt gave the real deal in 1981.

RAIDERS is the technical marvel, REDS the large-yet-intelligent message film and the REAL 'period piece,' ON GOLDEN POND the actors's showcase and ATLANTIC CITY the discerning, thinking-filmgoers' piece.

Actually, other than some fine cinematography and catchy theme music, CHARIOTS OF FIRE doesn't even seem to belong in this company and, in retrospect, becomes almost a conceit.

Golden pond was a superior movie. Maybe the academy is so anti-american they were too impressed with the fine english film that depicts americans in a role not as underdogs. Chariots also has the ethnic racist theme which plays into their politically correct mentality.

No question what movie is better. On golden pond hits us right where we live!

"Why did Chariots of Fire win?"

Quite simple - it got more votes from those in the Academy who are allowed to vote on such things. The Oscar isn't a measure of whether a film's good or bad, or popular or not with the general public. It's a measure of how many votes a particular film or actor got from the industry insiders who are allowed to vote.

Reds is a great film that actually has an anti-Communist message in it, spoken by Maureen Stapleton, in a scene where Warren Beatty is upset that the ideals he upholds aren't taking place in " Communist" Russia and she states a political reality then and in 1981.