The anti-Dances with Wolves began more or less after it defeated Goodfellas for Best Picture. Because the Academy almost never gives the Best Picture to the ACTUAL Best Picture, and the fact that most of their Best Picture often do not rank with many classics, the winners almost always suffer in the world of Hollywood. In some cases, I find this criticism justifable: any rational academy Voter who thought that Gandhi was a better film not only then ET but also Tootsie and The Verdict should have their sanity questioned and of the five nominated films for Best picture in 1994, Forest Gump was the seventh best choice (I'd have nominated Ed Wood and NOBODY'S Fool ahead of it.)

Now Scorcese has been treated terribly by the Academy and the fact that masterpieces like Raging Bull or Goodfellas lost bEST Picture will make the winners look inferior. But Ordinary People was still a great picture and so is Dances with Wolves. I don't pretend it isn't problematic and I'll be honest I'm not sure I would want to see the directors cut. But that does not make it any less of a masterpiece, technically and when it comes to performances. The market for these kinds of films was starting to run dry even in 1990, and the fact that it was a box-office success because of this (it grossed nearly $200 million that year) should count for its appeal. I realize there is a tendency for critics to claim the fact that box office shouldn't count towards a films greatness but it sure as hell shouldn't count against it. tHIS ARGument is hazy at best for comic book movies and action films, and its ridiculous for a movie like Dances With Wolves. Maybe the choice to give it Best Picture was the wrong one. But its stilla damn good film anyway