I think I understood the excuse was that Paltrow played four roles--Viola, the guy she pretended to be, Romeo, and Juliet. I, too, found that it was not a particularly deep role. I don't think Robert Carlyle will win Best Actor for Colquhoun/Ives in _Ravenous_, though that was a role much more striking. I thought Blanchett should have won without question. I had never heard of her prior to _Elizabeth_, and I think others may have felt the same way, and that proved an impact on the votes, if a silly one. Scott =============================================================================== Scott Andrew Hutchins http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More! "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."--Noam Chomsky On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, Kate Butler wrote: > Does anyone else think it's strange that Gwyneth Paltrow won the Best > Actress Oscar over Cate Blanchett? I know Gwyneth is a popular choice but I > don't think she's a very versatile or convincing actor, she was adequate > for the part in SIL but it didn't seem to be a difficult or deep role. > Cate's performance in Elizabeth was very convincing and I lost all > awareness that it was a part she was playing. It makes me question the > purpose of the award, I know it is driven by studio PR but I thought there > was some pretence at giving it for the best performance in the films > nominated. > > Kate Butler > > _____________________________________________________ > Kate Butler > Department of Visual Communication > RMIT University, Australia > [log in to unmask] > _____________________________________________________ > "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." > -- Vice President Dan Quayle. > > ---- > To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L > in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask] > ---- Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu