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