SCREEN-L Archives

March 1999, Week 4


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
"Edward R. O'Neill" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:31:53 -0800
text/plain (59 lines)
Good topic--even more broadly construed than stated.

The LA Times reported yesterday that there was some kind of
grumbling against Miramax for 'debasing' the Oscar process
by placing too many ads on behalf of _Shakespeare in Love_
and thus pre-empting the purportedly more morally worthwhile
_Saving Private Ryan_.

Of course, Miramax has done that for the last few years, so
it's absolutely nothing new.  But I love the way Hollywood
complains about filthy lucre only when a sacred cow
(Spielberg) suffers a blow.  The idea that the process is
apolitical and based on artistic merit rather than financial
factors is quite absurd, and Paltrow's win is a good

The complaints make a nice counterpoint to the Academy's
decision to give an honorary Oscar to Kazan.  For what
reason could such an event be contrived if not to convince
American that Hollywood is apolitical, or even a bit right
wing, and hence to defend against the identification of
Hollywood with liberal democracts?

Edward R. O'Neill
General Education Program/Dept. of Sociology

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: