Edward O'Neill comments:
> 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
Has everyone on SCREEN-L forgotten last year's big winner already?
> 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?
Kazan aside (and Whoopi's asides aside), the whole show smacked of that
political air, even to the point of bring Verifiable Real Male Heroes
(Glen and Powell) as presenters!
It made one miss Kubrick all the more.
Minnesota State U, Mankato
[log in to unmask]
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu