George C. Scott, when he was awarded the Academy Award for his portrayal of George S. Patton, rejected the award saying, "The whole thing is a meat parade."

He'd been nominated before and he was nominated again. He never accepted the award, always referring to the whole spectacle as a "meat parade" or a "meat race."

It is kind of silly to think that something as individual and as ephemeral as acting can be judged. But I guess if a belching contest at Brat Days in Sheboygan can be judged, then acting certainly can. The way the Academy Awards are now proves Mr. Scott to be even more accurate than he was in 1971. The red carpet parade of gowns and personalities is nothing if not a "meat parade," albeit very attractive meat.

The awards themselves don't really determine the best actor, actress, director or film. It is generally accepted that Martin Scorsese's win for "Departed" was really an acknowledgement for all the times he didn't win when he definitely had the best film and not for the film at hand which is not his best work.

So, sentimentality often affects the decision making process. The majority of voters in the Academy are actors. All the crafts get to vote -- directors, make-up artists, sound mixers -- but there are more actors than anything else, so a film directed by an actor and starring that actor is going to have a better chance of winning than one directed by someone who has dedicated his life to directing.

Hence, you have Kevin Costner and "Dancing With Wolves" and Mel Gibson and "Braveheart." Clint Eastwood is a perennial favorite. In my opinion, he deserved the award for "Unforgiven" not because of the surprising camera work or breakout performances by actors under his tutelage, but because of the level of introspection and self-awareness in the story.

Any work of art is ultimately about the artist and "Unforgiven" is clearly about Eastwood and his career and its effect on him. It is cleansing and cathartic for the audience and for the artist.

Box office doesn't have too much to do with it. "Star Wars" won a few awards for special effects, but never the blue ribbon. "Titanic" and its titanic box office couldn't be ignored, although it is far from a "great" movie. It is a sentimentalized love story with a missed opportunity to explore the horrible effects of class-ism.

"The Lord of the Rings" trilogy won for the last film after being overlooked for the first two. After amassing so much cash, and over such a huge body count of CGI Orks, it could not be denied.

Comedies almost never win. The Academy Awards are a time when the film community congratulates itself on its seriousness of purpose and it's intellectual grandeur. "Little Miss Sunshine" sneaks in because we need relief from the sturm und drang of the other nominees. Which is why I think a funny, artistically unusual, well-written and beautifully acted light film like "Juno" has a better shot than the super seriousness of "There Will Be Blood" or "No Country For Old Men."

I love P.T. Anderson and think that "Magnolia" is nearly a masterpiece. "There Will Be Blood" is masterfully directed, but it is overpowered by the performance of Daniel Day Lewis. Anderson loses the thread and leaves too many doors open too wide. It has a great soundtrack and a more adventurous use of sound than I have ever heard before.

"No Country For Old Men" is a shark movie where you see the shark all the time. Spielberg did it better, even though it was through the accident of necessity, when he didn't let us see the shark until the end. It is also, like many Coen brothers' movies, a film that rides on a gag. It is so self-aware, so determined, so self-conscious and pleased with itself, that we are never allowed in. The film is not vulnerable, so neither are we.

 Page 1 of 2 (view all on one page)

Next >>

2 comments about this article. Post a comment / write a review.

Recent Talkbacks ...