> And the Bluebird - a far superior film, though very similar.
> to OZ - was ignored then, and is still ignored.
Wow, I'll say... I don't even know what film you're talking about here.
Details?
I think one mistake people make when comparing Oscars given or not given over
the past decades is to assume that "The Academy" is some kind of consistent
and even monolithic organization, when in fact it is simply made up of those
who work in the industry and qualify to vote for the awards in any given year.
It's actually a very small group of voters whose tastes can fluctuate wildly
over the space of a few years. You have periods when the members are giving
the award mostly to the big money-makers and other periods where everything
goes to the arty films. Rarely do you have any genuine critical balance where
the results for the big-category winners are concerned... it's all too
dependent on the political and social fashion among the "in crowd" at the
time.
Now, lower down the food chain in the less-publicized categories, you tend to
get more realistic appraisals and awards given on recognized standards of
merit, since they limit voting in those categories to other members who work
in the same field or have some expertise in it. That's why they specify them
as "technical awards".
But where the big-categories are concerned, there really has been precious
little consistency or predictable standards applied for choosing the winners
over the years, and this year doesn't look to be any different.
While they are fun to watch (and bet on), I long ago stopped paying any
attention to the Oscars as an indicator of whether I should see a film or not.
-- JR
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
