From: mhr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike Reaser)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Audrey
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:59:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpuerca.C1FMIu.71B
Organization: a stone mountain of Kudzu

In <1k1o7pINNj7t@mizar.usc.edu> adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:

>In article <C1FJn2.4oI@hpuerca.atl.hp.com> 
>mhr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike Reaser) writes:
>> In <1k1k5dINNh1m@mizar.usc.edu>
>> adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
>> >What, may I ask, do Academy Awards have to do with great
>> >acting?  For that matter, what do Academy Awards have to
>> >do with any kind of acting?
>>
>> But Arne, just remember some of the greatest film actors of all time:

>[list deleted]

>You can add to that list the names Greta Garbo and
>Marlene Dietrich.

Yup, when I making the list I was saying "Camille", "Ninotchka",
"Destry Rides Again" -- "What were the damn names"?  

Thanks, and my apologies for omitting them.  :-)

>> And how many competitive, non-honorary Oscars, in total, did these 
>> performers win as a group?
>>
>> Zero.

>Acting-category Academy Awards have almost nothing to do 
>with acting.  Was John Wayne really *that* fabulous in
>"True Grit"?  Was Katharine Hepburn all *that* remarkable
>in "Lion in Winter"?  Elizabeth Taylor in "Butterfield 8"?

No.  But he'd been around since dirt was young (relatively speaking).
     (And give the Academy _some_ credit -- this was also the year that
      the magnificent Maggie Smith won for _The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie_.)

No.  But she'd just won the year before, somehow Spencer Tracy was
     _still_ dead, and Joanne Woodward just didn't excite the voter.

No.  But she almost died, and the voters felt _oh_ _so_ _guilty_ for
     denying her the award for her certainly superior work in _Raintree
     County_ and _Cat on a Hot Tin Roof_.

This is not to say these were fabulous performances.  As you said, the
Oscars are pure politics.  Period.

Why else would Al Pacino (so good in the _Godfather_ movies, _Serpico_,
and (MOTSS alert!) _Dog Day Afternoon_ be the favorite for his decided
over-acting in _Scent of a Woman_?  Guilt, guilt, guilt, the gift that
keeps on giving, guilt.

>> All of the appeared in films eligible for Academy Award consideration,
>> and in fact several were nominated multiple times -- Thelma Ritter,

>I *adore* Thelma Ritter.

>> for example, was nominated four (or possibly five, I'm going from
>> memory) years in a row in the early 1950's -- but _NONE_ of them ever
>> was awarded that little statue "with no genitalia" (as Dustin Hoffman
>> declared when he won for _Kramer vs. Kramer_).

>Dustin Hoffman.  Blech.

No disagreement here.  I just wanted to get in the obligatory "all queers
think abuot is sex" line.  :-)

>> So _OF COURSE_ a multiple winner of Oscars must be a "great actress".
>>
>> Or, possibly as you stated Arne, a "great movie star", as were Bogart,
>> Ingrid Bergman, and Clark Gable.

>Well, there are great movie stars who are great actors.  There
>are also great movie stars who are great movie actors.  (Garbo
>is preeminent here.)  And, of course, there are also great movie 
>stars who are, by any objective standard, *terrible* actors.  (Joan 
>Crawford comes to mind.)  But the Academy Awards have nothing to
>do with the quality of an actor's performance.  Never have (do
>you really think Luise Rainer was *that* magnificent?), and
>never will.

I don't, but since Rainer won twice as many Oscars as, say, Patricia
Neal or Judy Holliday, that means Luise was twice the actress either
Patricia is or Judy was, doesn't it?  At least in *SPLAT*'s mind?

--
=======================================================================
 Mike Reaser, Hewlett-Packard N. Amer. Response Center - Atlanta
 Internet:  mhr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com
 NBCS: B5 f t w g+ k s              I barely speak for myself, so
 #include <standard.disclaimer>       don't make me speak for HP
=======================================================================