CALENDAR GOES TO THE OSCARS : What Do the Nominees Think About the Oscars?

Everyone’s a movie buff around Oscar time. And just about everyone has his or her pet theory about the Academy Awards--how Hollywood politics and customs affect the outcome, and how the process is either hopelessly outdated or weighted in order to favor certain people and movies.

Some say the voting in the acting categories is more a referendum on an actor’s popularity or lifetime in the industry than a cool, focused look at one performance in one role. How come actors and actresses are nominated in separate categories--there are no awards for best male and female director, cinematographer or editor? Isn’t that an outdated arrangement?

And hey, while we’re asking, why aren’t there more good movies for the Oscars to choose from?

We wondered whether these questions occur to the nominees as well--having been favored by they process, how do they see it? We polled some of them on what they really think about the awards and movies in general.

Question: Do you think the Academy Awards celebrate serious acting or the cult of celebrity?

Tommy Lee Jones, best supporting actor nominee for “JFK”:

Both, because in the motion picture business they are necessarily intermingled.

Barry Levinson, best director nominee for “Bugsy”:

I don’t think that is the situation. I think it has more to do with acting generally, based on good work and, more often than not, a triumph of the role over a performance.

Jack Palance, best supporting actor nominee for “City Slickers”:

I sure hope they celebrate serious acting--I don’t know much about any cults. I’m usually very uninvolved with Hollywood. The only reason I’m around at all this year is that I had a great role. You see people getting nominated over and over again for Oscars because they get the best roles of the year. Many actors could have been nominated for my role in “City Slickers.” It wasn’t me, I don’t kid myself about that.

Michael Lerner, best supporting actor nominee for “Barton Fink”:

Well, I think it’s rather a mixture, it does both. Certainly in my case, I hope. But I think especially in the last five years it’s gotten to be less of a celebrity contest and I think that it’s clear that people who were not well known when they won, like Brenda Fricker, Daniel Day Lewis or F. Murray Abraham, were rewarded based on the quality of their work. That’s one of the reasons I feel so terrific about being nominated. To me, the fact that “Barton Fink” got three nominations when it wasn’t really a mainstream film shows that the academy has great integrity.

Jodie Foster, best actress nominee for “The Silence of the Lambs”:

I would say that the Academy Awards celebrates serious acting as well as the cult of celebrity. Why not? Obviously, the nominations reflect some extremely talented performances that are virtually impossible to compare. So once the question of who’s going to win it comes along, there have to be some swaying factors. Let’s not forget that for a movie or a performance to be a real contender at the Oscars there usually has to be a lot of money and an anxious studio behind it. That usually rules out the independent, small-grossing films with relatively unknown leading roles. There’s a whole layer of smaller-appeal films that barely any academy members ever see, let alone vote for.

Question: Although it is traditional, do you think the Academy Awards should be split into actor and actress categories? Why shouldn’t actors be judged equally, regardless of gender?

Geena Davis, best actress nominee for “Thelma & Louise”:

Male and female actors are judged equally now. Separately and equally. If they were in the same category and the percentage was anything like it is for directors and editors, the two examples you gave, it would no longer be equal. Maybe we should add categories for women editors and directors instead.

Barry Levinson:

I don’t think that would be a good idea because as it stands now, there are many many more roles for men than women. So rather than attempting equality, it would be creating exclusion.

Diane Ladd, best supporting actress nominee for “Rambling Rose”:

An actor derives his qualifications from his sexual gender; an actress derives her qualifications from her sexual gender; a director’s (or editor’s) job is not qualified by his sexual gender.

Jodie Foster:

Well, as far as I’m concerned, the more categories the better! If you look at it as more of an exciting bingo game, you’d rather have better chances across the board. There are too few exciting roles out there for everyone. So, why encourage even less to be honored?

Ridley Scott, best director nominee for “Thelma & Louise”:

Yes, the awards should be split up between males and females because an actress can’t play the same roles as an actor and vice versa. The roles are very different that men and women play.

Michael Lerner:

Well, I mean, the whole idea of the horse race is kind of a fiction to begin with. I like the idea of the Academy Awards because it’s really good for the entire movie business. So within that arbitrary framework, it’s nice to have it broken up into male and female. I like the separation of the sexes. If you tried to make it simply best actor in a comedy or drama it’s difficult to decide what is comedy and what is drama. You know, like Robin Williams in “The Fisher King”--is his performance comedy or drama? That line gets blurred.

Question: What kind of movies are not being made today that you would like to see more of?

Diane Ladd:

Beautiful stories like “Rambling Rose” and “Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore”--films that really tell us something and move us somewhere.

Ridley Scott:

Hollywood is an industry and, therefore, driven by sales and profitability to support the machine. But it is always encouraging to see films slip through the net that raise our consciousness and receive recognition within our industry as well.

Michael Lerner:

I think filmmaking is a very personal art. I would like to see first-time directors with personal vision have more access. Look at the Coen brothers, that’s what they are, and that’s how Martin Scorsese or Francis Ford Coppola started. I know too many wonderful scripts that won’t be made because no one will take a chance on the first-time directors who want to make them. I’m very proud of (20th Century) Fox of putting out “Barton Fink,” which is not a mainstream kind of film. It’s unheard of for a big studio to take a risk on a film like that.

Tommy Lee Jones:

Movies are fine the way they are--but let’s make a Western.

Barry Levinson:

Basically, (I’d like to see more) movies that dealt with humans.

Jack Palance:

I’d like to see a lot more movies without explicit sex, but it won’t be done because it buoys up the box office. At my age, I’ve stopped going to most movies because I’m just fed up with it and I think it’s disastrous for young people because we have virtually no protection about this. It’s the thing I hate most about movies.

Jodie Foster:

Personally, I’d like to see more good films made in Hollywood. I’m not sure why the studios seem convinced that a great literate story can’t be entertaining. Because movies are so expensive to make, decisions are made for the wrong reasons. “Will millions of people like this?” I think there should be room for more than just stabs at mass popularity. Without taking risks, without addressing the complexities of life, you’re doomed to mediocrity and dishonesty. I don’t believe that that’s such a sure bet at the box office anymore anyway.