With the Oscars, Everyone’s a Critic
The problem with the Oscar telecast is that it has become in at least one important way like a National Basketball Assn. game: Most everything of importance is revealed in the last five minutes--the rest is just (boring?) prologue.
KIRK HANEN
La Mesa
*
Not to sound too preachy, but here is an idea. How about we sell those million-dollar shoes that actress strutted around in and feed some of those unfortunate homeless kids in the real Hollywood?
The stark contrast of such disgusting excess and poverty was very moving.
MARK REDD
Long Beach
*
Regarding the fashions worn to the Oscars: Is there a bra shortage in this country?
LISA RITCH
Sherman Oaks
*
Did someone forget to tell Whoopi Goldberg that the “schizophrenic mathematician” John Nash, was in the audience? I’m so glad “A Beautiful Mind” has increased our sensitivity toward individuals with mental illness.
ALAN GUTTMAN
Los Angeles
*
The biggest winner of the Oscars night was not Ron Howard, Denzel Washington, Randy Newman or Halle Berry.
The biggest winner was Sally Field, who has finally emerged from the shadow of her “You like me, you really like me!” comments thanks to the excesses of Berry’s pitiful performance. What began as one of the most touching moments in the history of the Academy Awards quickly spiraled into a buffoonish display of incoherent rambling and self-serving dreck.
I can’t wait to see how “Saturday Night Live” mocks her.
ADRIAN MENDOZA
Modesto
*
What Halle Berry should have said in her acceptance speech is that she is thankful she lives in a town where a woman who is beautiful, famous and black can flee the scene of an accident, pay a minuscule fine, do a mere 20 hours of community service, feign amnesia about the whole thing and still win an Oscar.
DIANE SMITH
Valencia
*
Why do I feel that Halle Berry legitimately earned her Oscar whereas Denzel Washington won a popularity contest over Russell Crowe? Is it because Julia Roberts, one of the most influential Hollywood insiders, openly lobbied for him? And then others, if rumors are to be believed, followed suit because it was “his time”?
Not to disparage Washington’s talent, but campaigns such as these did not address his performance in “Training Day” so much as they confirmed his place in the fold.
This year, Washington is the Insider and Crowe is the Outsider. And that is why Crowe lost the Oscar for best actor in a leading role.
TANYA SALVINI
Redondo Beach
*
It bugs me to no end when I read stupid letters from stupid people who, I’m sure, will swear up and down they’re not racists or bigots but write bigoted letters anyway. So, “A Beautiful Mind” gets best picture, best director, best supporting actress and best adapted screenplay, but because Russell Crowe loses to Denzel Washington, the fix is on! Political correctness at its worst!
God forbid that Denzel Washington could possibly have won because he’s what--talented, maybe?
When “Godfather II” won best picture, best director and best adapted screenplay, who was screaming foul from the rooftops when Art Carney beat out Al Pacino for best actor in “Harry and Tonto”? Who was screaming “thief!” when Hilary Swank beat out Annette Bening for best actress in “Boys Don’t Cry” while Bening’s picture, “American Beauty,” got best picture, best actor and best director? Where were all the naysayers when “Schindler’s List” won best picture, best director and best adapted screenplay but got shut out of the best actor and actress categories?
Denzel Washington and Halle Berry won because that’s who the members of the academy voted for. Get over it.
HOWARD MOORE
Hollywood
*
I’ll tell you why Denzel Washington took home the Oscar for best actor and Russell Crowe didn’t: because any number of talented actors could have built upon the quirks, twitches and eccentricities inherent in John Nash’s character to craft a stunning performance, but no other actor working today could have sold us the corrupt, sadistic, Machiavellian Detective Sergeant Alonzo Harris for two brutal hours and had us wishing there was more. Great acting makes us forget it’s acting.
PETER MAGILL
South Pasadena
*
In his article, “How Big a Role Did Politics Play?” (March 27), Robert Welkos loosely examines what role all of the so-called smear tactics played (or didn’t) in tightening this year’s Oscar race. What he obviously hasn’t considered is that the “whisper” campaign made so public by a number of people, including the makers of “A Beautiful Mind,” could have had a completely different effect.
I get the impression that, in addition to being a great film, the movie was perceived as a victim. And victims get a lot of pity.
The “Beautiful” PR folks should be applauded for blowing wildly out of proportion all of these little stories few had paid any attention to, essentially creating a debate about the relationship of history and art. Art’s always going to win in the art crowd, no question.
TODD MERRIMAN
New York
*
The article by Robert Welkos notes that the leading man in the best picture, “A Beautiful Mind,” failed to win an Oscar, even as Jennifer Connelly did win for playing his wife. At least Russell Crowe was nominated.
When “Titanic” won for best picture, leading lady Kate Winslet was nominated but leading man Leonardo DiCaprio was not. When “Shakespeare in Love” won for best picture, leading lady Gwyneth Paltrow won an Oscar but leading man Joseph Fiennes was not even nominated.
I find those cases odder than that of Russell Crowe, who did, after all, win an Oscar last year. Why would the young men who literally carried best picture winners not even earn nominations?
I wonder if the mature men who dominate among academy voters are more comfortable rewarding lovely and talented young women than handsome and talented young men.
BETTY RASKOFF KAZMIN
Willard, Ohio
*
Last Sunday, Halle Berry became the first African American woman to win an Oscar for best leading actress. Having broken down a race barrier, it is ironic that Berry is still limited by her gender.
Since men and women must compete in separate Oscar categories, Berry can triumph over actresses of other ethnicities, but her performance cannot be evaluated with those of her male peers.
What is the academy’s rationale for separating men and women into separate Oscar categories? Certainly there are instances where separate awards for men and women are appropriate.
Since men are stronger and faster, it would be difficult for women to compete with men for the same medals in many Olympic events. However, acting puts men and women on a level playing field.
There is no Oscar distinction between male and female directors, male and female editors, and there should not be one for male and female performers.
It would certainly be racist to reserve separate awards for black and white actors. Why isn’t it considered sexist to separate men and women into their own Oscar categories?
KIM ELSESSER
Pasadena
*
Now that Halle Berry has conquered an imposing racial barrier for black actresses by being named best actress, it’s time for Hollywood to embrace Asians, American Indians, Hispanics and other minorities and give them more of an opportunity to shine on the big screen.
KENNETH L. ZIMMERMAN
Huntington Beach
*
Patrick Goldstein attempts to defend “A Beautiful Mind” from “15 rounds of below-the-belt punches” by throwing the lowest punch of all (“Sifting Through the Mud, Looking for a Better Way,” March 26). When it comes to accuracy in movies, Goldstein warns us to be “careful what [we] wish for,” citing the film “13 Days” as “factual to a T--and a gigantic snoozefest.” For a man so critical of “nasty mudslinging,” this is one incredibly cavalier sucker punch.
“13 Days” was one of those rare films that both thrilled and educated its audience. It reminded us of how much was at stake as real men and women went about the business of saving the world. It was based on reality, and it was compelling drama. It inspired much stimulating discussion long after the lights went up.
If Goldstein is upset by the mudslinging that goes on in this town, I suggest he stop participating in it.
STEPHEN L. GOLDMAN
Venice
*
The honorary Oscars bestowed on Sidney Poitier and Robert Redford were well-deserved and undoubtedly the highlight of this past week’s show. Now when is the academy going to wake up and give Doris Day the honorary Oscar she’s earned?
It is an absolute disgrace that this underrated and multitalented lady (a major film, television and recording star) is passed over year after year. It’s about time the academy took note and corrected this glaring and embarrassing oversight.
GEORGE GALLUCCI
Los Angeles
*
The overblown coverage of the Academy Awards by the media points to the misdirected values in our society. In a world where 80% of the population doesn’t have indoor plumbing, we’re celebrating the frivolous.
One must consider what advances we would achieve in medicine, health care and living standards if we celebrated the great works of inventors, researchers and scientists with such enthusiasm, if we celebrated the work of those who each day try to improve life and raise the standard of living in order to make the world a better place.
Perhaps then more kids would pursue with enthusiasm such occupations, and get the credit they deserve for doing so.
MICHAEL L. STEMPEL
West Hollywood