A life ‘less important’

IN Sunday’s Calendar, Robert Lloyd discusses the Academy Awards television show [“A Little Life, Please,” March 5]. He says: “Like the clumsy dodge of having ‘less important’ winners accept their awards at their seats or in the aisles, it’s disrespectful, a shameless, shameful economy that speaks above all to making room not for the other winners, but for commercials.”

This year, in a bid to seem like they are honoring these ‘less important’ nominees no differently from the folks whose faces adorn People magazine, the academy has seen fit to seat nominees in Siberia again but told them that before their awards are called, they would be moved closer in to the famous people, but without their guests. These lucky guests remained far away from their significant others when the “winners” were announced and presumably could share their joy or disappointment with the seat filler brought in to bridge the gap.

When nominees complained to the academy about this they were told: “No one wants to see a bunch of sound people” and were also informed (and I am paraphrasing here) that they were just lucky that the academy didn’t move everything that didn’t involve celebrities into the technical awards night.

For the academy to allow their yearly presentation of excellence to become all about people who are already recognized by the public not only insults the very people who make movies work but illustrates the policy of aiming their product at the lowest common denominator -- a strategy that has only served to make seeing films in theaters less and less popular with the American public.

ANNA BOORSTIN

Venice