Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, March 1, 1991 TAG: 9103010070
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: E-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Chris Gladden
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Movie reviewers feel duty-bound to predict the Oscars or otherwise comment on them. It's an obligatory gesture, like flipping a buck into the Salvation Army bucket in front of the liquor store at Christmas.
I once tackled the chore with zeal. But in recent years, my chief reaction to the Awards nominations has been one of bewilderment and sometimes outright astonishment. This year is no exception.
Consider best picture. "Dances with Wolves"? I can buy that. "Goodfellas"? A crime if it didn't get nominated. "Awakenings"? A stretch, but why not. "The Godfather III"? The other two were nominated and won, and Hollywood likes symmetry. "Ghost"? Excuse me? "Ghost"?
Yes. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences nominated this slight bit of manipulative escapism for best picture.
With increasing frequency, the nominations are marked both by sins of commission and ommission. Typically, "Ghost" director Jerry Zucker was left out of the best-director category. The movie may not deserve its nomination but I still maintain - a voice in the wilderness - that the director should go with the picture. Similarly, Penny Marshall, the director of "Awakenings," was ignored.
What allows this kind of inconsistency to occur on a regular basis is the Academy voting system. The entire academy membership votes on nominees for best picture, while actors, directors, etc., pick the nominees in their respective fields. The directors are probably more astute about the craft of moviemaking than the other Academy members. The directors' voting excluded Zucker and Marshall in favor of Stephen Frears, who directed `The Grifters," and Barbet Schroeder, of "Reversal of Fortune."
Director is the one category this year that I have no quibbles with. I only wish "The Grifters" and "Reversal of Fortune" had been in the best-picture category as well.
As for predictions, I look for a "Dances with Wolves" sweep. Maybe it won't win for all the right reasons, but the film seems to have all the right ingredients in light of the Awards' history.
For one thing, it is, to use an over-worked and offensive phrase popular with movie sorts, "politically correct." It's a condemnation of the treatment of the American Indian and pro-environment to boot. Academy voters love to be high-minded and will pick this over the stunningly well-made "Goodfellas." Martin Scorsese's street-smart slice of Mafia life is just too down and dirty for the Academy's taste.
For another thing, Kevin Costner is the director and Hollywood loves to see a box office star rise to the director's chair and do it successfully. It validates everybody's artistic credentials all over the place.
Finally, Costner is nominated for best director and actor and the Orson Welles' syndrome will come into play here. Welles' won multiple Oscars for "Citizen Kane" and that same kind of momentum will propel a sweep for Costner.
Though "Dances with Wolves" is not my personal choice, I could live with the results. It has beaten all the odds and become a big box office success. A bevy of Academy Awards could send even stronger signals to studios.
That could mean a revival of the moribund western genre, a willingness to release three-hour movies in a market place that generally doesn't tolerate anything more than two hours and a reversal of the high concept, low content trend in moviemaking.
by CNB