Have to agree with Pole on this one, Alan. The issue to me here is not whether or not awards being given to actors in recognition of their work is a good or bad thing. It is simply whether being given an Academy Award is a useful reflection of an actor's talent. And my personal opinion is: naturally, you don't win one if there is nothing to be said for the quality of your performances, and, naturally, winning one (even being nominated) is perhaps the highest accolade this industry can bestow on anyone. But no-one should be under any misapprehension that, as Pole says, the Academy is an essentially self-regulating, self-promoting body, and those it chooses to support are always supported for politic reasons, and those it doesn't choose to support always fail to be supported for politic reasons. This has nothing to do with their merits as performers, and everything to do with where the Academy's money is invested. And that, for me, I'm afraid, taints the Oscar, and I never fully trust it. I think we can all sense the inquity sometimes - at the moment, it is pretty obvious to everyone that Kate Winslet was just being awarded for a film ('The Reader') that most people (critics and public alike) are basically agreed is not very good, and certainly not her best work. Why on earth is she being forward for awards on the basis of it? Because the Academy has decided it's about time Kate Winslet got the recognition they feel they denied her in earlier years in which she did better performances in better films, and they are using the current piece as the peg from which to hang the offer of the award. End of argument.
This is not meaningless low-level axe grinding - it's at the very least high level axe -grinding as well. William Friedkin, himself an Oscar winner, has called the setup 'the greatest promotion scheme that any industry ever devised for itself,' and he wasn't being complimentary at the time.
And it has been pointed out that none of the people below, regardless of nominations, ever won an Oscar:
Richard Burton (nominated 7 times); Kirk Douglas (3 times); Albert Finney (5 times); Greta Garbo (4 times);Cary Grant (twice); Peter O'Toole (8 times); Peter Sellers (twice); Robert Altman (5 times); Alfred Hitchcock (5 times); Stanley Kubrick (4 times); George Lucas (twice); Spike Lee (never nominated); Orson Welles (nominated once) etc.
Given the incalculable contributions that each made to the whole modern experience of the cinema as we know it, it a list of damning omissions, and one reason why I never take the Oscars seriously.
In recent years, they seem to have been ever more eager to follow the money, and support the 'faddish' thing - for all that the films may have *some* merits, most consider the support given to films like 'Chicago', 'Braveheart', 'Titanic' and 'Shakespeare in Love', for instance, thoroughly undeserved, if one is simply addressing the question of whether these films have any lasting impact to make on the evolving state of the movie industry.