I have no interest in the Academy Awards. I haven't for years. Actually I lost interest 52 years ago, in 1963, when Gregory Peck won best actor for To Kill a Mockingbird. No question he was brilliant in the role, but far more deserving was Peter O'Toole for Lawrence of Arabia. I realized then that the winning had no meaning. Still I liked seeing such glamorous stars as Audrey Hepburn, Susan Hayward and Robert Mitchum. I hardly know any of today's so-called stars, although most seem to be very talented.I also never go to a movie theater anymore because they are obscenely over-priced and unbehaved audiences spend too much time looking at their lighted phones instead of the silver screen. So I don't care who wins this year of what film gets the most honors. I don't doubt that Selma is brilliant, that American Sniper is disgustingly jingoistic, and The Imitation Game is disturbing. Obviously Cumberbatch, Cooper, and Redmayne are all superb actors. However, the appeal of Steve Carell has always eluded me and I'm sure it always will. Then, of course, there is always the turn-off of sitting through five hundred commercials. So while I have no interest in this year's awards, I am rather pleased to see that one of the nominees is an actor that I have regarded as America's finest actor for years. To me he'll still be the best of the best whether he wins or not.
1962 was a very competitive year, and while we admire "Mockingbird" (except for that mistake about "fear itself" being spoken in 1932, when it wasn't), we agree that Peter O'Toole deserved the Oscar over Gregory Peck. Surely it was a question of newcomer versus veteran's body of work, yes? We could debate endlessly. What we won't contest is your endorsement of Michael Keaton as Best Actor this time around. "Birdman" was terrific, and he was better. Both the movie and its star exuded a touch of both whimsy and regret for American fame gone wrong. And the ending, despite what everyone says, was very clear to us. Michael Keaton flew high, and always has.
ReplyDelete