Truman Capote once commented during a television interview
about Marlon Brando that a large percentage of actors are dumb.
He later retracted this statement but the recent fuss about
tonight's Lifetime Achievement Award to Elia Kazan may vindicate
Capote's original appraisal.
Mr. Kazan is the Academy Award winning director of such
prestigious films as ``On the Waterfront,'' ``Streetcar Named
Desire,'' ``East of Eden,'' and many others. There is no doubt
that his body of work deserves this award but Mr. Kazan, a former
Communist, has been persona non grata by the self-righteous
division of the Hollywood community because of his testimony in
1952 before the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
His critics assail Mr. Kazan's motives for testifying as
self-serving and the ultimate betrayal of his fellow thespians.
They accuse him of placing his career before integrity and
principle. This hypocritical condemnation is laughable coming
from the land where the term ``casting couch'' originated.
Hollywood actors and actresses are renowned for placing careers
before family, fidelity and standards but now some assert that
Elia Kazan should have sacrificed everything before submitting to
the demands of an ``evil'' Joe McCarthy.
This section of the Advance is called Perspective and perhaps we
need to put this issue into perspective. In 1952, Joseph Stalin
was in power over a very real ``evil empire'' which had sworn to
bury the United States. This was the height of the cold war and
espionage and infiltration was a powerful weapon for the Soviet
Union.
Mr. Kazan, like many Hollywood socialists had been an idealistic
member of the Party who had become disenchanted with it long
before the House committee held its hearings. He quit the Party
in 1936 and by the fifties when he was called to testify he no
longer sympathized with Communist dogma. Many of the people he
named had already been identified to the Committee or were about
to be named.
Here is the irony. If Elia Kazan had been a former KKK clansmen
and decided to identify fellow clansmen in the industry, he would
have been hailed as a hero. Surely, the Soviet Union under the
murderous Stalin responsible for millions of deaths was just as
big a threat to our country. KGB more benign than the KKK? I
think not.
There is, however, a romantic image of the Communism of the '30's
that Hollywood seems reluctant to abandon. Many in the community
had joined the Party naively believing that it was an altruistic
movement for the common man. The precepts of Lenin and Marx that
may have invoked such romanticism were never the basis of the
Soviet Union then bent on our destruction. Nevertheless many in
the film industry still dispute the threat it represented to our
national security.
It will be interesting to see if Mr. Kazan gets the same standing
ovation that other recipients of this award received. It has been
predicted that his appearance will provoke boos and catcalls. As
unseemly as this may be, I'm not too surprised. I lost respect
for the Academy of Arts and Sciences many years ago when I
realized that these coveted Oscars are awarded more by politics
than merit.
If the Oscars were truly to be awarded for merit, Rod Stieger
would have won his award for ``The Pawnbroker,'' instead of ``In
the Heat of the Night.'' This last was a consolation prize
awarded as a sop for his loss to Lee Marvin's Oscar for the
flippant ``Cat Ballou.'' As for more recent examples, if fine
acting were truly the standard for an Oscar, Kim Basinger would
never have won last years. Ditto Frances McDormand in 1997
for ``Fargo.'' Their performances were merely adequate not
awe-inspiring.
Awards should be given for excellent performances that are
challenging not just entertaining or interesting. John Wayne won
his Oscar for ``True Grit,'' which was a role he could have slept
through. He should have won it for, ``The Man Who Shot Liberty
Valance.'' True brilliance and achievements in acting are
overlooked if theyre in a film that lacks aggressive
marketing or are deemed politically incorrect. Eddie Murphys
tour de force performance in ``The Nutty Professor,
didnt have a prayer for an Oscar.
Studios now spend small fortunes, campaigning for the Oscars.
They send elaborate perk packages with videotapes to all the
members of the Academy to influence their selection and
consequently undeserving but well marketed films sometimes win.
It is truly phenomenal when a deserving low budget but
extraordinary film gets picked for an Oscar for Best Film.
This year's top contenders are two big budget studio
products-``Saving Private Ryan,'' and ``Shakespeare in Love.'' In
a sensible world this would be an easy decision with ``Private
Ryan '' having no competition but ``Shakespeare'' has become a
hot rival because of two factors. First, Miramax Studios had
spent an unprecedented amount of money ($5 million) marketing its
film. Second, there is, believe it or not, a backlash against
``Private Ryan.'' It seems that the boomer generation is getting
a bit tired of an unfavorable comparison to the greatest
generation depicted in this World War II epic.
``Shakespeare'' on the other hand, is a frothy, light-hearted
celebration of sexual appetites in Elizabethan England and
represents a morality closer to current standards. Still, I
believe that ``Private Ryan'' will prevail because it is such a
remarkable work of art.
I'm going to go out on a limb and make some predictions for the
major Oscars. Best Picture-Saving Private Ryan; Best Actor-Nick
Nolte; Best Actress- Gwyneth Paltrow; Best supporting Actor-Ed
Harris; Best supporting actress-Judi Dench.
These are my predictions but if great acting were truly a
criterion, then Meryl Streep would win Best Actress and Kathy
Bates would win the Best Supporting Actress award. If they win, I
will be shocked, completely shocked but encouraged. It will be
very interesting, indeed, to see who wins tonight.
E-mail me with your choices and comments then break out the
popcorn and enjoy the show.