I just wanted to comment on a great job on "Cultureshock" in the Mar. 26 issue of the 'Prince.' To take the Academy Awards seriously – especially this year's – would be crazy. It really seems that among nominated films, the number of awards is indirectly proportional to the quality of the film. I loved the irony in the article!
There is just one thing more that I wanted to point out that was so ridiculous about the ceremonies: the 70 past recipients that were paraded on stage. Someone said the group represented all of the living past recipients of awards for acting, which the two authors picked up on. If that's so, where was Tom Hanks? How about Juliette Binoche? And Tommy Lee Jones, Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster?
The list goes on and on. This was just another collection, by no means complete, of past recipients for everyone to see. But isn't that why the folks who read People Magazine turn to the pre-awards shows for? I mean, these celebrities stride down the red carpet for everyone to see, anyway. This entire act was superfluous and unnecessarily added boredom and length to an already tedious and unending ceremony. Now, I'm wondering what we can learn from THIS? Arthur A. Steinbock '01
In reference to "Cultureshock's" coverage of the Oscars, I am a bit confused by the authors' "expert opinions about Hollywood's big night."
Since James Cameron is a Canadian, I do not understand how the authors think that only Americans received statuettes in the major categories. Unless of course, according to their "expert opinions," best director and best picture are no longer considered major categories. Fifi Chan '98