As most of you know, I love getting letters! Even the irate ones, such as the reader who berated me for wishing Arnold Swarzenegger gut mazel when he tossed his hat into the gubernatorial ring. It means that people actually read what I write and that is very gratifying. Most of the letters are very nice, and many ask questions. It seems as if anyone who writes a column is thought to be an encyclopedia of sorts. I’ve been asked about everything from the color of Louis B. Mayer’s eyes, (they were, for the record, brown,) to the invention of the wheel, (I was for it).

But two questions I was asked recently provoked a lot of deep thought and self examination. And it occurred to me that I get asked these questions quite a lot. So, I decided to answer them in open forum here

The first was, “Why are you so down on the various Academies in the industry?” Well, that one is easy. To begin with, Hollywood has a long-standing tradition of self-congratulatory back-patting. Hardly a month goes by when someone, somewhere isn’t getting some sort of acclaim for something and walking away with a gold-plated effigy. There are the Oscars, the Grammys, the Emmys, the Golden Globe, the Clios, the People’s Choice, the TVLands, and the list goes on ad nauseum. Name a faction with ties to the industry, and they probably have an award to hand out. I’ve been in the homes of many stars, and their mantelpieces and book cases are covered with these garish, often laughable tchotchkes, dust collectors that mean simply that someone decided to give so-and-so a statuette to say “I like your work!”

The problem is, many of these awards are contrived; nothing more than a means by which advertising space is sold on television, and it gives the stars a chance to trot out in their borrowed finery, (you don’t think the actresses really own those gowns and jewels, do you?) and get publicity by appearing and mugging for the cameras. It gives the haute couturiers and jewelers a chance to advertise their wares, and the caterers who provide the after-ceremony banquets publicity that money can’t buy.

The most shameless of all these awards is the “Academy Award” or “Oscars”. Here is a collection of actors, directors, producers, etc. who band together to judge the work of others, and decide who did the best job in their specific field. Members of “The Academy” must be screened, voted on, and accepted, and the chances of being accepted are slim. To wit, the much publicized rejection of Rodney Dangerfield who was turned down because, in the words of Roddy MacDowell, “He hadn’t made enough of the ‘right kind’ of movies.”

But what does that mean? Well, quite simply, it means that the Academy reserves the right to decide what genre of films qualifies as art. Historically, this has excluded comedies, science fiction, action/adventure and horror; oddly, the four genre that represent the lion’s share of Hollywood’s overall income. These are the movies that remain longest in the theaters, (Jurassic Park remained in theaters for more than a year, the first time ever for a movie to have such a run,) and oftimes go on to become classics.

Back in the seventies at a party, Joseph Mankiewitz, director of “Cleopatra” told me, “Screw the award givers, and screw the critics. The ticket-buying public is the final arbiter of a movie’s success or failure.” And, each time someone buys a ticket, they are, in effect, casting their vote for a film’s effectiveness.

Yes, I know, I’ve hit upon this topic before. I’ve more than once vented my spleen over the fact that these cultural elitists have the brass baitsim to tell us what’s good and what’s not. The implication that they are more qualified than you to judge a film is not only absurd, it’s downright insulting. Especially when one considers that they lump all genre of film together and make assessments based upon biased criteria. Comparing “Blazing Saddles” to “Gone with the Wind” is to compare peaches to oranges. Does that make oranges better than peaches? And what does that say about peach lovers?

The bottom line is, what is a film expected to do? Well, in the case of a comedy, it’s expected to make us laugh. Romance films are supposed to make us, feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Horror films are supposed to scare the you-know-what out of us. In truth, there is no responsible way to judge all types of films by the same standards, and to do so is to invoke closet discrimination of the worst order, and often the result is to acclaim one type of mediocrity over another type of genius.

The second question was, “How do you objectively critique a movie when it stars someone you hate?”

The answer is, “It ain’t easy!”

I’ve never been a fan of Madonna. The mere mention of her name makes me want to take a shower with Granny Clampett’s lye soap. And when I went to see the screen version of “Evita” I was all ready to kvell over the film, and trash Madonna. I just knew she was going to stink! Needless to say, I was wrong. I came away from the viewing grossly disappointed by the film it’s self, but with a deep respect for the brilliant job Madonna did in it. She was the only thing worth going to see. But it made me realize that, personal prejudices aside,
every artist has the potential to be great, as Madonna did.

Another example was “Chicago”. I saw the late Jerry Orbach in the role of the lawyer, and when I read that Richard Gere had been cast in the part, I went to see the film with the sole intent of laughing at Gere when he fell flat on his pretty-boy face. Again, I was oh, so wrong!

So, yes I have my likes and dislikes just as everyone else has. But love the entertainment business, and I love movies, and in cases such as the two I brought up, I love being proven wrong. And being a critic and journalist has taught me the importance of having an open mind, and giving everyone a chance. While Madonna still sickens me with her image and off-screen peccadilloes, I have to admit that she has the potential for great work. Would I cast her in a movie? In a heartbeat. Would I want her to date one of my sons? I’d sooner have my tongue super-glued to Saddam Hussein’s beard!

Objectivity over personal taste is never easy. But there is a great responsibility that goes with what I do. In a way, I am a tiny example of what I was kvetching about with respect to the academies. I am a small gear in a machine that wields the power to make or break careers, as do the cultural elitists whom I’ve derided for years. It’s too easy to sit back on one’s laurels and pass judgment on others while allowing our own opinions to depreciate the work other people do. Just because I dislike Madonna doesn’t definitively make her a no-talent trollop; that’s just my opinion. But she must be doing something right, because she’s been around for more than 20 years and still going strong. And like her or not, I have to admire her for being able to hold her target audience for that long.

My grandfather once told me, “Every man is my superior, in that I might learn something from him.” And I try to apply that to what I do. I may not like Nicholas Cage per se, but then again, he’s the one pulling down twenty-million dollars per picture, and I’m writing this column largess. What’s important is that Cage and I have one thing in common…we both try to give our respective audience our utmost best, and hope we succeed. When we fail, we get irate letters from our fans, letting us know of their displeasure. And when we succeed, well, the accolades from them make salaries and awards seem inconsequential. We each have our ‘genre’ to which we must be true. As long as we do that, we’re successes and be damned what the award-givers say.

To all of you, have a wonderful Passover, and I’ll see you next month!