Oscars, Entertainment, and Sharing Streep's Wealth

One of the enduring mysteries of life is why the annual award event for the entertainment industry can not be entertaining. True, it is difficult to watch wealthy, self-important entertainers masquerading as socially conscious artists fawning over and congratulating each-other but certainly there must be enough entertainment talent available to make it bearable. But once again, such was not the case. Aside from a very funny girl named Emma Stone, a genuinely nice moment with Christopher Plummer and Crazy Angie's unselfconscious vamping, it was pretty much a night of awkward facelifts, pomposity and forced humor.

And then there is the problem of Meryl Streep. Once again she won the Best Actress award. The problem is not that she won, the problem is that it is not fair. She is the Babe Ruth of actresses and should have won every time she was nominated (17). The only thing preventing her from winning every time is a misplaced spreading the wealth ("Let someone else get it. She can't get it every time") and prejudice: There is a lingering suspicion that she is somehow not an actress, that she is a perfect mimic--like Frank Gorsham--and mimicry is in some minds is different from acting. So she is not acting like Margaret Thatcher, she is mimicking what Thacher is like--as if this is in some way not acting. Nonetheless she should be in her own category, the award should go annually to the next best actress with an asterisk.

More, it would help this event. The destruction of the star system has created precious little to identify from year to year. Will Mara ever be back? Or the girl who played Monroe? How many chances will these people get? And as technology is beginning to be more and more important, the age, and the isolation, of the performers is beginning to show.