I ran into this poll (obviously fuelled by the posthumous Oscar buzz that Ledger is generating) on gaurdian.co.uk. I voted (in the affirmative, if you must know), and was more than just surprised by the results-I was alarmed! The results showed that it was a close race (59.4% for, 40.6 against), which really got me thinking about the fairness of posthumous Oscars....
Oscars, as I understand, are given for excellence in that particular field for that particular year. If that be the case, then why should it matter whether the person is still living or dead? The recipient excelled in that field, and that is the bottom line. He/She is being felicitated for that, and not for being alive till the time of the Oscars.
But having said that, if the candidate wins only because of the 'sympathy' factor, then, that Oscar isn't fair. From what I understand of the voting system, all the people associated with the various Guilds cast their votes to decide their winner. When we can trust the members not to be partial towards their nominated friends (or for that matter, themselves), I think we can also trust them enough to be emotionally unbiased. Also, deaths in the industry keep happening, but there has been just one case of a posthumous Oscar (Peter Finch, 1976) in all these years. This just shows that the jury can be trusted enough to be emotionally neutral and unbiased in all respects. And so, I think that posthumous Oscars are fair.
So, what do you think? Are posthumous Oscars fair, or not? Head out here and cast your vote.
Print this post
Post Comments Feed
0 comments:
Post a Comment