I agree with Donald Satz.  The Oscar for "best song" should have been
suspended pending something resembling a good song.  Repetitive, bland,
imitative---all are adjectives worth applying.  But I don't think this
year is particularly unique.  If anyone has a clue about why Hollywood
can no longer produce a good song, I wish they'd share it.

I was taken aback at the selection of _Shakespeare in Love_---as compared
to, say, _Amadeus_.  At least in _Amadeus_, Tom Hulce gave Mozart a kind
of quirky, unpredictable personality of the sort Mozart *might* have had.
The character of Shakespeare seemed merely like some cute Hollywood screen
writer (but then, Hollywood is full of this kind of self-importance).  And
if we are to believe in the traditional view of *who* Shakespeare was (see
the April issue of Harper's) Hamlet had to have been written by the time
the author was 25---a rather unlikely scenario unless the author exhibits
something in the way of a serious personality.  Without the credibility of
the main character, this didn't deserve best picture. . . .And the rampant
egocentrism and self-importance of Hollywood was also on parade with
inflated controversy---as if giving a film director an award for his
films is somehow of earth-shaking national significance.

Phil Haldeman