Regarding the coverage of Elia Kazan’s special Oscar: With the extensive treatment of Kazan’s politics and personal judgments, little focus has been given to whether the man’s life work earned such recognition. The answer to this question has largely been taken for granted, which says much about the self-glorifying vanity of the Hollywood pantheon.
The critical acclaim that a Kazan, or a George Stevens, or a John Huston enjoys reflects what Hollywood professionals believe is finest about their art. This amounts to achieving a certain level of technical competence, then applying thick layer of cultural prestige, often borrowed from the Broadway stage (Kazan) or adaptations of prestige literature (Huston, Stevens).
Kazan’s contributions to the stage might have been enormous, but translated to the screen he achieved mixed results, giving us excellent performances (like Marlon Brando’s) side-by-side with unaccountably hammy or histornic ones (Karl Malden’s roles in several movies). Although Kazan made a number of good films (“Wild River” is my favorite, and one of his most restrained), the overall quality of his work is spotty.
A counterpoint to Kazan’s ouvre is the less fortunate career of the late Sam Fuller, a contemporary of Kazan’s who functioned as writer, director, producer and occasional actor on dozens of films, more than a few of them great. The “problem” for Fuller is that he did not share Kazan’s taste for theatrical acting, big budgets and high-minded themes. He only wanted to make good movies.
While Kazan won the Academy’s kudos, the Oscar show producers didn’t even see fit to include Fuller (who passed away last year) in its “in memoriam” clips.
———-
Send letters to Arts & Entertainment, baiduhai, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611. Or e-mail to [email protected]. Please include your name, address and phone number.