Customer Reviews

Oscar? Fever: The History and Politics of the Academy Awards?

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Although Levy's critiques of movies themselves are insightful and his take on the politics that go into the Oscar race enlightening, this book contains far too many major factual errors and inconsistencies to be ignored. It is statistically heavy, with a thorough list of the winners in the five major categories from 1927 to 2000. It contains many charts and breakouts of how many movies of each genre won Best Picture, the cultural importance of the movies nominated, the relative ages of male and female to when they first won, etc. But it also states that Peter Fonda's sister is Lynn Redgrave, Mel Gibson made a movie about "Walter" Wallace, and doesn't include Dame Maggie Smith in the list of royally noted people who've been nominated. For inconsistencies, Levy notes on page 46 that the youngest Best Actress nominee is Kate Winslet for "Titanic," at age 22. Further down the page, he states, "The youngest nominee among the Best Actresses is French Isabelle Adjani, for the title role in "The Story of Adele H." at the age of twenty-one." What? Then, Levy asserts that "Cimarron" was the only western ever to win Best Picture, but later correctly states that both "Dances With Wolves" and "Unforgiven," both westerns, also won Best Picture. This kind of mistake over and over again indicates that book was very poorly edited, or edited by an intern, or rushed out. Such an exhaustively detailed book should be more accurate.

If you can ignore the factual errors, this is an interesting book for those who love everything Hollywood. It is almost obsessively focused on its subject, and gives substantive, thoughtful attention to subjects like the lack of winners among blacks and the disturbing tendency for many of the roles of female nominees to be for emotionally or physically tormented people (Jessica Lange in "Frances," for example).

I found the errors negatively impacted the whole book, so I'm giving it only three stars. Read it, but be prepared to muddle through a lot of misinformation.

I'm a longtime fan of the Oscars, so I was eager to read this book. I liked the fact that it was arranged by topic, and not chronologically, but I was just stunned by the high number of errors, omissions, and contradictions in these pages.

On page 48, we're told that Art Carney was the third oldest Best Actor nominee (for "Harry and Tonto") at age 57, but on page 235 we read that at least three actors (including John Wayne, Peter Finch, and Henry Fonda) won at older ages and that Carney was 54, not 57, when he won. On a related note, Henry Fonda's age when he won for "On Golden Pond" is given as 77 on page 105 and as 76 on page 235.

On page 61, there are a number of errors in the "pyramid" of actors who have been nominated 6 or more times. The author claims that there are only 18 who have reached this distinction, but he left out Ingrid Bergman, Robert De Niro, Greer Garson, and Jessica Lange. (He can be forgiven for not including Ellen Burstyn, who was nominated for the 6th time after the book was written.)

On page 113, there is a list of performers who were nominated a number of times before winning, but Susan Sarandon, who won for her 5th nomination, is not included in that group.

On page 115, Dustin Hoffman is omitted from the group of performers who won two Oscars in the same category (he won two Best Actor Oscars).

There are a number of other errors in the book, including those pointed out by other reviewers. If the facts matter to you, you'd be better off with another book on the Oscars.

Levy has done a thorough job of examining the history of the Academy Awards, although there was not as much material on the politics of the awards process. He does deal slightly with the recent controversies involving Miramax's campaign blitzes for nominations and awards. As a film buff and historian, I was suprised at the number of errors contained within the book, i.e. Joan Fontaine won her Best Actress Oscar for "Rebecca", Hilary Swank appeared in a TV show called "Beverly Hills, 90212", plot descriptions that were inaccurate. There was at least one glaring error in each chapter, with the same facts stated correctly in other chapters. Where was the editor? Levy should have caught these things himself. Overall, I would say that the book met most of its purposes and is interesting reading if one is not too picky over facts.

I can only echo what others have written about this shoddy excuse for a study of one of American's most fascinating phenomena--the yearly race for the Oscar. Levy should be ashamed of the plethora of factual errors--and that the errors are inconsistent in content from one page to another (as another critic has pointed out) points the blame not only at him but at the [bad] job that passes for copy and proof editing at Continuum. In addition, his style is awkard and uninteresting--appropriate neither to an academic audience nor to a general reader. And his analyses are obvious and lacking in anything truly insightful. "Inside Oscar," though out of date, remains a much livelier and more thoughtful study of the Oscars--we can only hope a revision of it is in the works. In the meantime, skip this..., irritating book.

I am an Academy Awards fan; I love watching them and reading about them. I am also a fan of Emanuel Levy's book Oscar Fever. It's not just another dictionary or a chronology of winners and losers. It's a deep, extremely intelligent, even-handed and perceptive study of a very complicated institution. I also like the fact that the approach is unique and original - looking at the awards from a socio-historical perspective, from the perspective of what the
Academy Awards can tell us about the world we live in not just who won. Levy organizes the book thematically rather than the standard chronology like every other book on the Oscars - this lets him delve quite deeply into each of his points. Levy's insights on gender and age are amazing - particularly his analysis of women. Go figure the logic of the Academy - Sally Field has won two Oscars out of two nominations; the great Garbo never took home a statuette. How could Ganhdi have won over ET - one of Spielberg's best -- or Gladiator over Traffic? Oscar Fever goes a long way in answering explaining the politics of the Oscar. It's a great book -- definitive I would say. It gets top marks from me.

Emanuel Levy's OSCAR FEVER is a treasure trove of Academy Award history and lore. It is a sociological study in the best sense in that it tells us quite a bit about our culture's functions and dysfunctions over nearly 75 years--how the Academy has awarded, or not, actresses, minorities, message pictures, or trendy-blockbuster films. Yet, the book entertains at the same time. Unlike most sociologists, Levy writes with assurance and panache. What is it exactly that makes the Academy Awards so special? In an age when most everything seems stage-managed, overblown, and overdone, perhaps it is the sheer spontaneity and unpredictability of the Oscars that most grab us. Who can forget Jack Palance's one-armed push-ups? The audacity of Marlon Brando? OSCAR FEVER tells many behind-the-scenes stories of life imitating art, which is perhaps what most interests us: the egos and politics behind Oscar. For example, ALL ABOUT EVE, the most-nominated film of all time (along with TITANIC), caused a real-life cat fight between Bette Davis and Anne Baxter over the Best Actress/Supporting Actress categories. ("The title isn't 'All about Margo Channing' Anne Baxter maintained.) Neither won that year--nor did Gloria Swanson (SUNSET BOULEVARD). The Oscar went to Judy Holliday for BORN YESTERDAY! One look at the amazingly crowded and comprehensive index shows OSCAR FEVER is both a reference source and history--in its way, Everything You Always Wanted to Know about the Oscars but Were Afraid to Ask. This book takes popular culture seriously and, in doing so, is insightful, refreshing, and original--in short, a treat.

I have never seen a non-fiction book filled with so many errors! It says that Joan Fontaine won an Academy Award for To Have and Have Not. Audrey Hepburn is not included on the list of actresses who won Oscars for first films or first leading roles. It lists all three African-American actors who won for Best Supporting Actor, but on the very next page declares that only two actors, Denzel Washington and Cuba Gooding, Jr., won, suddenly forgetting about Lou Gossett. Marie Dressler died in 1934, not 1933. It goes on and on. This book could have been a wonderful reference, but with all these mistakes it's undependable.

I like movies, but I am not a movie buff or an avid watcher of the Oscar telecast. Yet, I was doing some research and browsed through the magazine, The Economist, where I came across a most interesting table, reprinted from Emanuel Levy's Oscar Fever: The History and Politics of the Academy Awards. The table classified all Oscar-nominated and Oscar-winning films, showing a clear preference for serious-message movies, like "Schindler's List." "Rainman" or "The Lost Weekend" on the one hand, and historical epics, such as "Gladiator," "Ben Hur," or "Lawrence of Arabia" on the other. I was surprised to read that. According to Mr. Levy, the Academy has shown consistent bias against the comedy genres and comedy performers. I never realized that Chaplin or Cary Grant had never won a legit Oscar for their comic work, and that Jack Lemmon was nominated for comedies, but finally won his Best Actor Oscar for a serious drama, "Save the Tiger." These biases piqued my interest and I picked up Oscar Fever, which contains a lot of interesting information. I highly recommend this meticulously researched book for anyone interested in popular culture, not just Hollywood lore.

I just finished reading the paperback edition of Emanuel Levy's Oscar Fever: The History and Politics of the Academy Awards. There are a few errors in the book which is unfortunate, but on balance it's a great read, and really informative. I learned much more than I expected from Levy's analysis of the Oscar as the most coveted, glamorous, and controversial fixture of American show business, not just movies.
The book chronicles the full range of prejudices, nostalgia, and politics exhibited by the Academy voters over the past seven decades, and takes a pretty detailed look at why movies win. The statistics that Levy provides about the age of the winners, the difference between male and female artists, the underrepresentation of black and other ethnic minorities, the discrimination against women directors, and the type of movies and screen roles that win Oscars, are fascinating. Levy finds some pretty consistent trends and documents them.
I have no doubts that Oscar Fever (a good title) will be kept in print forever, as it provides the most comprehensive and knowledgeable discussion of the Oscars as a unique Hollywood and now global phenomenon. In short, I recommend the book to anyone interested in understanding what's contagious about American pop culture.
On a scale of 1 to 5, I rank it 4.