I am an avid collector of film books and films and I usually rely on book reviews in such trades as Publishers Weekly and Kirkus.

I recently bought Emanuel Levy's new, updated version of his old Oscar book, All About Oscar: The History and Politics of the Academy Awards (Continuum International, 2003).

I own the previous version, whose title, Oscar Fever, was better (Continuum, 2001). There's no doubt in my mind that All About Oscar is a better, more comprehensive, more up-to-date, and more illuminating book than Oscar Fever.

Yet when I consulted Publishers Weekly, I was shocked to realize that Oscar Fever had received a much more favorable review than All About Oscar. The reviewer of Oscar Fever wrote: "Levy draws an extraordinarily detailed knowledge of Hollywood history, providing intriguing factoids to supplement his assertions and analysis about subjects such as gender, age, and race in Hollywood, probing such essential questions as whether the Oscars are a "popularity contest." His analysis of why films about race receive Oscar nominations is thoughtful and savvy. No sociological question escapes Levy's notice, and he's got an answer for everything."

The review of All About Oscar was lukewarm, but not as favorable as that of Oscar Fever, even though the latter is a better book. What has happened to book reviewing? Is it that subjective? Does it entirely depend on the reviewer's personality and taste" The least a respectable publication like Publishers Weekly could have done is to assign All About Oscar to the same critic who had reviewed Oscar Fever. This would have been the only way to avoid the problem of subjectivity and arbitrariness in book reviewing.

If I were asked to rank both version, I would give Oscar Fever 3 stars and All About Oscar 4.

If you want to understand which movies are nominated for and win Oscars, and which kinds of screen roles are considered "Oscar stuff" I highly recommend that you read Emanuel Levy's new book, All About Oscar: The History and Politics of the Academy Awards.

But Don't expect to get many insights about the screenplays nominated for Oscar and their writers. Though Levy analyzes in great depth at least ten of the Oscar categories, the only place where writers are mentioned in the chapters dealing with the various films genres (dramas, musicals, historical epics, comedies, Westerns).

But don't writers deserve their own chapter? After all, there are no movies without ideas, stories, narratives, and the Academy acknowledges this fact by honoring not one but two kinds of screenplays: original and adapted.

I do understand that a single volume about the Oscars can't deal with each and every category, anbd I myself don't care much about art or costume design. I learned a lot from reading All About Oscar, I can't fully praise or embrace a book that is more concerned with directors and actors than with screenwriters. For this reason, I give All About Oscar the grade 4.

If you want to understand which movies are nominated for and win Oscars, and which kinds of screen roles are considered "Oscar stuff" I highly recommend that you read Emanuel Levy's new book, All About Oscar: The History and Politics of the Academy Awards.

But Don't expect to get many insights about the screenplays nominated for Oscar and their writers. Though Levy analyzes in great depth at least ten of the Oscar categories, the only place where writers are mentioned in the chapters dealing with the various films genres (dramas, musicals, historical epics, comedies, Westerns).

But don't writers deserve their own chapter? After all, there are no movies without ideas, stories, narratives, and the Academy acknowledges this fact by honoring not one but two kinds of screenplays: original and adapted.

I do understand that a single volume about the Oscars can't deal with each and every category, anbd I myself don't care much about art or costume design. I learned a lot from reading All About Oscar, I can't fully praise or embrace a book that is more concerned with directors and actors than with screenwriters. For this reason, I give All About Oscar the grade 4.

I am one of those people who loves the Oscar show and reads everything available about the Oscar Award. I just finished reading Levy's latest book on the subject, All About Oscar: The History and Politics of the Academy Awards. In my view, it represents a vast improvement over his previous, Oscar Fever.

Let me explain. For one thing, there is new information that was not available before about the Oscar's discrimination against women and ethnic minority artists (not just blacks). In fact, the chapter "Is the Oscar a White Man's Race" reveals that many of the biases that operate in the Oscar awards simply reflect biases that exist in American society, and that the Oscar is just a microcosm of a much larger problem that we Americans need to deal with.

The second new chapter that I like is the one titled, "Oscar's Middle-Brow Sensibility," which documents why, year after year, the Oscar-winning films are not necessarily the best ones artistically, but those that contain uplifting and hopeful messages in their stories. Prime example: A Beautiful Mind, which in the guise of a biopicture was presented as a struggle and triumph of the mind against all odds.

In short, one of the great merits of All About Oscar is that it approaches the subject not just from an artistic or cinematic perspective, but from a social and political one as well, showing that both the Oscar's are much bigger than the movies they recognize. I therefore gives Levy's Oscar Fever the highest rank, 5, and recommend that it be read by anyone interested in American pop culture.

Once again, it's Oscar season. I just finished reading Emanuel Levy's Oscar Fever: The History and Politics of the Academy Awards, and I found a stellar overview of Hollywood's exercise in self-congratulation. What's good about the book is that Levy identifies the motives behind the founding of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1927 as a desire to establish the film industry as "a respectable, legitimate institution."

Reading Oscar Fever is like reading the history of the sound era since the two events overlap. Additionally, Levy provides many facts and anecdotes that make up for a fascinating read of America's most glamorous industries. It's the kind of book that film buffs would want to keep on their shelves for future references.

Those interested in Oscar trivia and gossip will not be disappointed by the book, either. Oscar Fever is the kind of book that could be read as light entertainment as well as a serious expose of the one of the most popular media events in the world.

Of all Hollywood books I read over the past few years, Oscar Fever is one of the most illuminating. For all those reasons, I'm giving the film the highest rank, 5.

Emanuel Levy's Oscar Fever: The History and Politics of the Academy Awards is a fascinating account of the most popular movie event in the world.

Scrutinizing the awards from their very beginnings, Levy appears to know everything which is worth knowing about the Oscars. His book combines both serious and light-anecdotal analysis of the Oscars, which makes for a wonderful reading.

Levy draws on aa wide variety of sources of Hollywood history, providing intriguing factoids to supplement his examination of the effects of age, gender, and race on the film industry. For example, he details the discrimination against women as well as against artists of color in Oscar's history up until the last decade.

I felt that no sociological or political issue related to Hollywood and the Oscars remained unanswered in this wonderfully researched and written book.

Of all the Oscar books I have read so far, Oscar Fever is decidedly the most comprehensive and illuminating. I give it the highest rank (five) one could give a movie book.

Emanuel Levy's Oscar Fever: The History and Politics of the Academy Awards is the only serious chronicle of the Oscars, placing them in their broader socio-political contexts, from 1927 to the present.

Oscar Fever (a very good title, in terms of the nasty and fevrish camaigns last year) provides the most comprehensive examination of the Oscars as a uniquely American phenomenon, now embraced by the entire world.

The systematic data that Levy provides about the difference between male and female winners and nominees, the underrepresentation of black and Latino artists, the biases against women directors, such as Barbra Streisant (The Prince of Tides) and the type of movies and screen roles that win Oscars, are fascinating.

I recommend the book to those readers who would like to know more about the Oscars specifically or American pop culture in general.

"CINEMA OF OUTSIDERS: The Rise of American Independent Film"

A BOOK REVIEW by Harvey Karten, film_critic@compuserve.com

Emanuel Levy, "Cinema of Outsiders: The Rise of American Independent Film," New York: New York University Press, cl999, 601pp.

Emanuel Levy among those who prefer the challenging, edgy, sometimes outrageous movies that are released outside of the Hollywood studios' network. The author of six books with yet another, a biography of critic Andrew Sarris, in the works, Levy is a senior editor with "Variety" magazine. He does not at any time come right out and declare his partiality to the indies, but his passion for the concept of non-mainstream cinema (or at least for the good ones) surfaces on every page. Ironically, "Variety," the slick trade publication for the entertainment industry which regularly promotes and writes about the biggies, should be the last place Levy wouldembrace as a home. Yet the critic--who

habitually knocks out prescient reviews of the latest pictures using that publication's popular jargon such as "pix," "thesps," and "helmers"--has an overall contempt for the safe, for the movies made strictly to appeal to the lowest common denominator and therefore bring in the big bucks for the studios. This is not to say that he glorifies the entire independent ouevre. Discussing three hundred films albeit not in great depth, Levy gradually unfolds to the reader what he likes and what he does not among indies released from 1977 to the present and has the same disdain for poor quality individualistic films as he has for the blockbusters. He derides the studied, the predictable, the simplistic, the not credible, the subjects which are inadequate for full-length treatment, the charmless, the absent-of-wit--all the deadly sins for which blockbusters are often culpable.

The bulk of the 601-page text is taken up with an encyclopedic survey of indie films released during the past thirty-two years, the sort of scan you can find in most of the popular annuals which capsule-review cinematic output in alphabetical order. Neither alphabetical nor chronological, Levy's book treats the films thematically. Chapters have such titles as "Fathers and Sons," "The New York School of Indies," "The Resurrection of Noir," "Challenging Stereotypes," "The New Gay and Lesbian Cinema," "Female/Feminist Sensibility," and "The New African American Cinema." This body of commentary makes the book a must for public libraries and for the home bookshelves of all who have a passion for thoughtful, cutting-edge movies. While much of what Levy says is duplicated by Leonard Maltin, Roger Ebert, and David Thomson in annuals and studies that review and comment upon the pictures and their makers, Levy's commentary provides a distinctive voice, one which extols the independent movies to a greater degree than

do the other popular critics. I would have preferred that he downplay the laundry list of films in favor of presenting even more detail about trends in current cinema and the effect of these films on the audience and on the previously-ignored segments of the population regularly dealt with by these movies.

Copyright Harvey S. Karten

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.

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.