Yeah, the Oscars get pretty flakey too. Frickin'
Titanic? C'mon! What a joke. I don't have much of an opinion either way on Cage- I assume that if he won an Oscar it must have been for "Leaving Las Vegas," a movie in which his performanc was powerful and compelling. I can't recall what it may have been up against. Travolta is, IMOHO, probably the worst actor of his generation; he was his era's Keanu or Ashton Kutcher. However, you're mistaken- he's
never won an Oscar, although inexplicably he's been nominated twice.
Awards tend to get wonky at times, but I think Oscar follows the educated critical opinion to a much greater degree than the Grammy's. Grammy's seem to flow from guilt & admiration (eg Ray Charles- had he not died who'd honestly have given a second thought to even suggesting a Grammy for him?) and flat out popularity. They try to throw in a few "critic's darlings" to create an air of legitimacy, but mostly it's Big Music's annual butt kissing contests. "You made us a crapload of money this year! Thanks! Take this little widget!"
The Oscar awards can be swayed by politics, but it appears outwardly that some effort is made to award the worthy, not just the popular. Some big films and actors have won (eg Titanic, LotR, Gladiator) but some low budget ones have also won (eg "Life Is Beautiful"). Sometimes an old warhorse gets the statue (eg DeNiro, Penn) but sometimes a young actor with a brilliant perfomance takes the nod (eg Swank, Charlize Theron).
Both involve some buttkissing, but I think that the Oscars has a marginal edge in dignity and validity. The Grammy's are a pure joke.
2005 Grammy Awards
Here’s a few of the live performances I enjoyed:
It sorta detracts from the legitmacy of the award, doesn't it?
I hope you weren't overly confused by my response- I should've crafted the one liner you'd have been able to understand better. 
Linear Mode
