Seth_S: The fact that neither Swanson or Davis won Oscars for what were both two of the greatest performances on screen proves how little the Oscars mean. Ken_McAlinden: The fact that Judy Holliday did win an Oscar for her best performance ... and that we are still discussing Holliday, Swanson, and Davis' (and Anne Baxter's) performances today ... and that all of the above performances are available on DVD as of next week, suggests that the Oscars may serve a purpose after all. Seth_S: So the Oscars serve a purpose because of the people who get snubbed? I'm sure that many more people are aware of Sawnson and Davis' work in SB and AAE than Holliday's in BY (in fact, people often accidently credit Davis as winning the oscar that year). If you want more conclusive proof about the oscars' worth, or lack there of, just look at Hithcocks' filmography. Not only did he never win, but his films were hardly nominated for anything. Ken_McAlinden: As long as it generates interest and discussion, yep. Same goes for the AFI, Sight & Sound, etc. lists. Seth_S: I'd argue that on the whole, these lists/awards don't generate discussion because most people hold them in such high regard. Furthermore, these lists/awards tend to only recognize films made in the Hollywood narrative mode, which helps perpetuate the myth that there is only one way to make a film, and that the Hollywood narrative is superior to all other modes of filmmaking. Ken_McAlinden: Seth, See discussion above which is proof of itself . PM with comments or start new thread in Movies if you want to further elaborate.