brs (04/13/83)
I personally found it unsurprising that Gandhi beat out ET in all the important categories. Regardless of respective merits of the films, it is much better publicity for the Academy to laud a significant historical popularization about a righteous idealist than even the best-made most-heart-rending boy-and-his-dog picture. Attenborough understands these tactics perfectly so he spoke soaringly of how the awards honored Gandhi as much as him. Movie-makers always prefer to believe they are selling moral philosophy rather than mindless entertainment. The same phenomenon caused "A Man for All Seasons" to sweep the awards (picture, director, actor, screenwriter, cinematographer) in 1966. In a cynical nutshell: ET tried to make you laugh/cry, Gandhi tried to make you feel noble. The first will make money, the second will get the awards. My own opinion is that comedy often is more perceptive about the world than drama (but it does lack a rather high-faluting prestige).