When it comes to Oscar predictions, one of the things that is becoming more of a factor every year is the so-called “body of work” — in other words, the overall career of a particular nominee. We’ve seen a lot of great actors win awards not necessarily for their finest performance, but simply because it is their turn to get recognized. From Denzel Washington in Training Day to Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart to Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side, there have been many situations where the Oscar may not have gone to the most deserving candidate, but we all applaud them anyway. The general feeling is that once someone has paid their dues, they should be honoured with an Oscar. But is this really a fair way of running the show, or does it ruin the integrity of the awards and rob other worthy candidates of their own shot at an Academy Award?

Clearly the quality of nominees vary from year to year, and sometimes there are amazing achievements that come away empty-handed when they would have won Oscars in a different year. It’s unfortunate, but it’s reality. When the Academy attempts to balance out this situation by handing out awards based on a body of work, it might lead one to ask, do two wrongs really make a right? After all, there are also honourary awards for this kind of thing. Younger nominees may have less chance of winning an Oscar because it is assumed that they will eventually have another opportunity to win in the future. But what if they don’t? I suppose it makes for a nice headline and good television when an older actor or director finally gets an award after a long career, but somehow it just feels tainted. What do you think? Are Oscars based on “body of work” acceptable? Do you think younger Oscar nominees often get overlooked or is there truly an even playing field? Who are some of the most talented actors and directors who still have not received an Oscar? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.