which won the big awards in 1962, or, three decades later, The Silence of the Lambs, which swept the board in 1991.

Both of these films have been the subject of Paul Gambaccini's current Radio 4 series And the Academy Award Goes to.... Gambaccini told The First Post: "Sadly, the mass American audience has dumbed down over the last 30 years, with the result being that almost no films of note come out of the big studios. Their quality material comes from their arthouse divisions."

Thus Hollywood film-making has gone off in two directions: blockbusters into which the studios pour millions for marketing - such as Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End which has taken $961m worldwide - and 'quality' films such as No Country, for which the small marketing budget is directed at insiders who will nominate the films

for awards. As a result, these films get small audiences and lots of prizes.

The question is, can Hollywood afford to continue to make Oscar-potential films as a breed apart from popular box office hits? A recent report found that major film studios lost a grand total of almost $2bn in 2006 due to the ever-increasing costs of production set against dwindling audiences and poor DVD sales. Haemorrhaging money thanks to the writers' strike, Hollywood badly needs this year's Oscars to tempt people back into the cinema - and they have stubbornly refused to oblige.

Until now, The Last Emperor, which grossed $75m (in today's money) in 1987, looked unbeatable as the least popular best picture Oscar winner of recent times. That record is set to be broken this year.