RICHARD ATTENBOROUGH was a very happy man Monday night. His movie Gandhi, a celebration of the life of the Indian leader for indepedence. Mahatma Gandhi, swept eight major Academy Awards, leaving Steven Spielberg, director of E.T., the Extra-Terrestrial, and Sydney Pollack, the director of Tootsie, a little flat-footed and gaping. They weren't the only ones; plenty of T.V.-watchers were bewildered as well after three hours of watching their favorites bypassed time after time.

Now that Gandhi has achieved such a respectable position among Hollywood's elite by winning the Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Director, and the Best Costume Design awards, suddenly there are a lot more Gandhi admirers who are less apt to criticize the film because, after all, it was so important. But at least as many E.T. and Tootsie fans feel they still deserve their day in court. Gandhi's closest rivals, E.T. and Tootsie, received rave reviews and, in E.T.'s case, provided years of children's toys to come. Perhaps these movies are not as self-consciously conscientious as Gandhi, but they were what pleased Americans the most this year. Where are the Gandhi dolls? And you have to admit that the saga of the Mahatma was a little long. In short, while Gandhi was certainly an excellent movie, and deserved to win some top honors including, perhaps, best picture, its winning eight of a possible 11 trophies casts doubt on the motives of the Academy.

Perhaps the members of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences are using the presitigous awards for didactic purposes. With a former colleague in the White House, Hollywood's discerning leaders might believe they already have a reputation for social responsibility. As a symbol for inspiration, not only in its story of triumph, but as the foundation for the non-violent direct action civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr., the story of Gandhi was legitimately hailed as the most socially pertinent and meaningful non-documentary motion picture to emerge this year. What better way to pat oneself on the back than liberally to reward one's most socially responsible product? But in recognizing itself as a morally sound group, do the pundits, and beautiful people of the Academy appoint themselves as society's dictators of true intellectual value? Does Richard Attenborough, who reportedly devoted more than a decade to his brainchild, thus become the father of morality for his conscientious use of the celluloid?

But perhaps this is nothing new. For years the Academy has been usurping America's anti-intellectual favorites. A typical Oscar-watcher could break down "predictions" into three categories: the popular favorite (i.e., E.T. and Tootsie), the intellectual favorite (i.e., Gandhi) and, in some cases, the sentimental favorite (i.e., Paul Newman for Best Actor). Only the intellectual strategy produced a batting average worth mentioning. This raises not only the complex question of what the Academy bases its awards on, but the more relevant mystery: who makes up this self-important Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences?

These almighty arbiters project the image of a group of serious, self-important executive businessmen (and women, the idealist hopes), who gather in a smoky conference room to view the nominated films, receive briefings on their technical achievements, and with an eye to popular opinion, hash out over a period of many days the definitive list of winners. But a call to the Academy shatters such illusions. The Academy is made up of approximately 4200 "professional motion picture craftsmen and artists" who view the pictures in their spare time and submit nominations in their field. Actors nominate actors, directors nominate directors and cinematographers nominate cinematographers. But everyone votes on all the nominations in the last balloting and chooses his or her personal favorite.

So maybe they aren't a bunch of self-important psuedo-intellectuals--maybe they simply made a mistake. Perhaps Gandhi worked into the voting the way a third party candidate does; while the psuedo-intellectuals wholly supported their candidate, the popular party was split between E.T. and Tootsie and managed to throw the victor all the spoils.