Ty Burr’s argument against an Academy Award “for outstanding achievement in popular film’’ (“An Oscar for ‘popular film’ is a bad idea,’’ Arts, Aug. 12) overlooks the primary function of the academy, which is to stoke the profits of Hollywood, and to promote films to that end. Choosing “quality’’ films — the window dressing for the Oscars — doesn’t always fit into that scheme, and the Academy, like HAL in “2001: A Space Odyssey,’’ is often conflicted between two opposing directives. From a marketing standpoint, this new award may relieve the Academy of its schizoid mission, by allowing it to showcase blockbuster films for moviegoers, and also give quality points to smaller-demographic art films like “Howards End’’ or “Moonlight.’’ Getting the two audiences to like both is largely hopeless, and there have been enough dubious “popular’’ coups — “Argo,’’ “Titanic,’’ “Forrest Gump,’’ etc. — to separate the awards. A poll in 2014 said that the average American went to five movies in a theater per year, up from as few as two in previous surveys.

Glenn Kulbako

Somerville