The 75th Annual Academy Awards

I loved the awards. I taped it because I know that my favorite actress, Olivia de Havilland, was going to be there. I was touched when they gave a standing ovation. She is a true living legend and she will be on earth for a long time to come.

The actually ceremony has already been effectivly reported on by my esteemed colleagues below, so I will retrict this to why I watched.One of the previous reviewers obviously likes Olivia de Havilland but is wrong saying she is the only one still alive after 59 years.There was an actress, revealed in the group portrait, who won in the 1930's and is the oldest winning Oscar survivor but I cannot remember her name.For me this group portrait is more entertaining than listening to all and sundry saying "Thankyou" all evening.

My particular favourite is Jennifer Jones, who won best actress for "Song of Bernadette "(1943) in the 1944 ceremony.I have watched and own videos of every one of her movies from 1939-1974 and have taped most of her screened personal appearances since then.Film fans know she makes very rare public appearances so any glimpse is to be treasured.I have photos of her from age 2 until her present age 84 from her available biographies, memoirs of her and from contemporary magazines etc.I also make regular contributions to her tribute web site.Long may she live!!

Steve Martin's insults made this presentation! In light of the recent war in Iraq, many celebrities dressed down and even did not show up. But Steve Martin made us all forget when he started randomly insulting actors and actresses in the audience.

Some of his lines made the actors in the audience literally gasp in astonishment. Here are some of quotes from his hosting performance:

"Movie stars can be straight (camera on Harrison Ford), or gay (camera on Jack Nicholson)." "He got to go in a hot tub with Kathy Bates - but who hasn't?" "And Queen Latifah - or as I like to call her, 'sequel money'!"

Martin was the best thing about this otherwise out-of-place Oscars that just seemed too watered down. I think it's important to respect those fighting for America and England, but as they say, "The show must go on," and this show BARELY went on.

Despite the muted tone of the 75th Academy Awards, there were some outstanding moments and here are a few of the observations I care to make on the whole affair:

1) Adding not a bit of class to the televised event was CAMERON DIAZ, busily chewing gum and staring vacantly at some of the old-time presenters, as though she either didn't recognize them or didn't appreciate that they were a part of film history;

2) ADRIEN BRODY giving a genuinely heart-felt acceptance speech, including the surprisingly passionate kiss for Halle Berry! Talk about taking advantage of a situation, but at least he was honest about it;

3) MICHAEL MOORE making a complete jackass of himself by taking the stage to receive an award (for a non-documentary, by the way), and then erupting into a tirade against President Bush and the war that was greeted at first with abashed silence and then a round of well-deserved boos from the overwhelmingly liberal Hollywood crowd;

4) OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND receiving a standing ovation and still radiating good health and classic loveliness even with silver-white hair as she presented 59 of the past winners. Among the missing: ELIZABETH TAYLOR, which was just as well considering her diamonds would have weighed her down, even if she was sitting in a wheelchair, and would have called for even more of a bodyguard atmosphere than usual;

5) Among those who didn't look so well (some even shockingly bad), were KARL MALDEN, JENNIFER JONES (who looked like a wax figure), TERESA WRIGHT, GEORGE CHAKIRIS (another wax figure), KIRK DOUGLAS, DUSTIN Hoffman, PATRICIA NEAL and CLIFF ROBERTSON.

Although it was good to see a stage full of former winners, one couldn't help noticing how few of them resembled their former selves on screen.

STEVE MARTIN did an okay job as presenter, easily rebuffing Michael Moore with a clever comeback line about the Mafia, but unfortunately veering into tasteless territory with his jokes about MICKEY ROONEY's age or the sexual ambiguities of stars like JACK NICHOLSON and others.

I was especially impresssed with one of de Havilland's comments after observing that much had changed since the earlier times. "What hasn't changed," she said, in her gentle tone, "is our love of the movies. They inspire us and help us through troubled times." She's done so many Oscar shows as presenter (not to mention winner) and is always a reminder of how classy Hollywood performers used to be.

This year's Academy Awards showed how politics are always in the mix, and I don't mean with America's current situation with Iraq. What I mean is that there seems to be an (unintentional?) fix with two particular movies of the evening- Chicago and Gangs of New York. Chicago went away with six, SIX Oscars, for being merely an over-rated re-tread of dumb, glitzy, Hollywood (Hollwood the key word) musicals, where there are occasionally catchy scenes- terribly brought down by the need for Richard Gere and John C. Reilly to try for big performances and can barely manage mediocre. Gangs of New York, on the other hand (a personal favorite from last year), which was the film with the second most amount of nominations (Chicago had 13, Gangs with 10), walked away with none, NONE. This isn't the first time this sort of syndrome has happened to a great movie (The Insider in 99, Psycho in 60, Clockwork Orange in 71), but this was a tad ridiculous.

Does the Academy feel a certain dis-affection towards the man, Martin Scorsese, and his little gem of a history lesson? I can respect that Roman Polanski got the Oscar for The Pianist, as it did deserve it in many respects (certainly the best European direction, and as the Palme D'Or at Cannes last year it was a clear choice over the numb flamboyancy of Rob Marshall's Chicago); however in all honesty, why give the Oscar to someone who isn't allowed in the country to receive it personally, when the guy who deserved it for best AMERICAN direction, anyway, looses? Is there a curse upon Scorsese that any year he makes a picture worthy of at least ONE Oscar, even outside of direction (i.e. Dante Ferreti's production design is some of the finest and most original ever, loosing to Chicago, which won basically for an adaptation of a design from the musical!). Only time will tell...

Having said that, I did enjoy some parts of the show when it wasn't filled with the usual fodder of montage-adulation, and the song in the background as the winner walking up being "all that jazz". Steve Martin did a respectable, pretty funny job, not to the absolute caliber of the first job, but with some fresh jabs at the industry (the two best being with Nicholson and Borgnine). Michael Moore getting a definitely deserved Oscar, said things in his speech that made some "boo", but really, it made a sense in its audacity. Claps go to Almodovar, Kidman, Cooper, Eminem (what was with the guy who presented, gold chains and all?), the late Conrad L. Hall, Brody (Nicholson and Day-Lewis were equally worthy), and for ol' Peter O'Toole...

And yet, outside of that, I felt a little uneasy watching the awards ceremony, as I probably do watching past ones. With this one though, I just got the feeling that there was a very slight rig in the works throughout. Of course I realize this is the name of the game on such a night, but the fact that most of the films that won for the headline factor of the film instead of the films themselves is eerie...then I remember that in the overall scheme of things in th e industry the Oscars count for very little. For example, years from now, or even now, how many people remember specific images and emotions and scenes in Ordinary People? Not too many, I can guess. But Raging Bull, "that's entertainment"!