The 75th Annual Academy Awards

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!!

As far back as I can remember, I wanted to be a GoodFella... sorry, I'll start again.

As far back as I can remember, I've been tuning into the Oscars; first the edited highlights while living in Barbados and stuck with CBC Channel 8, then the coverage on CNN (when they still carried showbiz stuff), and then when I returned to England, it was time to sit up late or get up early and watch them live. The Academy Awards, like them or not, still have a glitz and pull no other award show on Earth can match; the BAFTAs and the Golden Globes can try all they want, but no matter whether they come before or after, they'll always be mere appetizers to the main event.

This year's, back on BBC1 (who incidentally pretended that losing them to Sky didn't matter... okay, but why did they make such a fuss when they got them BACK?), was amazing not so much for the results - "Chicago" won Best Picture? Who didn't see that coming? - as for the fact that it only overran by about four minutes. Keep up the tight reins, folks (or maybe ensure that not all the nominated songs get performed again). The segments in between the awards with Jonathan Ross interviewing various Americans and Brits are always a cue for me to change the channel or mute it, but the rest of the show...

Five Bad Things:

1. The failure of Eminem to turn up and accept an Oscar for Barbra Streisand (E&B would have been a team for the ages).

2. The snubbing, for the most part, of "The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers."

3. The continuing prejudice of the producers (apparently if you're winning a major acting prize you can talk as long as you want).

4. Steve Martin's joke about Mickey Mouse being one of "America's leading black actors."

5. Jennifer Garner appearing alongside the aforementioned actor of colour (it must have been a Disney/ABC thing).

Five Good Things:

1. Jennifer Garner appearing and a) maintaining her dignity and b) being one of the best-looking women there (if she, Salma Hayek or Halle Berry are reading this...). No wonder she was nominated for an Emmy for "Alias."

2. Most of Steve Martin's other jokes (not least the one about Hollywood willing to work with actors of any age - "Young...[picture of Haley Joel Osment]... middle-aged... [picture of Natalie Portman]... or old [picture of Reese Witherspoon]").

3. Adrien Brody, for delivering the best acceptance speech of the night (sorry Michael Moore, but political statements do not count), and for not letting the opportunity to snog Halle Berry go by.

4. The fact that "Chicago" didn't win all the Oscars it was up for, sparing us from hearing "All That Jazz" 11 times.

5. The Oscars giving the Animated Feature award to the only non-American feature nominated (though non-Disney fans note "Spirited Away" was released there by... guess).

And I'll be watching again next year...

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"!

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.

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.