Musings on the 75th Annual Academy Awards

By Stephen Silver

I watched the Oscars from start to finish Sunday night, for no reason other than my love of cinema and fascination with all that is Hollywood. I knew people would say stupid things and most of the wrong movies would be honored, but what the hell- I watch because I love. A few observations:

"Chicago" wins Best Picture. I can't complain; I liked the movie and as far as I know so did most other people. I think the return to prominence in Hollywood of musicals is a good development, and "Chicago" is worlds more worthy, as a Best Picture, than last year's embarassing winner, "A Beautiful Mind." When "The Pianist" pulled off upset wins for Best Actor and Best Director, it created a dramatic scenario that actually made it look like a Best Picture win was possible- since that film was the only of the five Best Picture nominees not at least partially funded by Miramax, a "Pianist" victory would've doubled as a big "fuck you" to Harvey Weinstein. But alas, it wasn't to be.

Moore Stupider. I suppose the biggest Oscar-related topic in the blogosphere last night and today was the outburst by Michael Moore. Now I want to make clear that I'm not so upset about what Moore said- it was Moore being Moore, and loony anti-Bush schtick has been his stock and trade for the past two years. What I AM upset about is that "Bowling For Columbine"- an untruthful, dishonest, insulting, condescending, and self-aggrandizing film, whose conclusion seemed to be that what's wrong with America is all those damn Americans- won for Best Documentary. What's even sadder is that the producers of the other four nominated films, who presumably took great care to make sure their films were truthful and didn't stage entire scenes, agreed to join Moore onstage. That almost the entire audience booed Moore when he began his diatribe shows that Hollywood may be much more sane than we all thought- Denzel Washington, in particular, was caught on camera not applauding.

Sicilian vs. Roman. The other major controversy of the evening was Roman Polanski's upset victory over Martin Scorsese for the Best Director award. Now, I get that the Academy hated "Gangs of New York" (it won zero awards), and didn't wish to honor Scorsese for what was clearly not the best film of his career. So why not give it to "Chicago"'s Rob Marshall? Traditionally when there's a Picture/Director split verdict, it's either because the Best Picture wasn't a "director" movie (like "Gladiator"), or because the Director winner's direction was especially impressive (like "Saving Private Ryan," or "Traffic"). "Chicago" was very much a director movie, and there was nothing at all wrong with Marshall's direction. And if the Academy didn't wish to honor Scorsese for "Gangs of New York" when he didn't win for "Mean Streets," "Taxi Driver," "Raging Bull," or "Goodfellas," then why give it to Polanski when he didn't win for one of the greatest movies of all time, "Chinatown"?