Nobody Knows Anything

Welcome to Diane Patterson's eclectic blog about what strikes her fancy

The Oscars

Posted on March 23, 2003 Written by Diane

  • I would have lost the Oscar pool this year. Even though I switched to Chris Cooper for Adaptation, I’m still somewhat surprised by Catherine Zeta-Jones’s award.
  • Anybody who had Adrien Brody cleaned up big.
  • Steve Martin? Pretty damn funny. I’d have him back.
  • Not that it’s any of my business or anything, but, uh…was Jack Nicholson’s date Nicolas Cage?
  • “Every time they give out an Oscar, an agent gets his wings.”
  • You know, it dawns on me only now I should have done a real-time blogging commentary on the Oscars à la The Agonist’s Iraq summary, but a)Sean Paul rocks and b)we TiVo’d the Oscars so we wouldn’t have to watch the whole damn thing.
  • Did they skip Eminem’s song? Or did we fast-forward over that?
  • Whatever induces actors to participate in the roundup of former Oscar winners? Do they get special goodie bags or something?
  • “I handed in a script last year and the studio didn’t change one word. The one word they didn’t change was on page 87.”
  • Trust me, no screenwriters are sitting around debating which is more difficult, an original screenplay or an adaptation. They’re much more concerned about free rewrites and the possessory credit.
  • Well, I missed that one. But I’ve been saying that all night, so who cares. I didn’t have money on this.
  • Wow! Pedro Almodovar! No sop to My Big Fat Greek Wedding! Well, good for him. And good that the Academy is branching out a little.
  • How stoned was Harrison Ford?
  • ROMAN POLANSKI? Oh, that wacky, wacky Academy. And two major awards for The Pianist. Very surprising.
  • You realize this means Michael Douglas can’t scream, “But I’m the one with the Oscar!” in fights any more?

Filed Under: Movies

Comments

  1. katie says

    March 24, 2003 at 4:26 pm

    Yeah, but Michael does have *two* Oscars.

  2. Darice says

    March 24, 2003 at 4:27 pm

    This was the first year I didn’t stay up for the whole thing. But then, this is the first year I have a baby, so sleep is a precious commodity. 😉

    I have a few answers to your questions…

    # Did they skip Eminem’s song? Or did we fast-forward over that?

    I didn’t see it performed. Eminem himself did not attend, and I can’t see anyone else performing an Eminem song.

    # Whatever induces actors to participate in the roundup of former Oscar winners? Do they get special goodie bags or something?

    According to something I read recently (in the local paper perhaps? I’m hazy on this…), YES. Each nominee and presenter gets $20,000 worth of goodies.

  3. Emily says

    March 25, 2003 at 4:09 am

    I can’t believe the Polanski win. I really can’t.

    No, Eminem didn’t perform. I find that incredibly odd – every other song was performed, wasn’t it?

  4. K says

    March 25, 2003 at 8:37 am

    Roman Polanski: not Man Of The Year or anything.
    Roman Polanski’s film “The Pianist”: Outstanding, Earthmoving, Soulaffecting Film of the Year.
    Hence, Roman Polanski (visionary behind film): Director of the Year.

    He wasn’t being judged on his past actions, but on his work as a director on that particular film, which was outstanding.

    All imho.

  5. Diane says

    March 25, 2003 at 9:15 am

    Yeah, but Michael does have *two* Oscars.

    Yeah, I know, but the joke is funnier my way. 😛

    He wasn’t being judged on his past actions, but on his work as a director on that particular film, which was outstanding.

    Trust me, if people were judged on their past actions, no one anywhere would be eligible for an award, especially in Hollywood.

    I was surprised by Polanski’s win because he was only slightly less of a dark horse than Almodovar. I hadn’t heard anyone say they thought The Pianist was a singular achievement in direction.

    I suspect Polanski’s win was more about circling the wagons around one of their own than it was about the movie, frankly.

  6. K says

    March 25, 2003 at 11:29 am

    I was sure that Scorsese would win. But when Chicago won everything in sight for the first half of the show, I felt that Rob Marshall was going to get the Oscar. All along, I’d hoped for Polanski because I felt he deserved it. All other direction was great, but I felt that, while watching The Pianist, I could see exactly how he’d imagined it, how he’d seen the book in his head (I knew how I saw it in mine). And I was thrilled that he’d won. Thrilled also for Adrien Brody, who went to hell and back while preparing (read: starving) himself for the role.

  7. Scott Adler says

    March 25, 2003 at 5:56 pm

    How do you justify a movie to have a best director and not be best picture? Do different people vote. Did Polanski win because of his recognizable name?

    Isn’t the director the general contractor of the movie, and if all goes well, he has to be responsible for it.

  8. K says

    March 26, 2003 at 11:00 am

    Beats me. I don’t know why The Pianist didn’t win Best Picture. I think it should have. Had far more impact on me than Chicago did. I think if anybody were to win because of the recognisable name Scorsese and Marshall would be right up there, imho.

  9. Lizzie says

    March 26, 2003 at 11:42 am

    Not only do the past winners get tons of perks, they’re actors. Of course they’re going to show up!

    Love love love Roman Polanski – I’m so glad he won. Not that I’ve seen any of the pictures this year, so I have no idea who actually deserved it.

  10. Jennifer says

    March 26, 2003 at 1:17 pm

    If it’s all about the art/output of the director, then why didn’t Elia Kazan get a standing ovation a few years back like Polanski just got in absentia a few days ago? That stuff really bugs me. It’s all right to give a standing ovation to the fugitive statutory rapist but not to the HUAC rat? Is the art separate from the artist’s personal life, or not? I just kept thinking that some of the same folks who gave Polansky the standing ovation kept their asses firmly planted in their seats a few years earlier when Kazan received his honorary Oscar. It doesn’t make sense to me.

  11. K says

    March 27, 2003 at 3:52 am

    I’d imagine because receiving the Oscars is about the art/output. Applauding is a lot more personal and I’m guessing here that Kazan affected the lives of the artists/collegues/friends/acquaintances/family members of those who refused to applaud him. Polanski, on the other hand, didn’t affect anybody personally in the audience with his utterly terrible act all those years ago. Plus, Hollywood can deal with sex scandals, but not so much with political/betrayal ones. All, imho.

  12. Diane says

    March 27, 2003 at 5:50 am

    Well, it’s not only about the art/output over personal behavior/politics, but…Elia Kazan already had two Oscars for directing–and there he was getting another one. Polanski and Scorsese (and Hitchcock and…) between them had a grand total of 0. So the Academy was also applauding their wisdom is handing a great artist his due.

Search

Recent Comments

  • Nina: I love that you have footnotes for you blog post.
  • John Steve Adler: I reread it now that you are published. I still like it! It’s great to have so many loose...
  • Diane: Holy moly! I haven’t heard the term “tart noir” in a long time! I looooved Lauren...
  • Merz: “My main problem with amateur sleuths is always they’re always such wholesome people. How on Earth do...
  • Diane: 1) I’ll have to give Calibre another try for managing Collections. Do you know of a webpage with good...

Copyright © 2025 · Focus Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in