And now! The nominees for "Most Obvious Evidence That These Oscars Sucked Beyond All Other Oscar Telecasts"

1. The audience booing Michael Moore for his left wing anti-Bush speech after giving him a standing ovation for his left wing anti-Bush documentary ("hey, what is this left-wing activist doing saying left-wing activist things on OUR AWARD SHOW!?!").

2. The audience fawning over Adrian Brody's anti-war speech ("gee, when this more attractive fellow says the exact same thing, I am oddly moved")

3. The audience giving a standing ovation to the awarding of Best Director to a convicted child rapist.

4. Failing to acknowledge their failure to perform, or even mention Eminem's song until it actually won - and then blandly not noticing his total snubbing of the whole event.

5. Mickey Mouse.

And the winner is . . . booing Michael Moore!

Hollywood can love you, be you a child rapist, a wife beater, a drug addict, or a thief. But if there is one thing Hollywood can't stand for, its a fat man.

Point-by-point rebuttal. First off, you must not watch the Oscars much ? at under 3 1/2 hours, with fewer honoraria/montages and some gratifying upset wins, this was easily the BEST Oscars in about a half-decade. Anyway, to your points:

1. Agreed, the standing-O-to-derisive-boo transition was fairly hypocritical, but I (and most other commentators) surmised that the crowd was booing Moore's shameless self-righteousness more than his sentiment. You're right that when you let an unabashed lefty go to the podium, you get what you paid for, but Columbine, even for Moore, expressed far more even-handed political ideas than his strident, grandstanding Oscar speech.

2. See point #1 ? the subtle brilliance of Brody's speech was that he basically expressed comtempt for the war while showing empathy for our forces, exactly the sentiment most antiwar Americans feel right now. I'm tried of being told by prowar loudmouths that my wish for peace is an attack on our troops, and in under two minutes, Brody showed these sentiments are not mutually exclusive.

3. I find Polanski's actions in 1977 deplorable, but I for one always separate the artist from his art. Insert laundry list of panitings/symphonies/rock classics composed by assholes over the last five centuries here.

4. Eminem removed himself from the Oscars, weeks ago. Not his scene. And what were they gonna do, get Robert Goulet to rap "Lose Yourself" in his place? Who would take that on? I wasn't offended that they didn't try to perform Em's song or comment on his no-show; they didn't comment on Polanski's no-show, either.

5. No argument here.

Yes, but I would have paid good money to see Robert Goulet rap. That's the stuff of comedy gold!

O.K., I amend the name of my award to "Most Obvious Evidence That These Oscars Sucked, yet again." I suppose that, as compared to other Oscar telecasts this one would have to be deemed "better" on at least the basis of being "shorter."

Looks like we agree on the hypocricy charge of point #1 (my award-winning moment!), but I'm not sure on what level I'd call Columbine even-handed.

I actually love Michael Moore and his movies, but if anyone has any doubts about his heavy-handed and consistent political bent (clearly manifested in all of his movies, including Columbine )I'd invite them to visit his website and help me find evidence of this non-partisan even-handed nature.

Brody's subtle brilliance was unable to penetrate my pedestrian mind. I did, however, like the subtle brilliance of his clearly non-consensual kiss of Halle Berry (a nice lesson for the boys out there). Equal subtle points for shouting down the conductor for daring to limit the length of his speech. But hey - I hear you. To read press accounts, a lot of people were way into him. To his credit, news follow-ups on his personal friend checked out. So I hear you when you say it moved you - just didn't do it for hard-hearted ol' me.

I also hear you on separating artists from their art. I actually have less of a problem with the fact of the award, and more of a problem with the adulation.

Let me ask this - if an avowed anti-semite, or racist, or homophobe made a great movie, would you support them getting an Oscar? I suspect you would - separate the artist from the art. Cool.

But would you give him a standing ovation? Would you choose to work with her on her next movie? I feel the fawning adoration is an insult to his victim, whether the award is or not.

And yeah, Goulet rapping would have redeemed the entire show. I'd have bowed down to that level of comic genius.

Sorry for the excessive italics. Missing "/" I'd guess. Man that HTML can bite you! If any of you admins can fix it - only the word "again" should have been italicized.

Not to puncture the beautiful Hollywood-hypocrite bubble here, but maybe it was the Sarandon crowd (read 80%+ of the audience) doing the cheering when Moore won and the Schwarzenegger/Sly Stone crowd (read 50% of the lung volume of the audience) doing the booing.

Regarding Adrien Brody, I actually didn't hear any specific anti-war sentiment at all in his speech--he basically said 'war is hell', 'support our troops' and gave a shout out to his childhood friend. What's beef could you have with that?

Re: Polanski.

I think you have to make a distinction between "asshole" behavior and criminal behavior. I can think of plenty of, say, composers who were assholes, but none that were actual criminals, unless you count Wagner's anti-Semitism which seems especially serious because of the time and place he subscribed to it.

(If I had to come up with a personal definition of asshole vs. criminal behavior? Let's take the example of Tchaikovsky. He married a woman, was distant and dismissive, cheated on her, and eventually decided that he was gay and left her. This was terrible, but I don't think it was malicious and it only affected the unfortunate wife, who is now no longer with us. So yeah, I like Tchaikovsky. But something like child molestation trespasses against our society's morals, and thus seems like a crime against the entire community -- that's why prosecutions are usually stated as "State of California v. ...")

I also think that there's a difference between criminals who are dead and those who are alive and thus able to commit more crimes. If I applaud a Wagner opera, there's no Wagner around to think, "See? They like me anyway." I am willing to think of an asshole artist who's dead as separate from his art because the art lives on and he doesn't.

Let's also point out that Polanski won an individual award. If the movie had won Best Picture, it would definitely make sense to recognize with great enthusiasm the very successful joint effort of many people. That's not what happened, though; what you need to do to justify the standing ovation is make a distinction -- not between the artist and his art -- but between Polanski-as-a-director and Polanski-as-a-private-citizen-who-is-also-a-child-rapist, a distinction that I find harder to stomach.

For these reasons, I don't think the concept of "not holding art responsible for having had an asshole creator" applies here. I'm not suggesting that people ought to have booed. Good manners would suggest polite but unenthusiastic golf clapping. And they had their chance to applaud the movie when Brody won.

Why shouldn't they have booed Polanski ? He raped a 13 year old. You can see the transcripts here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

Can criminals still make great art ? Of course they can. But that doesn't exempt them from punishment for their action, any more than an athletes abilities should.

Emily makes some fine points about applauding assholes versus criminals. Polanksi is a special case. Again, I don't condone Polanski's behavior. I could make the arguments some have made in recent weeks: the woman he raped has herself said Polanski should be judged only for his art; don't forget that Polanski is a survivor of his own brutal atrocities (evisceration of family by the Nazis, death of pregant wife by fanatical cult in the '70s). But I don't make these arguments because I don't think any of them lessen the transgressive wrongness of what he did.

But as long as we're dissecting the standing-O itself, I firmly believe the tremendous enthusiasm for Polanski -- yes, personally -- in the Kodak Theater that night was for his singular career as a director: Knife in the Water, Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown, Tess, all classics, none having won him an Oscar. The people on their feet are Hollywood types who know plenty about Polanski's mistake, more than any of us, but they felt impassioned enough about his art to rise to their feet. I don't think that makes all X-hundred of them immoral hypocrites. Hell, Marty Scorcese was standing and applauding, why? Because he's thinking, "Well, if I gotta lose to somebody -- this guy's as owed an Oscar as I am." Plus, as Steve Martin might say, he made a good movie everybody loved. They all applauded for simple, straightforward reasons, and I think they can all sleep at night having done so.

Bottom line: as a man, Polanski is a fugitive from justive, a convicted criminal. As an artist, he is an important director, long overdue an Oscar; and I would feel that way even if he were in jail right now. If I can hate Eminem's homophobic messages and borderline-criminal behavior and still feel the little twerp deserves a Grammy or an Oscar, I don't see why I can't enthusiastically rise to my feet when Polanski wins an Oscar for a film that's all about his vision. They were applauding Polanski, not just the movie, and there's nothing shameful about that, IMHO.

As far as what the woman he raped said, see my previous comments about how crimes can be seen as having been committed against society. I suppose some of the events of his previous life could be seen as mitigating; I don't see it that way however.

You don't really address my points, though; you're just restating yours more forcefully. You're saying that because he's such a great director that should make it easier for people to separate in their minds his achievements as a director and his achievements as a fugitive from justice, rather than explaining why such a distinction is as valid as the one between art and artist. I also can't believe that you aren't acknowledging the difference between someone who says hateful things and someone who has fled the country in tacit admission of a felony. You can loathe Eminem for the same reason he might hate you if you met: differing opinions. But loathing Polanksi has to do with how he has forfeited our respect by transgressing against a basic human law.

As far as shame goes, there was a time when respectable people avoided the society of criminals, to say nothing of not giving them awards and not giving them standing ovations. I kind of thought that was the whole point of shame. The people who stood and applauded may have had various motivations, but one thing they had in common was bad judgment.

Just to clarify the legal point: Polanski did not flee in "tacit admission of a felony." He plead guilty, and fled his sentencing when it looked like, god forbid, he might actually have to do some prison time for his crimes. So there is absolutely no question of his guilt, and there is no trial to be had - he's guilty, cut a plea deal, and hasn't done his time.

I don't buy the argument that the standing ovation was because he was so amazing, and they clappers so awed by him that it overwhelmed their disgust. If Scorcese had won, I suspect there would have been no standing ovation for him, despite his greatness. He was applauded because he is, I suspect, a noble figure in many people's minds: a fugitive artist who commited a "victimless crime" a la Lolita. The idea of powerful Hollywood directors drugging and raping young girls, whether on the casting couch or otherwise, is not so foreign to Hollywood as to seem truly criminal.

But yes, I would never argue they had no right to rise to their feet in praise of this renowned rapist. I just don't think it was Hollywood's finest hour.

And Mickey Mouse! That bastard should be rotting in jail too. "Steamboat Willie" indeed.

The idea of powerful Hollywood directors drugging and raping young girls, whether on the casting couch or otherwise, is not so foreign to Hollywood as to seem truly criminal. [...] I just don't think it was Hollywood's finest hour.

That's what I mean about poor judgment. Watching teh Oscars, I felt for the first time that Hollywood really is a very different place than the universe I inhabit. (And I don't mean that in a good way, like it's more glamourous than my world.) It didn't seem like a good PR moment for the industry.

Chris:

If you are going to use my line about Robert Goulet (especially since people seem to think it comedic genius, then you should at least cite your source!

;-)

BTW, my second choice would be Carol Channing.

David

O.K. - this is going to be a little harsh, but I hope you'll forgive the way I'm going to try one last time to drive my point home:

In the news today, Kirby Puckett's trial continues - he's accused of dragging a woman into a restaurant bathroom to sexually assualt her.

As a man, Kirby Puckett may well be convicted of assault, false imprisonment, and gross sexual conduct. But as an athelete, he'll always be a Hall of Fame baseball player.

For the same reasons as cited above, would you be pleased to see him receive standing ovations and future praise for his athletic achievements - particularly if he is found guilty but then flees the country to avoid punishment?

One could argue that we are too hard on all of the atheletes and artists who commit violence against women. Perhaps we should separate their artistic and athletic achievements from their crime and violence.

After all, what is a single woman's rape compared to a movie that sells millions of tickets? Or a single woman's sexual assualt when compared to an elegant batting stroke that led the Twins to a World Championship?

But I disagree. I think America constantly turns a blind eye to the criminal mischief of professional entertainers (whose crimes seem invariably committed against women). Whether a film director with a keen eye and a taste for 13-year olds and quaaludes, or a college football player who rape classmates - but score touchdowns, I say all are worthy of censure, and none deserve standing ovations and fawning praise.

When Polanksi takes responsibility for his actions, and takes his sentence like any normal person would be forced to do, I'll be ready to look at his movies. Until then, he's just another entertainer who used money and fame to excuse an inexcusable crime.

Just my two cents.

Okay! I give! Don't see the movie! Don't applaud the Oscar! I am not a member of polite society! And I'm a joke plagiarist to boot!

Sheez...crawling back into the hole I came out of....

Not enough! We won't relent until you recant your views on Eminem, too! Until you disavow Susan Sarandon! Embrace Mickey Mouse! Promise to never watch the Oscars again! Boycott people named Roman! Participate in an episode of Fear Factor! It is never enough!

. Sorry. Lost my head there for a minute. I'm O.K. now.

Hey everyone (and by everyone, I only mean the die-hards following this thread) - this is my last post for a while. The missus and I have been summoned to the hospital, where we will, if the labor gods are kind, emerge soon with a Jimpy Jr. in tow (think on that and fear).

Not that I wouldn't want to comment further from the delivery room, but ya' know - WiFi interferes with Fetal Heart Monitors.

Peace to you all! See you in a week or so!

congrats on jimpy junior!
--emily, but using chris's computer.

Geez, are there any single people on this blog, or am I the only Bridget Jones here ?

Yeah, good luck, Jim. From personal experience, I can say that going to the movies en famille will be only a memory for a while. Today we managed about 20 minutes of bend it like beckham before repeated screaming drove us to quit. Tonight, like all nights, is a blockbuster night...

If anyone's still on this, be it noted that Polanski was prepared to do some time under an in-the-works plea bargain - and then his lawyer overheard the judge in a country club locker room telling a friend he was going to give that "Hollywood asshole" the maximum 25 years. After much confering, and a confirmation that the judge had it in for him, Polanski went splitsville. Between 12-25 years (as a child molester, no less) at Folsom and spending the rest of your life in Paris, hmm....

That said, my highly unscientific poll at the Miramax post-Oscar party in LA indicates the ovation was highly spontaeneous, if not impulsive, and partly a reaction to the long-shot win, and someone - anyone - winning who was not Scorcese, because people felt he'd been overhyped. It's like, before anyone really started thinking they were applauding a molester, they were applauding a molester...

And it should also be noted that eagle-eyed couch potatoes agree the only reason Scorcese smiled as he joined in the ovation was... he realized there was a camera on him.

So, what was the buzz at the Miramax post-Oscar party? Was Harvey happy?

Harvey might have been happy, but this being Hollywood, Harvey mistrusts happiness.

I speculate - I don't know the man.