The Marty Show

Ellen was a horrible, horrible decision. Every joke she tried to make just fell flat, including everything from "vacuuming the front row" to "taking a picture of Clint". old-fashioned, and a major letdown after last year's Jon Stewart.

Of course, the evening's big disappointment was that Martin Scorsese did not join his fellow great directors -- Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles, Stanley Kubrick, Ernst Lubitsch, Fritz Lang -- who never won an Oscar in competition.

That's a great line. When Lubezki was robbed of the cinematography award, I figured at least the DP of The New World and Children of Men is in good company! I thought Pan's Labyrinth was the least deserving in an otherwise well-nominated category, though it deserved its other wins.

It was a jokeshow, plain and simple. I know, I know...every year, film fans scoff at the idea of the Oscars, quote all of the past mistakes Oscar has made, and still tune in anyway. But my God, no show in Oscar history has EVER been this dull. Ellen DeGeneres has to go down as the worst recent host of the Oscars, simply because she was so minimalist! At least David Letterman bombed in a memorable fashion. With Ellen, it was just "Meh."

That's how the whole show was. It seemed as if every winner was a lock (except for the surprising win by the delightful Alan Arkin...thank God "Little Miss Sunshine" got some recognition). The technical awards went, in my opinion, to the wrong candidates (how did Emmanuel Lubeszki NOT win for "Children of Men", which might just be the film of the decade, but that's a topic for another post; and why did Thelma Schoonmaker, one of the all-time great editors, get rewarded for her choppy, disjointed editing of "The Departed"?).

Which brings us to the main question of the night: how in the hell did "The Departed" win? It's not that "The Departed" is a bad movie...it's probably one of the better films of the last six or seven Best Picture winners (but what does that say?). But at least previous Best Picture duds like "Gladiator", "A Beautiful Mind" and "Crash" were (semi) original. "The Departed" virtually transposes everything the airtight plotting of "Infernal Affairs" to a Boston setting, does its best to screw up what worked in the original film, and ends up as nothing more than a mediocre-to-solid genre exercise with almost no emotional impact. I guess Hollywood is saying that it is so bereft of ideas that it feels the emblem of cinematic excellence is a remake that, let's be honest, doesn't expand (thematically or stylistically) in any meaningful way from its predecessor. But why say that in a year that gave us "Children of Men" (and I'm aware you're not gung-ho about that film, Mr. Emerson, mistaking as you do its long takes as technique for technique's sake). Or "Pan's Labyrinth". Or "Little Miss Sunshine". "Borat". "A Prairie Home Companion". Hell, even "The Black Dahlia", for all of its flaws, has more cinematic life and originality pulsing in it than "The Deprated".

But as with all things Oscar, it's more about packaging that merit. "The Departed" was very well-liked (largely by twenty-somethings who either hadn't seen "Infernal Affairs" or had deluded themselves into believing that Scorsese was adding something more to its story than mere Boston accents), it made a decent amount of money, and it had the hefty weight of Hollywood titans Jack Nicholson (representing the old guard) and Leonardo DiCaprio (representing the new guard) behind it, not to mention the sympathy vote for one of our greatest filmmakers (although of late, Scorsese has been given such a coast on that reputation that I'm beginning to wonder if it's more of a curse than a blessing). So it's easy to see why "The Departed" won. But ten years from now, film fans will look back at 2006 and scratch their heads, and they'll ask each other "What did people see in this?".

And ten years from now, millions will tune in to the Oscars and say "I just hope it's not as boring as that year Ellen hosted". I'm just not sure I'll be one of those millions.

The whole show lacked that magnetic oomph this year. I was disappointed in Ellen DeGeneres, and at the lack of a huge opening number. I like the spectacle, you see.

Forest Whitaker gave the most memorable speech, winning Best Actor for playing Idi Amin in "The Last King of Scotland." He broke all the rules -- getting so choked up at first that it seemed he might not be able to continue, and then reading his speech off a piece of paper.

Don't forget that he thanked God too. A lot as a matter of fact.

JE: Yes, but God was otherwise occupied with Jennifer Hudson. The Almighty had to remind her at the last minute to thank Jennifer Holliday, too.

If you ever see Michael Mann, please do me a favor and ask him why he chose to include a clip of Kubrick's Paths of Glory in that tribute to America.

JE: Good point! I guess technically it was an American picture (released by United Artists), but it was about France, even though everybody spoke English. Only Adolphe Menjou looked capable of speaking French. Certainly not Kirk Douglas...

Whitaker not only thanked God, but thanked him for giving him the movie, like God said, "Hey Forest," check out this screenplay!"

I don't know about your "A Best Screenplay winner always wins best picture" theory." It seems more like 50-50 to me. "Million Dollar Baby" lost to "Adaptation." "The Pianist" beat "Chicago." "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" beat "Gladiator."

When Schoonmaker won editing, however, I was pretty confident it would be Scorsese.

Mann's montage was utterly bizarre, a mismash of randomness, but a refreshing change of pace. In Memoriam, however, disappointed me (as I discuss further on my own blog, and I guess I'll discuss the rest there tomorrow after I go to bed..)

Oh, and you'll be happy to know that I put the Snow White-Rob Lowe travesty on my iPod so all my friends could watch on in horror during the commercial breaks.

I actually did not enjoy Michael Mann's little montage. It was choppy, random (as someone else mentioned), and some of the musical choices were just lazy (I was so confused when the Foo Fighters song played for all of 7 seconds and abruptly cut off).

I enjoyed Ellen somewhat, but I've always felt she was a little overrated. I guess I can describe it as, "It was good, BUT..." which is how I'd describe almost all the movies I saw in 2006. The Departed was good, BUT.... Pan's Labyrinth was good, BUT.... Little Miss Sunshine was good, BUT.... It was a year full of ALMOSTS for me.

For the first time, I watched the Oscars at a movie theater near Dallas, The Angelika. Ignoring the drunk old ladies in the row behind me who insisted on screaming and giving each other Oscars during the commercial breaks, it was enjoyable. Very interesting to be with a relatively vocal crowd for an occassion like that (applause for Scorsese and audible gasps and reactions with some applause for The Departed).

Since none of the Best Picture nominees inspired much passion (don't expect a "Crash"-lash" this year)...

It seems we have a Departed-lash on this page. I look forward to seeing Infernal Affairs, and I'm prepared to accept its superiority. While I think the Departed was not the best nominated film (like Roger, I preferred Babel, or Children of Men, actually) I think the ferocity of attacks against The Departed may come from the desire to knock down the film in any way in an effort to support the supremacy of Infernal Affairs. The Departed engaged the audience around me quite well, and there were strong groans of protest when Leo got popped in the head. A very emotionally involved audience indeed.

This all reminds me of seeing Fellowship of the Ring on opening day, with obvious Tolkien fans all around me. My reaction as the lights came up was "Wow - I really enjoyed that" while the "true fans" around me hooted in absolute indignation. Forget about the source material when you walk into a theater.

Oh Jim, you've fallen prey to the Rex Reed "my opinion is the 'audience's' opinion" style of film criticism, something that Roger always avoids (that's why I love his criticism so much.) "Future generations can look back at Oscar history," and say what you think to be true? Personally, I'm going to look back at 2006 as one of the few years when my favorite movie actually won best picture. And yes, I'm a guy in his mid-20s who didn't see Infernal Affairs, so the hell what? I saw about 80 movies this year, and I thought it was "Best Picture", not "Better Picture than the Original."
BTW, I am with you that Three Burials was last year's best movie.

Sure, it was dull, but aren't all Academy Awards shows for the most part? Have we ever seen an exciting one? I bitched about it, too, but we gotta have something to bitch about, it's part of the sporting aspect of it all. The montages — Errol Morris, Michael Mann (!), Nancy Meyers and the Cinema Paradiso guy — were all nice. And seeing the hugs that Coppola and Spielberg gave Marty was worth it, really. It was long overdue, and it was a nice capper to a "Meh" evening, as you said. By the way, why all the Sam Mendes hatin'?

First they mistake Penelope Cruz for Mexican when she's Spanish. Then they mistake "Infernal Affairs" for a Japanese film.
How can people so incompetent be hired as writers for the Oscars? Or maybe they just don't care?

Jeremy, actually "Million Dollar Baby" lost to "Sideways". "Adaptation", along with "Chicago", lost to "The Pianist".

I actually did not enjoy Michael Mann's little montage. It was choppy, random (as someone else mentioned), and some of the musical choices were just lazy (I was so confused when the Foo Fighters song played for all of 7 seconds and abruptly cut off).

I enjoyed Ellen somewhat, but I've always felt she was a little overrated. I guess I can describe it as, "It was good, BUT..." which is how I'd describe almost all the movies I saw in 2006. The Departed was good, BUT.... Pan's Labyrinth was good, BUT.... Little Miss Sunshine was good, BUT.... It was a year full of ALMOSTS for me.

For the first time, I watched the Oscars at a movie theater near Dallas, The Angelika. Ignoring the drunk old ladies in the row behind me who insisted on screaming and giving each other Oscars during the commercial breaks, it was enjoyable. Very interesting to be with a relatively vocal crowd for an occassion like that (applause for Scorsese and audible gasps and reactions with some applause for The Departed).

As other posters have said, the fact that "Children of Men," perhaps the greatest film of the decade, didn't win anything is perfectly in keeping with the academy's ignorance of truly great art. But it didn't even win cinematography--voted on only by cinematographers (who must have been jealous of a truly talented peer in Lubezki).

I enjoyed "The Departed" even though I agree that it's not a masterpiece. I was just silently thankful that "Babel", a movie I hated, didn't win.

Ellen brought her brand of "nice" to the Oscars. Anyone who was expecting something different - it was probably a snap back to reality. That's Ellen. I thought she was funny, but not hilarious. There were chuckles, and at times laughter, but no guffawing and none of it uproarious. Her whole psyche out bit about how easy it should be for them to do there thing in front of a million people --- lame.

I will add to the comments that Mann's montage made no coherent sense; choosing movies that in no way added to the supposed theme of the piece. At first I was like ooooh, Michael Mann, then I was like, huh? And the Nancy Meyers thing was nothing but trite.

It was a strange evening - no pieces of the presentation seemed to fit together to create any sort of momentum. The Eastwood/Morricone introduction and speech was incredibly awkward... anyone recall Lauren Bacall from last year? And for the love of God, we all have a fondness for the almost President Al Gore, so can we stop talking about him for more than 5 minutes!!! And can we all stop talking about how it's neither blue nor red, but green, somehow noting that it's anti-political every few minutes only makes it seem more political.

Seinfeld, Ferrell, Black, and Reilly thankfully added moments of pleasure for me in an otherwise tepid and obtuse telecast.

That strong, sharp snap you heard during the last half hour of the show was the Peter O'Toole limb I went out on breaking underneath me. I'm here to testify that telepathic concentration did not, in this instance, work to rearrange the letters on the winning ballot to form O'Toole's name. However, Whitaker certainly deserves the accolades-- and it's not his fault the movie he's in was only half-baked.

I thought the Jack Black-Will Ferrell-John C. Reilly number was very funny-- much funnier than anything Ellen came up with-- and I liked Mann's tribute to America and the Foreign Film tribute. And the Errol Morris's nominee roundup should be a recurring feature of all future Oscar shows.

Beauties on the red carpet were many-- Penelope Cruz, Reese Witherspoon, Kate Winslet, Beyonce and, yes, Jennifer Hudson (once she got rid of the Star Trek wings, anyway). In fact, several of us in my living room were anticipating (hoping for?) a spectacular wardrobe malfunction (or two) during he Dreamgirls song medley. But I think the woman who impressed me most, fashion-wise, was Meryl Streep, who looked great, even as she came to the show looking like a Topanga Canyon hippie matriarch. Zing! She made her anti-fashion fashion statement and looked great doing it.

Michael Heumann:

Children of Men's loss in Best Cinematography was not out of "jealousy" from other cinematographers. The American Society of Cinematographers just gave it their top honor a week ago. So I don't know how you can say that.

All Academy members are able to vote in all of the categories (except in the categories that require members to have seen all nominees). The cinematographers branch only had voting exclusivity in the nomination process.

Pan's Labyrinth won because it lost Best Foreign Language Film. The Academy wanted to award The Lives of Others so badly that they decided to give Pan's Labyrinth wins in the other categories. It didn't stand much of a chance in Original Screenplay, and it lost score because the Academy wanted to give SOMETHING to Babel.

As I said to friends last night, this is what happens when you let people who don't understand cinematography vote on the award.

And I almost forgot: Has the writer of the canned in-house announcer copy been fired yet, or maybe the producer who presumable approved it? The comment about The Departed being "the first Martin Scorsese movie with a plot," though perhaps adapted from comments the director himself has made in endless interviews, seemed extremely inappropriate, as well as patently false. (Who was Scorsese before tonight, Stan Brakhage?) But when America was informed, during the most international Oscar show in history, that Scorsese's movie was a remake of a Japanese gangster film, well, that's unacceptable. And Penelope Cruz is Mexican too, right?

Was anyone else nauseated by all the praise heaped on Al Gore? Whether global warming is happening or not, Al Gore is not some kind of savior. You'd think he cured AIDS and cancer.

Yes, they definitely overdid it with the Gore praise, and his winking "I'm about to announce something!" moment with Leo was very forced. The fact that the apolitical nature of global warming was mentioned *again and again* was probably a mistake. I agree with Gore on that, but really, are the people who think that it's a political issue going to be dissuaded by Gore et al. I'm not sure who to blame for this. I get that it's important to get the message out, and a lot of people are watching the Oscars who would probably be impressed that they are doing a green show...but maybe if they'd just mentioned that, and given a link to the suggestions, and moved on, they wouldn't have seemed so pushy and self-congratulatory.

The low point of the night was definitely Celine's singing--uh, why? But the entire Ennio Morricone speech was awkward, yes--it looked like everyone was shocked and unprepared for him to be delivering his acceptance speech in Italian. You've got to figure there's a better method than just having Clint awkwardly translate (seemingly from a teleprompter?).

I think Ellen was okay. I thought Jon Stewart last year was hilarious. The difference.

Oscars shows are never perfect. How could they be when so much time is spent opening envelopes? But this was the dullest in recent memory. Last year's show was pretty lively with John Stewart as host. Remember the mock campaign ads? And the two years when Steve Martin hosted were pretty memorable. Ellen Degeneres, who did a terrific job hosting the Emmys, bungled it badly, I thought, and I'm mystified why the Academy didn't ask Jack Black and Will Ferrell to share hosting duties? They were hilarious a couple of years back when providing lyrics to the music that tells long-winded winners it was time to move on, and were hilarious again last night. And instead of all those montages, I'd prefer more clips from the nominated films. This year, I liked how they had those involved in the nominated films offer observational voiceovers, but it might have been even more interesting if we could hear the nominees offer their (respectful) assessment of the competition. What does Martin Scorsese think of "Letters From Iwo Jima"? What does Clint Eastwood think of "The Departed"?

I thought the highligth of the show was Eastwood's presentation of the honorary Oscar to Ennio Morricone. I had heard that Scorsese and Brian DePalma would present it, but who else but Eastwood as the Man With No Name comes to mind when you think of Morricone's most famous compositions? Unfortunately, the montage that followed was disappointing. As you say, they didn't feature any music from "Once Upon a Time in the West," which I consider the maestro's masterpiece. I found myself yearning to hear just a little of "Man With A Harmonice" from that film, or maybe an excerpt from the magnificent "Ecstasy of Gold" from "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly."

I have no complaint about the awards themselves. I think "Letters From Iwo Jima" is indeed a "a Timeless Achievement in Cinema," but I can't quibble with the Academy's decision to honor a Scorsese film as the year's best, and Scorsese himself as best director. "The Departed" may not be a masterpiece, but at least it's a movie - A REAL MOVIE!!! - not like some other Best Picture winners I could name ("The English Patient" comes immediately to mind). I was also glad to see Alan Arkin pick up a long overdue Oscar, but watching Peter O' Toole lose for the eighth time, well, it was a little sad to observe his disappointment.

I made a point to see The Departed before seeing Infernal Affairs, and was still disappointed. I had no interest in Matt Damon's character at all. I thought most of the casting was lazy and uninspired, leading to mostly dull, walk-through performances. But I still can't generate much outrage. All of the movies that really inspired me this year, The Proposition, Pan's Labyrinth, Children of Men, etc., failed to make the final list, so it was a rather uninspriring competition for me.

And am I wrong or did screenwriter William Monahan fail to thank anyone involved in Infernal Affairs? It seems to me it should be a given that if you win for an adapted screenplay, you should note the creator(s) of the work you've based your off. Scorsese thanked Andrew Lau and his work as a director owes much less to the film, for better or worse, than Monahan's does to the screenplay. If I'm mistaken, I apologize to Mr. Monahan, but if I'm right, that was utterly classless.

I can't say I enjoyed either of the montages. They both came across rather random and thrown-together, although the footage itself looked better than the footage in the last couple of years.

Overall, another reminder why I keep promising myself to stop watching.

I was glad to see Marty win, even if it was bittersweet. Might have been for him too which is why he wasn't longwinded with his acceptance speech. Or maybe he thought he would be up there again in the next couple of years, so he didn't need to get everything out at once.

I thought Ellen wasn't bad and overall I thought the show was produced pretty well. Too many montages and what the hell with Celine?

I would be afraid if Jack Black and Will Ferrell co-hosted it, people would grow tired of them too. Best to keep people wanting more of them.

This whole thing about The Departed being an 'inferior' remake is getting tiresome. I'm a huge fan of Hong Kong cinema and have been since long before Jackie Chan, Stephen Chow, et al made it big in the West. Infernal Affairs is a good, but not great film. The Departed, IMO, works better. Also, Asian cinema, Hong Kong in particular, has borrowed ideas from Western films quite a lot.

But it's not as if it's the first time a remake has even won the Oscar. West Side Story, anyone? Musical remake of Romeo & Juliet. My Fair Lady? Musical remake of Pygmalion. Oliver! Musical remake of Oliver Twist. Marty was a remake of a tv film. Ben Hur was a remake.

Whine whine whine whine whine whine whiiiiiiine.

Personally it was a good show overall I thought…probably one of the more overall enjoyable in the last few years I’d say.

Only results that I disagreed with heavily were Pan’s Labarynth not winning best Foreign Langauge (hell, if I were deciding things it would have been best picture…although I can’t begrudge The Departed winning) and fucking *Happy Feet* winning best animated. I’m not sure why they decided to add the best Animated Feature category a couple years back if they’re not going to take it at least slighty seriously.

I also liked Ellen as host…you *know* they’re looking for the next Whoopi/Billy Crystal they can make a regular host. Chris Rock and Jon Stewart didn’t quite work out (I like Stewart, but he didn’t really fit)…I could see Ellen returning no problem though.

Hell…even the musical numbers were bearable this year! Well, except for Celine Dion of course.

Now I return you to your regularly scheduled bitching.

I enjoyed the show a lot even though I was disappointed that Pan's Labyrinth didn't win Best Foreign-Language Film and I thought it was really disrespectful that Scorsese's remake of the Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs was called a "Japanese" movie.

I liked the montage tribute to writers a lot, but I didn't think Mann's "American" montage was very good and I couldn't figure out why he used clips of movies made by British directors like Kubrick's and Ridley Scott. Still, the montages have long been my favorite parts of the show along with the Honorary "LIfetime" Oscar award and the tribute to the recently deceased. I prefer old Hollywood to current Hollywood, so I guess that's why I like all the nostalgia.

Nate: Though I preferred Monster House, it was a thrill to see George Miller, creator of The Road Warrior and Babe: Pig in the City, accepting an Oscar for a pretty wonderful movie in its own right. I'd be curious to know how awarding Happy Feet an Oscar is not taking the Best Animated Feature award seriously.

Did anyone else think it tacky in a funny way that they played a lullaby to get people to stop talking...? Like they're putting the audience to sleep. Hey! Let's award you and Oscar, then say you're boring as a human being. Classic. But tacky.

The Oscars and Hollywood are such a joke. Al Gore wins for political propaganda and then gets free air time to further put forth his politics. The funny thing is, like most of Hollywood, he is a big hypocrite. A story on the Drudge Report reported that Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service. Some of the films you mentioned above, John Ford and Howard Hawks films, were shunned by the Oscars and critics alike for the politics of its star, John Wayne. His films were lambasted as "propaganda" (the irony - wow) and "jingoistic" - euphemisims, really, for the distaste of his conservative politics. The Searchers was not even nominated for an award, let alone a win. It was not until the poor old Duke was dead, that some critics started to appreciate his work. Regular Americans, though, loved John Wayne [A 2007 Harris Poll of people's favorite stars today, had the Duke #3 despite, obviously, that he hasn't made a movie in 30 years]. He tried to show what was great and heroic about America. The Michael Mann montage in the Oscars did the opposite and it was a disgrace. I will never understand how people who live in a country that affords them the great luxury to freely make movies, would use that privilege to denigrate the source of that freedom. Think about it - you and Roger get paid to write about movies. How many places on this earth are people afforded the luxury to even watch movies let alone afford to pay people to write their opinions about them?? How many places freely allow people to create art in any way they wish w/o fear of censorship?? The answer on both accounts is very, very few. Hollywood repeatedly portends its disdain for censorship, but if you can't see the hypocrisy in Hollywood's treatment of Gore in contrast to Wayne, then I don't know what to tell ya. I wish someone would have the courage to make movies like the Duke again. But, 'That'll be the day.' Here's to the Duke. I miss him.

I've found that, when it comes to the Oscars, anything that initially seems like a "surprise" almost invariably feels predestined a few minutes later (or, at least, by the end of the evening). Come to think of it, I feel that way about life, too, but that's another matter.

I can't say I was surprised that "Pan's Labyrinth" didn't win foreign language film, because 1) it's one of the few categories where voters are required to actually see the movies and 2) "Lives of Others" -- being a serious political film (and a very good one) -- seemed more like the Academy's cup of tea. I was disappointed, though, because I thought "Pan" should have been the other foreign language film in the Best Picture category, replacing "Babel" alongside "Letters From Iwo Jima."

And Darren -- my point about "The Departed" is that we should take it for what it is: Nowhere near Scorsese's best work. In the context of time, I believe Scorsese's great movies are going to hold up (like John Ford's Westerns), despite their lack of Academy recognition for Scorsese himself. And I think the reputation of "Infernal Affairs" is going to increase over time. Yes, I do think "Infernal Affairs" is a better, more exciting (and complex) movie than "The Departed," but I think the latter was a good move for Scorsese to make. Now, I hope, he'll be able to get some money to make the more personal films he says he'd really prefer to work on.

Interesting theories, Aaron. But how do you explain that John Wayne won his Best Actor Oscar (for "True Grit" -- surely not one of his greatest pictures) in 1969, near the height of the anti-Vietnam War protests (and only one year after Wayne's big, pro-Vietnam War movie, "The Green Berets")? Duke Wayne won his Oscar before Kent State, before the Pentagon Papers were published, and before the secret bombing and invasion of Cambodia was revealed, but after strong anti-war sentiment had already prompted Lyndon Johnson to refuse to run for re-election. (John Ford, BTW, was a classic liberal Democrat for most of his career.) Surely the Hollywood establishment must have been predominantly against the war by the time they voted Wayne's Rooster Cogburn an Oscar -- during the Nixon administration. (Then he made a post-Watergate hit sequel in 1975, with that pinko Katharine Hepburn!)

I agree that Wayne's performance as Ethan Edwards in "The Searchers" still stands as one of the greatest (and most physically eloquent -- like dance) in film history. And I love him in "Rio Bravo," "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon," "Red River" and many others. But, as I pointed out, the Academy long overlooked westerns as mere genre films. Before "Dances With Wolves" (1990, which beat "GoodFellas," another genre picture) and "Unforgiven" (1993), the only Western to win a Best Picture Oscar was "Cimarron" in 1931-- not today considered one of the genre's pinnacle achievements.

I think there's a good argument to be made, if you look at Oscar history, that in the doc category the Academy tends to favor personal underdog stories of triumphs against the odds, and "issue" documentaries about the issues they feel are most important. (Sometimes I've felt like they were picking the issue over the films themselves.) Perhaps both those things figured into the case here: they saw Al Gore as the "underdog" making a comeback (even though he's not running for office) and global warming as even more important than the war in Iraq or child molestation by priests or fundamentalist Christian camps for children run by Evangelicals. Come to think of it, "Inconvenient Truth" was most likely the least political of all the nominees. Me, I would have chosen "51 Birch Street" and "The Bridge" as better movies than "Inconvenient Truth" (which was way too much of a Gore hagiography in my opinion; I wish it had just stuck to the stats).

But I'm unclear about your objections to the Gore doc. Are you saying you think "Inconvenient Truth" shouldn't have won because it's bad science or bad filmmaking bad politics (or all or none of the above)?

You're correct that American filmmakers have the right to criticize the free society that allows them the freedom to do so. Isn't that the point? What good is a right to free speech if you don't exercise it when you feel you have something to say? Take issue with what they're saying, but to claim that they're saying it because they have the right to say it that they wouldn't have somewhere else isn't much of an argument. Our rights mean nothing if we don't use them. I just hope the rich Hollywood stars and the corporations that hire them are paying their taxes (and not using loopholes and off-shore strategies to avoid them). That's the price we all pay for the social and economic stability and freedom the government is charged with guaranteeing. These folks have indeed made a lot of money from operating in a relatively open and affluent society. In other countries, they would never have had the opportunity to make so much money. Those opportunities do not come for free.

Jim, if future generations look back at this year's Oscars and say anything, it'll probably be something like "Oh, there goes the Academy again, rewarding an artist for a body of work instead of the one at hand." The same thing they would have been saying (will have been saying?) if Peter O'Toole had won for "Venus."

Every year I watch the Oscars, every year they're boring -- this year probably was more that way than normal -- and then the next year I watch them again. Let's face it, y'all -- as regards the Oscars, methinks we all protest too much.

Thanks Jim for your response. Jim are you seriously contesting that Wayne was despised and attacked his whole career by Hollywood and critics alike for his politics??? C'mon man, that's pretty indisputable. You make it sound like I am spinning conspiracy theories or something. In Roger Ebert's interviews with him, Wayne and Ebert both agreed he was unfairly treated. And yeah, sure, they finally gave him an Oscar when he was ten years from death, 50 pounds overweight, and doctors had ripped out one of his lungs b/c of cancer. It was a career/sympathy Oscar, much like Marty's, b/c I'm sure people felt bad for the way he was treated and how severe his health was becoming. Your point about Westerns in general is a good one, but that does not change the fact that Wayne was making some of the best movies irrespective of genre, and yet received little or no credit from critics, again, primarily, due to his politics. I mean c'mon, Jim, doesn't that make you angry especially since you have been as big a defender of the Searchers as anyone. Many critics today still attack it and hate it as you have pointed out in some of your posts. You may not sympathize w/ Wayne's politics but surely you can sympathize w/ his circumstances as a matter of integrity and freedom of expression. And I agree w/ your point about the Inconveinent Truth and Gore's hagiography. My point was that Hollywood fawns over his movie and others b/c of their affinity for its politics, while Wayne's movies in the past were ignored or denigrated b/c his politics were iconoclast in liberal Hollywood. It smells of hypocrisy. I wasn't alive during Vietnam, I am a 22 year old kid, college student. But I lament the fact that I have to watch the movies of that age, Wayne's movies which like you I endear, in order to gain an appreciation of great film. Because in comparison to that period, I don't see much great film being made today, nor did I see much great film on display at the Oscars, and your points about Hawks and Ford made me miss Wayne even though he died before I was even born. That was all I was trying to say.

cinebeats:
Interesting that you should call the Academy/telecast producers out on mistaking The Departed for being a remake of a Japanese movie, and then you lump Kubrick and Ridley Scott with the British directors. Kubrick was an American who merely preferred living and working in the U.K. His movies were also still financed by American investors. Scott may hail from the U.K., but his movies are Hollywood movies.

I appreciate what you're saying, Aaron. And, no, I'm not in any way denying that Wayne was a major political figure, and one about whom many people had strong opinions -- for and against. He was very politically outspoken, and turned himself into the embodiment of conservatism in the Nixon era (and when Reagan was governor of CA). So, he he did become a hugely polarizing symbol. (Today, the Orange County airport is named after him!)

I just wanted to make the point that I don't think Hollywood politics were the main reason, or at least not the only one, that he didn't get an Oscar before 1969. Like Cary Grant (another non-Oscar winner), a lot of other actors (mistakenly, I think -- but the actors are the ones who decide the acting nominations) thought Wayne was just a "movie star" and that he "just played himself." OK, to some extent that's true, in that he wasn't a chameleon, but that doesn't diminish him as a great movie actor. (On the other hand, Laurence Olivier may have been a great stage actor, but he was rarely any good in movies, with a few exceptions. He should hope his reputation does not rest on his Oscar-winning movie "Hamlet," "The Boys From Brazil" and the Neil Diamond remake of "The Jazz Singer"!)

I think it's because John Wayne made so many genre pictures (concentrating on Westerns and war movies -- just as Grant made many romantic and screwball comedies that people dismissed as fluff) that mainstream Hollywood didn't take hims seriously as an actor worthy of an Oscar. They belatedly attempted to make up for it -- ironically, at a time when his personal politics were more divisive than ever.

Most of our greatest directors and actors never won Oscars -- or (as was the case with Grant and Barbara Stanwyck, the two greatest movie actors of the sound era, in my opinion) they were given honorary Oscars late in their lives. Peter O'Toole got his in 2003.

Jim,

I'm glad, for your ego's sake, you were able to play off Scorsese's win as if it were a sympathy award, the likes of which the academy could dole out because of a best picture list of mediocres. But you're way off.

Did it strike you yet that perhaps the reason people love it alongside critics wasn't just a circle jerk aimed at Scorsese? That, perhaps, most of the public saw an astoundingly fun movie, and the critics saw a movie great for its capacity to combine popular appeal and the brilliance of the kind of themes Scorsese is masterful at implementing?

Fei: thank you for your explanation of the voting process for the awards. I was, of course, being facetious when I suggested that the academy voted against "Children of Man" out of jealousy--but my point, I think, is a good one: good movies, really good movies, rarely get recognized for their brilliance. Look at Peter O'Toole, for example.

Brendan: No, even my ego isn't so big that it got in the way of my seeing what you're saying. But I'm belittling the Academy's selection process, not Scorsese. I'm talking about the Oscars, not about whether "The Departed" was popular or entertaining or critically acclaimed -- all of which are irrelevant to whether a picture wins an Oscar or he would have won for "Taxi Driver" or "GoodFellas" or some other movie. In fact, I've never thought the best movie of the year won an Oscar (well, maybe "Unforgiven") and I don't think it happened this year, either. (If "Pan's Labyrinth" had been nominated for Best Picture, that would have been another matter -- but at least the Oscar voters didn't nominate "Dreamgirls"!) I've always said Scorsese deserved to win, even if it's for a job-for-hire and not for one of his personal-best pictures.

I'm HAPPY that Scorsese and "The Departed" won (which is why I felt I could afford a little joke to put the Oscars in perspective). I admit I would have been pissed off at some of the alternatives. But Scorsese's films have been more important than the Oscars for many, many years. It's great he got some Academy recognition, but years from now (even next year), nobody's going to remember Martin Scorsese because he won an Oscar. Like the other non-Oscar-winners I mentioned (from Hitchcock to Kubrick to Altman), they're going to remember him for his films, Oscars or no.

As it turns out, "The Departed" was Scorsese's top-grosser and got good reviews. But that wouldn't have mattered to the Oscar voters in other years, when (as Scorsese, screenwriter Monahan and producer Graham King have said), they would never have expected to have been nominated by the Academy.

Since before the film was released, Scorsese and the "Departed" crew sought to present it as a straight-out commercial picture, not an Oscar-bait "prestige" picture like Scorsese's last two, "Gangs of NY" and "The Aviator." There's another story about it in today's LA Times, where Scorsese himself says: "Ultimately, if this wasn't … in the cards, that's life. The thing is I got to make the films that I wanted to make. 'Mean Streets,' 'Taxi Driver,' 'Raging Bull,' 'Last Temptation of Christ,' 'GoodFellas.' On this one, let's just relax and make as good a film as we can."

The "unassuming" nature of the movie proved to be part of its appeal, according to the LAT:

[Quote;] And unlike the makers of "Dreamgirls," who touted that film's award credentials long before the movie debuted, King and other people involved in "The Departed" rarely talked of the movie's potential for winning anything but moviegoers' affections.

"I think it was just a decision to let the movie speak for itself, and fortunately we're in a position where we have a movie that can speak for itself," screenwriter Monahan said a few minutes before the Oscar ceremony started.

King said his first priority was to ensure that "The Departed" would succeed as a crowd-pleasing hit.

As the film's awards prospects brightened, the normally chatty Scorsese turned into a media recluse, declining scores of interview requests.

It was a 180-degree turn from the "Gangs of New York" awards drive, one of the most aggressive campaigns in recent Academy Award history.... [end quote]

Does anyone else think that Jack Black should host the Oscars next time? He would bring an awesome amount of energy to the proceedings!

Thanks for the correction, Eric. I was remembering Kaufman's win for "Eternal Sunshine," which won the same year as "Million Dollar Baby," but in the other category. I do remember when a lot of people thought MDB would win, though, even though Sideways seemed to me to have it in the bag. I guess that's what posting at 2am gets you...

As is the case in most years, I didn't see all the nominated films. But of the films I did see -- Sunshine, Departed, Babel -- I wouldn't call any of them the best picture. Don't get me wrong -- I'm a film fan, and I was quite happy to see Scorsese win (and overjoyed to see Alan Arkin take the statue home, even though I preferred Mark Wahlberg's performance). But the best film I saw last year -- United 93 -- wasn't even nominated, and that's often the case. (For instance, can you say: Requiem for a Dream?)

Jim,

Thank you for the extensive response. I apologize, I didn't mean to sound too aggressive, I simply recalled what you said in your first review of The Departed, where you collected negative reviews from around the country.

It also wasn't until after my post tonight that I read your much more favorable second-time-around review of The Departed. And so I built up the impression, as I read, that you were undercutting the film in this article. My apologies, again.

I certainly agree that the Oscars are no means of judging the lasting effect of films or filmmakers. There are films whose influence or flawlessness would nonetheless leave them no place on the list of best picture nominations. Any number of Robert Altman movies, for example, or the vast list of unmentioned foreign films each year. But you know that.

My point in mentioning the popular and the critical acclaim was simply that it seems there's a deal of disagreement with your claim that The Departed is not among his timeless works (even if it was made with no direct intention of being as such). I do realize film reception doesn't impact the Oscars, generally speaking.

I appreciate how you put the Oscars in perspective for people who perhaps don't see the flaws inherent in any awards ceremony which chooses a single 'best piece of art' per category, much less the flaws present in this one. Anyway, again, my apologies for being brash.

Fei - I've always personally considered Kubrick to be more of a British director instead of an American one so apologies if what I said bugged you. I was just tossing out things that crossed my mind while I was watching the show and I thought that the Kubrick clip seemed weird and really out of place in the montage as did Scotts. I should have said "British films" instead of "British directors" because that’s what I was honestly thinking even if I was still wrong. I didn't realize Paths of Glory & Blade Runner were considered purely American/Hollywood productions. My bad! Thanks for the info.

Thankfully I'm not producing a multimillion dollar Oscar show that's shown around the globe and making mistakes about the origins of the Oscar wining film... now that would be really bad, but I'm just a film fan commenting on a blog post who has learned that 1) she should not comment in someone's blog in the morning unless she's had at least 2 cups of coffee and 2) she should make sure that she's proofread her comments before posting them.

The core of what the Oscars are about is the people contributing to great film. Between the opening, the comedy bit with Farrell, montage, montage, montage and Dion, that time could be found for people to give thanks. It is such an honour and dream for the winners that we should focus on them. Take away a three minute segment and you give 6 people the time to actually deliver their speeches.

I really feel for the groups where there are three people accepting and each are holding a piece of paper, presumably their acceptance. One person gives thanks and the music swells. The others are ushered off from what might be their once in a life-time highlight.

Furthermore, these are jobs (as Harrison Ford would say). The sound editor has as much work to do as the best actor in terms of creating the best work of their profession.

Here, here, Jim,

Pan's Labyrinth over Babel. I agree one hundred percent. Heck, I would have preferred Guillermo Del Toro over two or three of the other nominees. Though I also saw The Lives of Others and am completely content with that winning, because it was magnificent.

Aaron, I've also been reconsidering the Michael Mann segement based on everyone's comments here, and my own. Maybe showing the hypocrisies of Hollywood is exactly what he was trying to do. Showing all of the films that Hollywood has made that don't glorify what America is in a segment that was supposed to show how wonderful they are. It would have been a big pat on the back for them if Mann had actually pieced something together that did what they wanted it to (bloating their egos even more; it would have been more about them than this wonderful country of ours). Hollywood okayed movies about the KKK under a good light, and I'm glad that Mann had the nerve to remind them. My problem wasn't in the thematics, it was the fact that it felt piece-mealed together; lacking clarity and concinnity; maybe that's how he was able to get it past the censors.

Looking over this comments list again, I realize I made another error. Thanks to John C, not Eric. No thanks to Eric at all! (Thanks for your patience, Eric.)

But unlike in the case of my Oscar history screw up (and who can even remember what won this year?), I'm not entirely to blame this time. I'm accustomed to the poster's name being above his or her comments, and the line that separates the post from the author—but not the author from the next post—doesn't help matters.

Now I'm going to go make sure I don't have the same thing going on on my blog!

I've been meaning to get ahold of the Mann montage to figure out if the randomness is part of its point. Either way, it was so unexpected and different that I enjoyed that they tried to do something other than the same boring stuff.

In Memoriam, however, was very disappointing. I'd rather have the ceremony go longer than have such a skimmed over montage with no Altman clips.

Ellen wasn't awful or great. She just played it safe, which is what I expected from her.

My feelings about the Oscars are very polarized. For one, I'm all for honoring great films. And if an award show is a good approach to putting a big public spotlight on it, great.

However, I just don't care for the ceremonies. This year didn't change my feelings. The whole thing feels a little too masturbatory.

I liked most of Ellen's jokes, but perhaps she's a little too edge-less. At least John Stewart last year had some jabs toward Hollywood.

The fawning over Al Gore was pretty pathetic, and I think Gore himself noticed this. I'm all for environmental changes, but it just seemed like everyone was putting the former VP on a pedestal as opposed to pushing the issue itself.

I was stunned when Pan's Labyrinth (my choice for the year's best film) didn't win Best Foreign Film. It may not be a socially or politically significant film, and it isn't a heavy drama or epic (at least not in the same sense as Titanic) that the Oscars constantly go nuts over. But it was a magical film told in a beautiful, unique way.

The main reason I'm glad The Derparted won Best Pic is because it's a thriller, one of the many genres- like comedy, horror, and science-fiction- that get ignored by the Oscars. The Departed may not be Marty's best film, but it is an exceptional thriller.

I'm just happy 'The Oscars' hasn't sunk to the level of the Grammy's; they're at least in the ballpark when it comes to awarding the best films of the year.

Jim, your list of great directors never to win Best Director is very incomplete: Fellini, Lumet, Altman, Kurosawa, Cassavettes, Lynch, Bergman, Preston Sturges and Leone all have a combined 0 Oscar wins as well.

In fact, I've never thought the best movie of the year won an Oscar (well, maybe "Unforgiven")...

That's the one I always come back to as well, Jim (that and Schindler's List. Like you, I don't often think that the "best picture" ever really wins, but I can at least look at those two years and say, "Oscar got it right this time."

Kurosawa... no Oscar??? Heresy. Bergman... just as bad... but Oscar? Who needs it with movies like those.

Honestly Damian,

Most often the best picture of the year doesn't even get nominated.

I currently have 'The Departed' ranked in the 2nd tier of Scorsese's work (after Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and GoodFellas) along with 'Alice Doesn't Live Here', King Of Comedy, 'Last Temptation', and Age Of Innocence. I do however consider it his best (non-documentary) work since GoodFellas and, other than Children Of Men and Letters From iwo Jima, it was my favourite film of the year. Definitely not the best picture of the year, but a solid choice imho considering the academy's past record. I suppose only time will tell whether or not it stands up to the big four of Scorsese's masterpieces. As for his win being bittersweet that's utter poppycock. Scorsese deserved the win more than anyone nominated both for the year and his career, and I'll be damned if I'll take someone who's obsessed with "contrarianism" and who's co-favourite Scorsese film is the godawful "New York, New York" seriously in telling me otherwise.

Even though I felt that "The Departed" was nothing special, there is one point that one of the previous bloggers raised that I agree with: it is encouraging to see "The Departed" win Best Picture, because the film is just a genre exercise, yet the Academy seems to be rewarding the quality and style they see in that genre exercise. Far too often in the past, great films, the films that really endure, have been ignored by the Academy because they aren't superficially prestigious enough to merit recognition. "Fargo" losing to "The English Patient" is a perfect example. So while I may not have been enamored with "The Departed", at least it's a genuine rough-and-tumble movie, not an awards-grubbing vehicle.

Incidentally, I have only agreed with the Academy's Best Picture twice in the past twenty or so years, and they happen to be my two favourite films: "Schindler's List", in 1993, and yes, despite all of the hate for it, "American Beauty" in 1999 (and by the way, Jim, the director's name is spelled Mendes, not Mendez...ditto for John G. Avildsen, not Avildson). I have also loved some other Best Picture winners, such as "Unforgiven" and even "Forrest Gump", but I felt that there were others in that year that were even more deserving.

Sonny:

You're wrong. New York, New York rocks.

-- God

P.S. Did anyone else not like Pan's Labyrinth that much? Still, GdelT is such an awesome uberhispanogeek that he should've gotten the Oscar by default.

I'm getting in late on this--Phillip Kelly summed up the Mann thing pretty well. I thought it was kind of mediocre as a piece of work but was the most political thing in the show in it's jaundiced view of America in films. Many of you refer to it as a tribute to American films when I thought it was supposed to be America as represented in film. Pretty different but I may have misinterpreted the intro.

Regarding the rest of the telecast, the Black/Ferrell thing was awesome in my opinion and not just because it was so funny and so old school show biz. The fact is, they also blew away those Dream Girls with their singing ability. I don't think one person here has mentioned it but....that Jennifer Hudson doesn't sing that well. Yes, she's big and bold and seems like a very nice person but hit a note once in awhile! I admit I didn't see the movie and I know live performances can go wrong but I've heard her at least four times including in a clip from the film and every time I kept searching for a tune in there. I sure don't wonder why she didn't win that music show--what's it called? If this is the new Aretha Franklin or Gladys Knight then I mourn for the music industry.

Regarding Ellen DeGeneres: I didn't think she was great but I do have to wonder if the Hollywood types have felt the past hosts were a little too sharp in their needling. I can't really blame them if they get tired of being the butt of jokes 365 days a year on Leno/Letterman, etc. and decided "Hey, this is our night." I don't mean to undermine anyone's fun but I'm not sure how much of some industry's awards night should be directed at those outside the room. We're just a bunch of voyeurs without a tux or rehab appointment peeking in the window and they know the ratings are going to be huge no matter what they do.

N. Farias: God makes a worthwhile point, and in this instance I'm with Him: "New York, New York" is an unheralded masterpiece.

God also loves "Pan's Labyrinth," and He's right about that, too. I'm sure I saw an ad blurb to that effect.

Sure, "Marty won for The Departed???" is gonna sound weird ten years from now, but it's still not in the same ballpark as "Lee Marvin won for Cat Ballou???"

I wouldn't wish a festival of Oscar winners on my worst enemy. There are only two Oscar winners in my personal Top 100 (Rocky and Lawrence of Arabia) whereas Oscar has seen fit to lavish its top prize on some of the very worst movies I have ever been forced to suffer through (American Beauty, the worst anything I have ever seen/heard/read/eaten/tripped over tops the list, but Crash, Forrest Gump, and Ordinary People are all nearly as wretched.)

Personally, I like it better when the Oscar goes to the worst film of all the choices. I got huge laughs at Crash's win last year, and would have gotten more giggles if Babel had snagged the honor this year.

Oscar is all about the sanctifiction of middlebrow mediocrity, and it always has been. The Academy generally does best when it just picks the best piece of popcorn entertainment (Rocky, Lord of the Rings, etc.) and does its worst when it selects "important" films. So I guess that makes The Departed a respectable enough pick, even if I thought it was just OK.

I have a theory concerning the choice of Ellen to host the Oscars. I figure it was the academy's way of showing that it is not anti-homosexuality, a way to patch things up after the Brokeback snub. I am sure that I am not the only one who thinks this and it has probably been published somewhere but to my suprise it has not been brought up in this forum.

As for Ellen's performance, I can't understand why anyone would be dissapointed with it. I can understand being dissapointed with the choice of host but the peformance itself seemed to me like typical Ellen, no better or no worse than usual.

The biggest problem with the show wasn't the winners, the host or the speeches. It was simply too darn long, especially for those of us on the East Coast that had to wait until after midnight to hear most major awards. How to shorten it?
1. Shorten the pre-show segment from 30 minutes to 10. I don't care about the fashion, but I know a lot of people do. Still, 30 minutes of cliched banter isn't needed.
2. Cut all those meaningless montages. What was the point of the ones of "American" films and films about writers? Cut those. But I would like longer clips of the nominees, rather than just a few seconds. I suppose the one of foreign films made more sense, but I could do without that, too.
3. Subtitles for people giving prewritten speeches in other languages. What a momentum-killer.
Other thoughts:
1. Loved the dance troupe. Cool idea and, more importantly, the segments were BRIEF.
2. I thought Ellen did a good job, about as good as Jon Stewart and light years better than Chris Rock.
2. That said, pay whatever it takes to get Jerry Seinfeld to host next year.
3. Tell the audience to stop that unseemly applause during the "In Memorium" section. It's like an instant Nielsen rating for dead people.
4. "The Departed" was compteting against the other nominated films, not against "GoodFellas," "Raging Bull" or "Taxi Driver." So people should stop saying, "How could Scorcese win for 'The Departed'"?

N. Farias, I'm with you on Pan's Labyrinth. It was a very disappointing movie. I had no problem discerning what Del Toro was trying to do with the movie, I just think it wasn't done well. There was waaaay too much time spent on The Captain at the expense of Ofelia. Easily one of the most overrated films of the year...along with Little Miss Sunshine. How it won original screenplay, when it was essentially a 100 minute (bad) sitcom truly boggles the mind, but whatever. (That's right. I didn't like Pan's Labyrinth or Little Miss Sunshine. I hope JE doesn't ban me from the blog. haha)

Alan Arkin getting a "lifetime" award wasn't too bothersome. I would've given it to Jackie Earl Haley, but Arkin is always great so it's about time he finally won.

As usual, much of what I thought deserved to win wasn't even nominated so there wasn't much for me to really root for. Of the Best Pic noms, The Departed would've gotten my vote so I'm pleased it won, I suppose.

The most egregious mistake has to be the Cinematography award, though, as has been mentioned. Even people I knew who didn't like the movie at all, still marveled at its technical brilliance. The art work and make-up on Pan's Labyrinth were incredible, but Children of Men was a technical masterpiece. It might have been the true Best Picture of the year, too. I still haven't decided.

Hey, Jim --

When are Asian Americans going to get a presence at the Oscars (or in Hollywood in general)?

Each year, the academy hypes how multicultural the awards are, but that multiculturalism generally overlooks Asian Americans. Yet, Asian Americans are equal to or outnumber some minority groups that seem to get better representation. What gives?

Infernal Affairs is a mediocre film at the very best. To call The Departed a remake or a localization of it is not only reductionist but pretty unfair to The Departed, which is pretty much a better picture in every single way. The notion that the American version or the remade version of a film is inherently inferior is one that I thought Roger Ebert was smart enough to avoid. Also I'm questioning the trumpeting of Babel, apparently in Morocco kids are really dumb and shoot rifles at buses and illegal Mexican immigrants take their employer's children over the border with them; also Japanese schoolgirls have a proclivity to flash men and shove their hands down their pants. I didn't know people did these things until Babel was brave enough to teach me!

I was one of the few people at this site who liked Babel (quite a lot) but Jared's post helped show me the error of my ways. See, I thought the characters were individuals. I didn't realize that the Japanese girl was just a stereotype of all deaf, motherless, Japanese schoolgirls. This puts it in a new light.

"To call The Departed a remake or a localization of it is not only reductionist but pretty unfair to The Departed"

No, it's perfectly fair. No matter how much you prefer Departed over IA, (which is perfectly reasonable), you can not act as if the former doesn't owe something to the latter.
And, (this is not open to debate), The Departed IS a REMAKE of Infernal Affairs.

The characters in the movie were individuals, really, did they even have names? I think Brad Pitt's character might have.

Seriously, I wanted to kick that fucking Japanese girl in the ass for all her whining about her troubles. Who the hell isn't sexually frustrated in their mid teens, deaf and motherless or not?

ChanseyWMU,

Exactly. You understand the difference between an ethnic stereotype and a universal condition. If the movie didn't work for (most of) you, that's valid. I just don't think the intent of the film was about "types", even though the lack of information was intentional. The Brad Pitt character had a name and was played by a well-known actor because he was the American and therefore the surrogate for us. I know a lot of you are rolling your eyes saying "Yeah, yeah, we get it!" but many of the posts here simply don't match the movie I saw. I'm at least glad to hear some good things about Schindler's List because I had begun to think that the very hint that a film might be trying to address big issues head on was a complete turn-off to everyone here. I'm not saying Babel is Schindler's List nor that broad and global generally trumps intimate and local as a way of addressing issues but just that the occasional "important" movie, well-made as I happen to think Babel is, is actually a change of pace these days. I absolutely agree that the Oscars give such films too much weight, though.

Jared you act as if you've seen Infernal Affairs, but that can't be,or you'd know that Scorsese's version was almost an exact re-shoot. Calling it an adaptation is a stretch--if it were a written work we'd call it a translation, from Chinese to English, because other than the language, and chopping out about half of it, there was no difference whatsoever.

I'm not saying your wrong to prefer The Departed, everyone likes movies for their own reasons and it's impossible to gainsay that, but to state that Scorsese did anything artistic or creative whatsoever with his film is objectively preposterous. It's akin to crediting Peter Jackson with writing LotR. Peter Jackson made a film adaptation of a novel, nobody in their right mind disputes that--Scorsese did far less than even that; he made a film adaptation of a film.