So with the nominees we had for Best Picture and Director, with Condon blanked out, and Eastwood nominated but like Spielberg in 2005 with MUNICH, not a serious candidate for contention, Scorsese's win was inevitable.

Certainly I liked THE QUEEN, but Capo is right: Its a very nice TV drama released in theatres. Plus, Stephen Frears didn't impress me enough, nor most voters it seems.

Inarritu did a really admirable autuer work with BABEL(almost a Michael Mann-ish effort), but that movie has struggled throughout the awards season. Its probably got as many defenders as it does enemies. While some people who considered it to be a socially concious global drama, others thought it was pretentious Oscar bait that reeked of the bullshit win that CRASH got last year. The chips were stacked against BABEL.

I don't know how to grade Eastwood fairly with LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA. If someday, he would sit back down and complete a proper editing job on that film, we may very well have the best movie of 2006 on our hands. Until then, its like trying to make a palm reading of the truncated theatrical edit of Sam Fuller's THE BIG RED ONE. Admirable, but you know this version is just a cocktease.

Then there was Paul Greengrass. Out of the Best Director Oscar nominees, he's my personal pick to win for 2006, followed by Scorsese and then Inarritu. Greengrass was able to possibly re-define what a "docu-drama" movie is with UNITED 93, and that's what seperates the special directors from the rest: The special filmmakers re-event perceptions of cinema.

But he never had a chance to win on sunday. Because Academy voters were still afraid of watching a rather stark movie on the 9/11 attacks(and not the feel-good numb shots of say Oliver Stone's WORLD TRADE CENTER), many of them admittedly didn't watch UNITED 93. So unfair. Plus, the Screen Actors Guild(SAG) did its very best to try to bury the movie at the awards season because Greengrass didn't hire union actors. So while UNITED 93 never got a Best Picture nomination, it earned enough respect with several critics and voters to gain at least a Best Director nod for Greengrass.

So basically, Scorsese's win was foreseen when the Oscar nominations were announced. His DGA award sealed the deal.

Thing is folks, if the world was just and righteous, Scorsese would have won 3 Best Director Oscars: TAXI DRIVER in 1976, RAGING BULL in 1980, and GOODFELLAS in 1990. But that didn't happen. I'm happy that Scorsese won his Oscar finally, but most of all I'm pleased he won for THE DEPARTED instead of the editing-mess GANGS OF NEW YORK and THE AVIATOR. Surely if Marty had won for those latter two, that win would have been totally seen as a pity Oscar.

It is not unusual that the Academy gives "make up" awards to deserving actors and directors. I remember in the early seventies Dustin Hoffman's brilliant performance as Ratso Rizzo was passed over when John Wayne won for playing the same character he'd played for 50 years. The differenc was Wayne had never won and he was dying of lung cancer. Likewise Al Pacino was passed over for his early work.

For me the most striking thing about the Scorcese moment was that the award was given to him bu FFC, Spielberg and George Lucas. All four of these men really reinvented American film in the early seventies, when they were considered rebels and outsiders. Now they represent the establishment.

One side comment...whats with Lucas? He looks like he has been in an eating contest with Al Gore. Actually he is starting to look like Jar Jar Binks.

Just wondering - not to get off topic. But wouldn't Hoffman's role as Rizzo have been a supporting role to Jon Voight in Midnight Cowboy? Maybe Hoffman was the lead. He was undoubtedly very good in the film.

I'm sure John Wayne was the sentimental choice that year, but was he dying at that time. I thought he died around 1980 although he may have had cancer for a longer period.

George Lucas has looked like a Fat Panda for years upon years. A fortune of millions upon millions from STAR WARS merchandising has made him very content.

For years, this was my dad's favorite gripe about the Oscars! He would hold this up as an example of how unfair they were, especially since Hoffman had played the innocent Benjamin in The Graduate and then done Rizzo, such differing roles.

The big one for me was Russel Crowe getting best actor for The Gladiator over Tom Hanks in Castaway. I feel like there are dozens of actors that could have played Crowes part but I don't know any who could have kept an audience interested with nobody other than a volleyball to talk to. I felt like the academy just didn't want to give Hanks yet another award for some reason. Maybe I'm just looking into it too much.

Blibble, you have a good point. Hanks portrayal was quite challenging. Crowe's was less acting than just being himself.

...though there were no telephones in Gladiator.

Not sure about his performance being just "himself" either, but it's a tough call between him and Hanks for Castaway. I think Hanks held the film together really well, but Crowe's physical presence also made Gladiator.

If Crowe would have been inadequate in Castaway, Hanks could never have played Maximus.

I agree Capo, you couldn't switch Hanks and Crowe in the two roles but I feel like there are many more actors that could play Crowe in Gladiator, but I don't feel there are many, if any that could play the role of the Castaway.

That's just my opinion however. I would never say my opinion is the right one when it came to movies because anyone and everyone loves/hates every movie or actor.

The reason why Hanks lost was because he already owned two Best Actor Oscars.

Besides, in typical Academy fashion, Crowe's win for GLADIATOR was a response to him losing for THE INSIDER back in 1999.

Anyway, what blibblebabble is trying to say, I understand. Hanks was *acting* and making a rather intimate, and in retrospect, a very awkward sexual tale to give to the psychiatrist years later. Crowe in GLADIATOR was using his rugged charisma in a movie star coasting sort of fashion.

Either performance could have won and I wouldn't have complained but that's just me.

But on topic with this thread, the AMPAS has made YouTube take down the Oscar clips, including Scorsese's triumphant moment.

Boo!

Blibble, there is nothing but opinions, in this life.

This one's working, at least for now

Thanks Irish.

Why, copyright infringement or something like that ?

No prob. They took away my old one so every couple of days I'll probably have to update it

Yeah, they're real b*stards about taking them down. They usually don't last too long but I guess we'll see

If you want to keep it, try searching for a thread Gina made about saving youtube videos. It works.

They're way too uptight about that.

The Oscars are news, if you ask me, making them public property.

But I guess somebody thonks he can make a buck by privatizing it.

The AMPAS, like Viacom earlier, don't want their copyrighted "precious-ness" to be seen for free.

I disagree, and I say that with no opinion whatsoever.