A long time coming...

His Speech

Thanks ronnie, I was just searching for that to see if it was up yet and didn't find it

I just love Scorsese's speech pattern - that rat-a-tat-tat delivery style of his. Did you see his cameo in Albert Brooke's "The Muse"? It was hilarious. Like Brooke's told him "No more coffee for you."

As far as Scorsese's speech goes, I think of him as an Italian Woody Allen.

That was cool man,Scorsese is a hero of mine and so happy to see him win this award at long last.

Fitting to see FFC,Lucas and Spilberg there to present the award.The four greatest movie directors of thier generation if not any,on stage together..

Here's to Marty

He can talk all he wants. He's only deserved this since 1976's "Taxi Driver"...

Though I was not greatly moved by Departed, I am happy to see Scorcese win the Oscar. It would have been a shame if such a great director never won an oscar.

Unfortunately I have not seen "The Departed" or any of the contenders for that matter, so I can't really judge which is best. However, I am glad for Scorsese.


TIS

better yet late than never i guess, very long overdue. not his best film but still classic material, jack nicholson as the boss was a great idea. congrats to martin scorsese.

That sight (of the four of them together on stage) reminded me of watching the Academy Awards when I was a kid and all the big stars of Hollywood would be there (many on stage at the same time). For me, thats the excitement of watching an awards show like this.

Well, it never hindered Hitchcock or Kubrick's reputations.

How many times did Scorsese say, "Thank you" before his speech even began? I think it was twelve. Too many times. On the one hand, he seemed genuinely thrilled and overwhelmed with emotion, but on the other, his speech, like most others, was dragged down by too many credits to other people.

Shame not for the director, but for the awards

What the hell has Jack Nicholson done to his hair, by the way?

Shaved it.

I don't mean to make anyone upset, but I genuinely want to know. Did Scorsese deserve the award for The Departed? Or is this Hollywood politics at work where everyone thinks he deserved it for movies in the past so they gave it to him now?

I think he deserved it Blibbleblabble. I haven't seen all of the pictures in the categories, but from the ones I have seen, The Departed was by and large the best.

I had a question that a friend and I have asked each other the past couple of Oscars. Who gets the Oscar for winning Best Picture? Does Marty get one? Does just the producer get one? And why didn't Marty come back on stage and accept that one too?

The producer gets Best Picture.

I'm just curious, why not the director too? Or the cast? Other than the extreme cost of that many Oscars...

Because they already have actor awards and best director, so the Best Picture Oscar goes to the producer(s).

Believe me, if you've been in the business for thirty years and finally got your due rewards, you deserve at least a few minutes to thank whomever the hell you want.

I found it interesting, then, that all of his thanks were specific to people with whom he worked with on The Departed.

It's interesting because many say he won it for the films he should have got an Oscar for years ago. And he made his speech specific to this film.

I think that's EXACTLY why he didn't, to draw attention away from the fact that this was more like a lifetime achievment award.

Personally, I'm just glad he finally won.

It was done for a new movie he's starring in - "The Brittany Spears Story" (apologies to Jay Leno).

People keep saying "finally," though, as if The Departed, or the fact that he directed it, is secondary to the fact that he was due some kind of an award. If he didn't win it in 1976, he shouldn't be winning it now for Taxi Driver.

I'm glad he won, too.

Who has the most important role producer or director?

The director, anyone who invests in a film can get a producer's credit.

I am definitely a minority here. Even though I love Taxi Driver, I also agree that he didn't win the award for that movie back then, so he shouldn't be receiving the award for Taxi Driver now. If people honestly believe The Departed was deserving of an award then congratulations. I however have a hard time believing that the "Hollywood community" didn't give him the award based on past accomplishments. This is nothing new in Hollywood.

Don't get me wrong, I am a Scorcese fan, I just personally disagree with this award, and AGREE with those of you who believe he should have won a long time ago. "Hollywood politics" is nothing new. I have seen over the years someone win because they were snubbed in years past, and in the process, someone else was snubbed.

However, I am happy Scorsese has won an award finally, even though I feel like the whole process wasn't based on the present.

Amen to everything you said!

Svsg has a really great point.

The thing is, while the "pity" factor is a major reason in why Martin Scorsese won Best Director, its not just that.

In 2002 and 2004, there was a pity momentum for Scorsese, and he was a serious contender to win the Best Director Oscar, before fading and losing out to Roman Polanski(THE PIANIST) and Clint Eastwood (MILLION DOLLAR BABY).

Yet with those two previous efforts, people in Hollywood wanted to give him an Oscar...but they didn't enjoy GANGS OF NEW YORK and THE AVIATOR enough to justify to themselves in awarding him such a prize. Plus, "Oscar Bait" was smelt with both movies, with Weinstein Brothers as the producers.

Now with THE DEPARTED, Scorsese had the pity factor, but he had more: The movie was Scorsese's biggest theatrical profit hit in his long career, and generally most critics either loved it, or were pleased by it.

The fact that it won Best Picture, and the only movie in that category with over $100+ million, is no coincidence. It was possibly the only movie of the nominees that more Americans happened to catch than the others(not to mention having the biggest opening week ever for a R-rated DVD release).

Now Svsg, the bigger reason why Scorsese won is a reason that's bigger than the "pity" factor. He won by default.

If the chips had been put in play as expected, Scorsese and THE DEPARTED would have been nominated, but wouldn't have won. Bill Condon's DREAMGIRLS had an insane pre-release awards hype that caused for a severe backlash when it finally did dance to theatres. Even looking at the Oscars on sunday, the media kept focusing attention on the movie, even if it was a no-show for either Best Picture or Director.

Then there was Clint Eastwood's FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS. Again, like DREAMGIRLS, it was expected months before release to storm the beaches of the Academy, and why not? Clint had just won his second Best Director Oscar 2 years earlier, and Steven Spielberg(SAVING PRIVATE RYAN) was a producer of this movie.

Instead, the movie tanked in theatres. Theories arise to why, despite general positive feedback from moviegoers and critics, why it tanked. Some say the current war in Iraqi has made people weary watching war on a big screen after seeing it for months on the small screen. Others say that it was a good movie, but nothing remarkable. An interesting counter-theory is that the age demographic that went most by the numbers to see FLAGS was people in their 50s and older.

Whatever the case, as Paramount/Dreamworks realized that FLAGS was not the awards war horse as they hoped for, they got Eastwood to quickly finish editing on his Japanese WW2 drama LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA(originally set for a 2007 release) and release it in New York City and LA in the last days of 2006.

If the Oscars had been held in March, its traditional date venue, could Eastwood have built momentum and won the Oscars with LETTERS? Absolutely. But if my aunt had balls, she would become my uncle. This I would say as well with people who persist that if DREAMGIRLS had gotten Best Picture/Director nominations, it would have won(i.e. David Poland).