LONDON – There was no shortage of stirring testaments from industry luminaries at last night”s vastly entertaining Academy salute to British acting titan Vanessa Redgrave at London”s Curzon Soho cinema, yet the moment that stopped my heart came long after the audience had filed out of the auditorium following the nearly three-hour presentation.

Nipping out to the foyer to catch some air, I was met with the sight of Redgrave herself, imperiously elegant in a pale gray dressmaker”s coat, purposefully raiding the ground floor café to find a chair for a rather special guest – legendary 98-year-old cinematographer Douglas Slocombe.

Returning with a stool, she eased the blind, crutch-dependent but still pin-sharp veteran of Ealing comedies and Indiana Jones films alike into his seat, crouching beside him and murmuring affectionately into his ear as we all waited for his car to arrive. Watching these two very different warhorses of British cinema sharing such an intimately mundane moment, 34 years after they worked together on “Julia,” was as moving a reflection of a passing cinematic generation as any of the night”s more formal AMPAS tributes.

Failing eyesight has prevented Slocombe doing any work since “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” in 1989 – not that he hadn”t already earned a restful retirement by then. Redgrave, of course, is as busy as she”s ever been. This year alone has seen her name adorn the credits of four releases, the last and best of which, Ralph Fiennes”s “Coriolanus,” will surely land the actress her seventh Oscar nomination come January – and quite possibly a second win too. Not content with that, she”s currently treading the West End boards eight times a week in a role than won an older British vet, Jessica Tandy, an Oscar over 20 years ago: cantankerous Southern widow Daisy Werthan in Alfred Uhry”s “Driving Miss Daisy.”

That Redgrave”s co-star in that revival, one James Earl Jones, was among the guest speakers, just one night after winning a Governors Award from the Academy that he couldn”t be in Los Angeles to accept, lent a nice sense of community to an already cosy evening: I was one of few journalists on hand for a night that was more about AMPAS celebrating their own than showing off to the wider world.

Just in case we needed a reminder who was staging this evening, a brief introduction was provided by former AMPAS president Sid Ganis – a face I confess I”m more used to seeing drawn and bleary-eyed on my TV screen for many an Oscar nomination morning, now looking as chipper as anyone who hasn”t been running the Academy this past week might well do.

From there on, however, the occasion wasn”t about anyone but Redgrave, as playwright, filmmaker and Oscar-nominated screenwriter David Hare took the reins with an individually selected series of clips from her filmography of over 100 titles, segueing to a loosely chatty onstage Q&A with the lady herself, before Meryl Streep, Ralph Fiennes, Jones, her daughter Joely Richardson and Eileen Atkins took to the podium in turn to offer wide-ranging personal reflections on the actress. (Jane Fonda and Redgrave”s son-in-law Liam Neeson offered video tributes.)

Hare”s selection of clips was unapologetically subjective (“They were chosen with a simple organizing principle: the ones I like most,” he grinned) and even a little self-serving: no “Isadora,” no “Howards End,” no vivid cameo in “Atonement,” though there was space for such oddities as “The Pledge” and “The Fever,” not to mention a lengthy and not especially Redgrave-focused extract from Hare”s own “Wetherby.”

Still, some of the more surprising clips proved effective exhibits in context: I”ve always loathed “Camelot,” but seeing her irony-inflected, thin-voiced rendition of “The Lusty Month of May” alongside the enigmatic sexual charisma she projected in Antonioni”s “Blow-Up” (“a human question mark,” as Hare aptly stated) brought home her defining modernity as a performer: beyond her status as a middle link in one of history”s great acting dynasties, Redgrave was a key figure in the transition between, and sometime marriage of, stage-oriented classicism and spiky New British Cinema. Small wonder, then, that she”s so at home in Fiennes”s assertively revisionist, but traditionally performed, take on Shakespeare”s “Coriolanus” – her Volumnia is a performance that encapsulates the stylistic malleability of her talents. “If a character is familiar, you can be sure Vanessa”s made her strange,” said Hare.

The Q&A and verbal testimonies were so spry and free-flowing that my transcription could hardly replicate the pleasure of listening to it, but a few gems made it into my notebook. I loved Redgrave”s admission that Cecil B. DeMille”s gloriously trashy Biblical epic “Samson and Delilah” was her chief inspiration in her youth, as she spent the money given her for ballet lessons on seeing the film six times in a row instead.

Similarly disarming was her memory of begging Michelangelo Antonioni to let her “be blonde like Monica Vitti” for “Blow-Up” to no avail. The striking star”s unconventional patrician beauty was clearly a source of professional insecurity early in her career; on working with director Joshua Logan on “Camelot,” her chief recollection was, “The fact that he”d directed Marilyn [Monroe, in “Bus Stop”] made me kind of worship him.” (Later, Eileen Atkins recalled Redgrave plaintively asking her, 50 years ago, “Why aren”t we film stars?” Atkins”s pithy response: “Because we have no tits.”)

Redgrave proved a delightful presence in person: warm, open, a touch diffident (“Are you as nervous as I am?” she interjected at one point with Hare, earning a round of applause) and knowingly daffy, with a bawdy side that few might expect. (It”s not every acting dame who”ll casually drop ruminations on her possible bisexuality into this kind of occasionally starchy event.) The political firebrand instincts that aroused so much ire around the time of her Oscar win in 1978 (search YouTube for her classic “Zionist hoodlums” speech) have long since mellowed into more modest forms of humanitarianism; she”ll be an engaging figure on the awards track this year.

As, of course, will Streep, who made her screen debut in “Julia” and whose hilarious, off-the-cuff speech to Redgrave proved once more that she has this kind of gig down to a fine art. Fluffy anecdotes about working with the older icon on that film (“You were talking about Trotsky, and I was concerned with how my hair looked in the movie”) and, three decades later, on the ill-fated “Evening” (offering the pleasing mental image of the two actresses smoking up a storm and downing a pitcher of margaritas, as anyone on that wretched film should have done), were balanced with more heartfelt pledges of professional reverence.

“Our privilege as actors,” Streep said, “is that we get to love each other and get paid for it, like prostitutes. But when Vanessa won the Oscar, and caused a cataclysm with her speech, that was a little lesson in bravery. Fame is not just a commodity, you can use it to make a difference.”

It was, admittedly, a little unfair putting Streep up first, as none of the following speakers could quite top her for simultaneous wit and grace – though it”s hard not to melt a bit when hearing James Earl Jones”s matchless voice silkily enthuse, “I love this woman. My wife understands.” And it seemed everyone in the room got something in their eye when Richardson offered a simple, wry dedication to her mother, speaking also for her sister, the late Natasha.

It was a poignant, not-too-pointed reminder of the personal hardships Redgrave has endured in the last two years, losing a daughter, a sister and a brother in cruelly quick succession – which makes her continued professional resilience all the more extraordinary. One senses this Academy tribute is merely kicking off a season of repeated honors for one of our greatest living actors, for a brilliant career as well as one of its single best performances. She”s clearly touched by the attention, but watching her sit in the emptying cinema foyer, chatting to a frail, devoted associate in Douglas Slocombe, made it clear that her profession has been her reward all along.

What do Quentin Tarantino, Gil Cates, Taylor Hackford, Henry Selick and now Rob Marshall have in common? Not a lot, to be honest. But they have all won the annual Filmmaker Award from the Cinema Audio Society, the guild that gives out its own sound awards in February.

I’m not sure whether or not the CAS determines recipients of this award based on their specific contribution to the art of sound in cinema, or simply who they like and who’s available, but Marshall’s work certainly has as much sound as anyone else’s, and has been kindly treated by this fraternity: both “Chicago” and “Memoirs of a Geisha” landed CAS nominations (the former actually won the sound mixing Oscar). Moreover, if “Nine” failed to follow in their footsteps, musicals are still the genre that industry types most automatically connect with the notion of excellence in this particular craft.

Plus, he directed the last “Pirates of the Caribbean” film, and those are nothing if not noisy. I bet no one thought he’d be winning an award in the year he turned to that franchise, so good on the CAS for proving us all wrong. Anyway, congratulations to Marshall. Edited press release after the jump.

LOS ANGELES— Academy Award® winning director Rob Marshall will receive the Cinema Audio Society Filmmaker Award at the 48th CAS Awards on February 18, 2012 at the Crystal Ballroom of the Millennium-Biltmore Hotel, Los Angeles.

In making this announcement, CAS President David E. Fluhr said, “We are delighted to be honoring Rob Marshall. Rob”s career spans Broadway, television, live performance and multiple feature film genres: musical, drama, fantasy adventure and tentpole blockbusters. Following in a tradition of synergy between our two honorees, Marshall as the Filmmaker Honoree and Scott Millan, CAS as the Career Achievement Honoree worked together on Marshall”s film “Nine”. The CAS has recognized Marshall”s work three times by nominating his “Memoirs of a Geisha”, “Chicago” and “Annie”. He is indeed a perfect choice for the CAS Filmmaker Honoree.”

Marshall’s films have been honored with a total of 23 Academy Award nominations – winning nine, including Best Picture. His most recent film, “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” starring Johnny Depp and Penelope Cruz, has grossed over one billion dollars at the worldwide box office becoming the “8th Highest Grossing Picture in History.” He is currently developing “The Thin Man” starring Johnny Depp.

Marshall’s film “Nine” was nominated for four Academy Awards, five Golden Globes and 10 Critics Choice Awards. His previous directorial efforts include the Academy Award-winning films “Chicago” and “Memoirs of a Geisha.” For his work on “Chicago,” winner of six Oscars including Best Picture, Marshall received the Directors Guild Award, an Oscar nomination, a Golden Globe Award nomination, a BAFTA nomination, The National Board of Review Award and the New York Film Critics Online Award, both for best directorial debut, as well as the American Choreography Award. His epic film “Memoirs of a Geisha” was the winner of three Oscars, three BAFTA Awards and a Golden Globe. Both “Memoirs of a Geisha” and “Chicago” were nominated for CAS Awards.

Marshall executive produced, directed and choreographed the NBC television event “Tony Bennett: An American Classic.” He won his second Directors Guild Award for this production as well as three Emmy Awards himself for Direction, Choreography and Outstanding Variety, Music or Comedy Special. He directed and choreographed Disney/ABC”s critically acclaimed movie musical “Annie,” which received 12 Emmy nominations, a CAS nomination and won the prestigious Peabody Award. Former CAS President Edward L. Moskowitz commented, “It was to great to work with Rob Marshall on “Annie”. Rob”s depth of experience in live entertainment enhanced his inspirational leadership on the set and I am proud that the Cinema Audio Society has decided to honor him with our Filmmaker Award.”

Just a note for In Contention readers. You’ll note in the right sidebar a link to receive instant alerts for In Contention content. If you’re not already registered at HitFix, you can do so here, and once you’re signed up (many of you already are, so thanks for that), you can go to the custom alerts page here and select the elements of the site you’d like to feed your inbox on a consistent basis, including, as of today, the nonsense we crank out here at In Contention.

J. Edgar Hoover, the man, has been described (at varying points) as controversial, enigmatic, megalomaniacal, a patriot, a zealot, a master of misinformation, paranoid, a visionary, corrupt and, ultimately, one of the most powerful men in U.S. history.

Clint Eastwood”s cinematic interpretation of Hoover”s life, “J. Edgar,” has inspired an equally mixed critical response (which may have resulted in this weekend”s soft box office returns). Ostensibly, the film means to deconstruct J. Edgar”s conflicting portrayals and, in doing so, paradoxically present an image of a complex but fully realized human being.

Yet, many critics have found that the subject simply floated out of Eastwood”s grasp. The film often reads as a series of disjointed vignettes, as if each scene is a separate paragraph lifted from Mr. Hoover”s own dictated autobiography and then interspersed with minor parenthetical adjustments and corrections made by those who were present at the events he is recalling.

In short, “J. Edgar” the film never really takes a solid stance on who J. Edgar the man was.

There is an inherent challenge present in depicting the life of a man who made it his business to become the world”s most adept collector and keeper of secrets – his own and others. At the Los Angeles press conference for “J. Edgar,” screenwriter Dustin Lance Black acknowledged the inconsistencies he encountered during the course of his research. “If you read any of the biographies on J. Edgar Hoover, you find that they contradict each other more than they agree,” he said. “Often times, they”re told from a political perspective.”

It stands to reason that if the opinions of the author bleed into biographical accounts of J. Edgar Hoover’s life, then the leanings of the filmmakers would be present in a cinematic representation. What becomes fascinating is that while “J. Edgar” fails to paint a cohesive portrait of one of the most significant figures of the last century, it does parallel some of the larger domestic and global issues of this century.

“J. Edgar,” on the whole, seems to be saying there are legitimate threats to the United States and law enforcement needs to be empowered to effectively manage those threats. But if that power becomes too myopic, then we run the risk of persecuting those who have done no more than present ideas that challenge a flawed status quo, thereby destroying that which we sought to preserve in the first place.

If we examine the essential elements, the film presents three phases in the span of J. Edgar Hoover”s career. First up, an awakening to what (in his mind) had been a sleeping menace and essential danger: communism.

Phase one lead naturally into phase two: the creation of an organization that would and could effectively address the dangers that J. Edgar saw. In his role as director and architect of the Bureau of Investigation he was driven to shore up the weaknesses in the agency”s reach and ability to successfully contain domestic and international hazards (real and perceived). He led the charge in the advance of forensic science, the centralization of information and the expanse of federal jurisdiction — all of which did indeed create a stalwart and efficient FBI. Hoover was also responsible for controversial domestic spying programs that included the frequent use of illegal wiretapping and often chose blackmail as an appropriate method to maintain his authority.

Which leads us to phase three: J. Edgar”s paranoid pursuit of those who would, in fact, advance the realization of the promise of the Constitution.

Speaking with reporters, Leonardo DiCaprio described the trajectory of the film”s story thusly:

“What I was fascinated by was entering J. Edgar’s career during a time of terrorist invasion by communists. The Red Scare. That sort of paranoia that was infused in our country and the lawlessness of these bank robbers that were going from state to state and becoming free men when they crossed state lines and how J. Edgar Hoover really transformed the police system in America and created this Federal bureau that to this day is one of the most feared, respected and revered police forces in the entire world. Of course the story goes on to his later years where he became this political dinosaur that didn’t adapt to the changing needs of our country. It’s very much about the Kennedy years and the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King Jr.

“The one thing that was prevalent throughout his entire career was his staunch belief that communism was an evil thing and he wanted to retain the fundamental principles of democracy in our country. When Civil Rights came along, he saw that as an uprising of the people. He didn’t adapt to our country. He stayed in power way too long and he didn’t listen to his own critics. He was a staunch believer in his moral beliefs and his beliefs about what was right for our country and therefore his career ended on a failed note in my opinion.”

For the sake of clarity, let us highlight the two sentences that offer the most striking example of J. Edgar”s essential logical failure.

“The one thing that was prevalent throughout his entire career was his staunch belief that communism was an evil thing and he wanted to retain the fundamental principles of democracy in our country. When Civil Rights came along, he saw that as an uprising of the people.”

Aside from the fact that Hoover was acting in opposition to those who (unequivocally in the case of the civil rights movement) had the moral high ground, an uprising of the people is an inherent part of a functioning democracy. A healthy commonwealth does not necessarily need (or want) a violent uprising. But the people’s active participation in government is the core foundation of a democracy. So, to resist that is to resist democracy itself. To say you are repressing the will of the people in order to protect the fundamental principles of democracy is an inherently flawed framework.

“J. Edgar” never addresses that crucial contradiction head on. In terms of a personal character exploration, it skirts around J. Edgar”s most consistent trait — his unfailing hypocrisy. Hoover used other”s sexual inclinations against them even while he desperately hid his own. He fought the loss of democratic freedom via the use of invasive, flawed and ultimately corrosive measures.

We cannot speak to the intent of the filmmaker, but what is fascinating is that while the film”s failure to take a strong stance has led to a fragmented, meandering affair, it also lays bare a nation”s continued conflict with itself.

“The Artist” is looking an increasingly safe bet in any number of Oscar categories, but Best Supporting Actor isn’t one of them, and it’s all because Academy rules bar canine actors from competing. That’s a tough break for the film’s remarkable Jack Russell prodigy Uggy, who’s no less deserving than some past human nominees in the category I could mention. Gregg Kilday contemplates this injustice. On a side note, meanwhile, what’s up with the bumper crop of amazing movie dogs in 2011? Between Uggy, Laika in “Le Havre,” Cosmo in “Beginners,” Snowy in “Tintin,” Skeletor in “50/50” and others, there are at least enough contenders to form a new Oscar category. [Hollywood Reporter]   

For Variety’s Contenders series, yours truly contemplates the crossover Oscar potential of Steven Spielberg’s “The Adventures of Tintin.” [Variety]

Dave Karger on how “The Help” got a handy boost from this weekend’s Governors Awards. Cheers, Oprah. [Entertainment Weekly]

Jenny McCartney on how Brett Ratner’s “fag” faux pas scarcely scratches the surface of Hollywood’s homphobia. [The Telegraph]

Speaking of which, Tom O’Neil rounds up a gallery of examples to prove that playing gay can net you an Oscar, but only if your character meets his maker. [Gold Derby] 

David Poland asks Steve McQueen and Michael Fassbender about the debatable insinuations of incest in “Shame.” [The Hot Blog]

No one else is writing about the degree of repressed sexuality in “Puss in Boots,” so Charlie Lyne has fearlessly taken that responsibility. [Ultraculture]

Nathaniel Rogers digs through history in search of the roles for which Meryl Streep was not Oscar-nominated, and finds none. (Okay, a few.) [The Film Experience]

Those Vulture wags on the potential pros and cons of Billy Crystal returning as Oscar host, “excessive shirtlessness” among them. [Vulture]

Jeff Wells is still talking about a “potential” Best Picture nomination for “The Artist,” wonders about its box office future. [Hollywood Elsewhere]

Oh, a lot of people seem very excited about a trailer for something called “The Hunger Games.” I’ll leave you to it. [Cinema Blend]

[UPDATE: A new trailer has just been unveiled. I haven’t watched it, so no comment, but it’s embedded below.]

At last night’s AMPAS tribute evening to Vanessa Redgrave (which I attended, and will write up in due course), the “Coriolanus” star was self-evidently the center of attention, but high-spirited, red-clad guest speaker Meryl Streep ran her close. The 16-time Oscar nominee is in London to begin the promotion trail for “The Iron Lady,” which quietly began screening last week; whispers from the few who have seen it were being passed around the room as if they were MI5 files. I heard one “transformative,” one “frightening” and one “high camp” — the latter was applied as a compliment, by the way.

In a handy bit of timing, Film4 debuted this positively terrifying UK poster for the Margaret Thatcher biopic this morning, which certainly suggests marketers are approaching the project with a welcome sense of humor. My dream outcome for “The Iron Lady” is for it the pull the rug out from under us completely by emerging as some kind of burlesque political satire; I sense we’re not going that far, but I do hope Streep’s having fun. Check out the full poster after the jump.

Thanks to the miracle of Twitter and about 10 minutes of down time on vacation in Miami, I can pretty much cyber-report on tonight’s Governors Awards ceremony. You ready? Alright, so…

As guests took their seats, John Williams’ “Star Wars” score struck on the sound system and the room was flooded with Storm Troopers. Darth Vader took to the stage. Obviously, it was a tip of the hat to one of this year’s Honorary Oscar recipients, James Earl Jones.

Anyway, Vader hit the podium, removed his masked to reveal — wait, it wasn’t David Prowse at all. It was Academy president Tom Sherak. “How was your week,” he quipped to the audience. Fair play, sir (even if he did recycle the joke from earlier in the week at a screening of “The Great White Hope” in honor of Jones). Casual. Light. Way to take it in stride after a five- or six-day spread few would want to endure. (And poor Dawn Hudson — apparently she had some sleepless nights over the whole Ratner/Murphy brouhaha.)

The first toast of the evening was marked for former Oscar producers Laura Ziskin and Gil Cates, each of whom passed away earlier this year. “To two incredible people,” Sherak said. “May your souls rest in peace.”

This year’s honorees at the satellite ceremony were the aforementioned Jones, makeup artist Dick Smith and Oprah Winfrey, who was tapped for the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award. And it seemed like Smith’s moment was the most touching, from what I gather.

Linda Blair and J.J. Abrams took the stage to salute the weathered vet, with longtime friend and fan Rick Baker given the honors of presenting the award. The Odds columnist Steve Pond called Smith’s tribute “funny and moving and informative…why they should give out Governors Awards on this show, not cram them onto Oscars.” He might have sold me on that, because I can’t imagine Smith being given his due in that manner on the annual Academy Awards telecast. “I have loved being a makeup artist so much,” Smith said, “but this puts a crown on all of that. I am so grateful.”

James Earl Jones accepted his award in London. Glenn Close spoke. So did Alec Baldwin. Ben Kingsley did the presenting. Wait, what? Jones couldn’t hand the stage production of “Driving Miss Daisy” off to the understudy for a few nights to travel out and accept this thing? How very Jean-Luc Godard of him. (Kidding.) “What the heck else would you call that but an actor’s wet dream,” Jones said of receiving the award from Kingsley.

Oh, and Mary J. Blige sang “Can You Feel the Love Tonight.” Nice.

Finally, Oprah, whose honor was diminished by many who felt she was a TV personality more than a film figure, regardless of her humanitarian contributions. John Travolta spoke. Ayanna Hall, one of the 65,000 people she’s put through college with a scholarship, also toasted her, noting, “The words aren’t adequate, Ms. Winfrey. Thank you.”

And so went the third annual Governors Awards. Congrats to all involved. It sounds like it was a lovely evening. Sorry I couldn’t attend, but, alas, at least I have Ellen Barkin to put it all in perspective:

“@NicSperling just told me not to fuckin curse in my tweets at the muthafuckin Governors Awards. I say fuck her.”

Now it’s time to look ahead to next year. Who’s overdue for one of these puppies?

(Boy, that was easy. Didn’t even have to dust off my black tie. Thanks, Twitter!)

For year round entertainment news and awards season commentary follow @kristapley on Twitter.

Another Saturday, another Cinejabber – your space to kick around whatever film-related thoughts you fancy, while we seek life beyond the movie theater.

Or, you know, not. My weekend is shaping up to be very cinema-bound indeed, with a rather schizophrenic to-do (or to-see) list combining art and trash, recalling nothing so much as the critical adage of playing both brows against the middle. It begins on a noble note: I”ll be wallowing this afternoon in all 190 minutes of the digitally restored Marcel Carné opus “Les Enfants du Paradis” at London”s invaluable BFI Southbank.

From there on, my plans get slightly less respectable, as I”m hoping to catch two new releases whose press screenings I napped on. One of them I feel little need to apologize for: Tarsem had me at hello with his wildly underappreciated (and frankly just wild) fantasy thriller “The Cell,” which you may or may not remember was robbed of every design award going in 2000, so there”s no way I”m not seeing him indulge his mask fixation to the nth degree and the third dimension in “Immortals.”

Throw all the bad reviews at me you want: at least two critics I love are down with it (one quite viscerally so), so the loyalties involved are manifold. In fact, I”m rather happy to see this one with a willing audience rather than in an airless screening room full of grousing journos.

I feel slightly less principled, however, about the prospect of rocking up at my local multiplex and requesting a ticket to Joel Schumacher”s “Trespass,” which snuck onto a handful of London screens yesterday with its tail already between its legs, and which even the “Immortals” champions are steering me away from. But Kidmasochism is a powerful force, as is the morbid curiosity to decode what possibly led one of my favorite contemporary actors, one film away from “Rabbit Hole” to star in something resembling a project Sharon Stone might have been too busy for in 1994. Wish me luck.

I”ll probably need a shot of high culture, not to mention a stiff drink, after that, so it”s handy that I”ll get both at tomorrow”s AMPAS tribute evening to Vanessa Redgrave in Soho, where Meryl Streep will be among those leading the cheers. “Looking forward” is an understatement.

But enough about my weekend plans. What”s on your mind? Have at it in the comments.

The people of Wichita, Kansas have taken issue with Johnny Depp. Or, more accurately, certain members of the film community in the city have responded to a comment the actor made that seemed to disparage the intelligence level of the citizens of Wichita at large.

In a recent interview with The Guardian to promote the UK release of “The Rum Diary,” the actor appeared to theorize that the reason the adaptation of the Hunter S. Thompson novel is not performing well in the states is that the American appetite for thought-provoking films is limited. “I believe that this film, regardless of what it makes in, you know, Wichita, Kansas, this week – which is probably about $13 – it doesn’t make any difference,” he said. “I think it’s an intelligent film…And a lot of times, outside the big cities in the States, they don’t want that.”

The implication is, of course, threefold. One, that there is some categorical and static standard that defines an “intelligent film”; two, that Depp”s “The Rum Diary” meets said standard; and three, that the citizens of the United States (outside of the larger urban areas) are simply not interested in cerebral nutritious cinematic fare.

The people of Wichita were (as we can well imagine) less than pleased with Depp”s remarks.

“People have these preconceived notions about cities like Wichita and cities in the Midwest,” Lela Meadow-Conner (director of the Tallgrass Film Association) told The Wichita Eagle. “Because his movie has been deemed a critical stinker…and audiences haven’t gravitated toward it, obviously he is trying to displace the blame on to audiences here who he deems unintelligent.”

The film, in fact, has received a mixed critical response, has earned roughly $11 million at the North American box office and may find itself with the unique distinction of becoming Depp”s largest wide-release box office flop top date.

The merits of “The Rum Diary” aside, what is truly interesting for me are the first and third assumptions present in Depp”s statement. For the sake of clarity, we in no way wish to demonize Depp. The statement was likely offhand and had no malicious intent. He is a talented actor who makes interesting choices and is, by all accounts, a kind and compassionate human being.

What we do want to look at (particularly given the whip-lash inducing events of this week”s “Oscargate”) is when and why it is okay to publically or privately disparage one group of people vs. another, as well as the (commonly accepted) notion that cinemagoers in the US have less refined palates than those abroad.

A thoroughly researched essay could (and perhaps should) be done to address the actual box office numbers that may or may not reflect the notion that aesthetically superior films fail in the US while they thrive outside of its borders.

In general terms, however, we can say that what we would consider “art house” films tend to draw in a smaller audience than epically scaled action films (for example) no matter where they are released (with a few notable exceptions). It also feels dangerous to assume that one individual”s version of “intelligent” necessarily matches another”s. Of course, we can agree on some broad definitions for the term, some measure of native analytical ability combined with a formal or informal education.

As it relates to the cinema, however, I can think of three films off the top of my head that were deemed distinctly “smart” by the majority of critics that some would argue are, in fact, quite intellectually sparse.

It should also be noted that there are entire film franchises that are critical failures and box office disappointments domestically that continue on because they thrive in the international marketplace. Yet, that does not translate into an accepted belief that the people of the United States have a higher standard for cinema.

What strikes me is how commonplace xenophobic remarks about the US have become. In the course of just a few years of interviewing filmmakers and traveling to various festivals and events I have been repeatedly alarmed by the casual way entire populations are dismissed as stupid, useless and otherwise less than. What concerns me is that if we collectively allow that sort of thinking in one case, then we by default legitimize it in the grander public discourse.

We don”t want to make “much ado about nothing” as it were, but just to notice what appear to be double standards where we see them, and examine the circumstances that created them. None of this is to say that there is absolutely no truth in Depp”s statement. It is simply to question why, and how, we develop generalizations that we then, by route, accept as given fact.

I can summarize my response to the idea that Depp believes that the people of the United States aren”t savvy enough to “get” his films thusly: You”re so French.

Kidding…I”m kidding.

Magnolia, the US distributor of Lars von Trier”s “Melancholia,” has employed something of a soft-shoe strategy in releasing the arthouse blockbuster – first there was that week-long, Oscar-qualifying L.A. release a few months ago, which enabled a video-on-demand release over a month ago. Today, it finally gets a theatrical release in a few key cities, with a wider limited release to follow next week.

It”s probably prudent to trickle the film out like this. Making a big splash of the release would inevitably prompt more of a media blitz on eternal troublemaker von Trier than the movie itself: the inflated Nazi-related controversy from Cannes has not only been discussed to death, but it has no bearing on the film itself, a thoughtful, subdued existential discussion that would likely disappoint provocation-seeking viewers. It”s been a fine line to walk, with a high risk of the film slipping through the cracks entirely – this despite boisterous box office in Europe and the UK, where it ranks as the highest grosser of von Trier”s career. And yet, surely enough, the film appears to be finding its feet, particularly where US critics are concerned.

For a prickly item that met with a split reception at Cannes, the critical consensus is tipping in a decidedly positive direction: most of the principal tastemakers, including Roger Ebert, A.O. Scott, Richard Corliss and Peter Travels, are on board, and for those who care about such numbers, its Metacritic rating stands at a pretty 82, an almost disproportionate show of approval for a film that aims to inspire argument.

Whether audiences will be curious enough to follow their advice remains to be seen, but it”s fair to say a film that – through no fault of its own – was looking like a PR nightmare nearly six months ago has been deservingly rehabilitated. I”ve seen some excitable voices in the blogosphere suggest that this turnaround, on the back of a dominant showing in last week”s European Film Award nominations, poses the film as some kind of awards-season player, which is hardly the case: Academy types rarely groove to chilly European formalism with a side salad of science-fiction, even from directors who don”t have “F.U.C.K.” tattooed across their knuckles.

Still, it does keep hope alive, however distantly, for Kirsten Dunst, one of several dark horses from the Euro fringe (along with the likes of Tilda Swinton and Olivia Colman) hoping to join the show if space suddenly becomes available. The critics” awards could be key here: I was wondering earlier this week how they might (or might not, as Sally Hawkins can tell you) impact the race, given that accepted Oscar heavyweights like Viola Davis and Michelle Williams are in films that cater to Academy tastes more than critical ones. Against the odds, critics” awards got an infinitely less starry von Trier leading lady, Emily Watson, into the circle 15 years ago; should one or two key groups rally around Dunst this year, could she emerge as a spoiler? It’s unlikely, but no longer inconceivable.

Still, that”s getting very far from the point, which is that “Melancholia” is finally on the big screens it should be seen on, and that cinephiles should hopefully be taking advantage. You may recall I was an admirer at Cannes, where I called it “[a] remarkable film, at once intimate and operatic in scope.” Now that you can see it for yourself, what are your thoughts?

In advance of her reportedly strong performance in “Young Adult” (which I haven”t seen yet, but Kris recently enthused over), I”ve been on something of a Charlize Theron kick lately. I”ve always liked the actress – she has about as much spiky, couldn”t-give-a-shit character as it”s possible for someone who appears to be made of fine bone china to have – and the last few years have been dispiriting ones for her fans.

Her cameo in “The Road” was a frustrating tease of her firepower, she was committed but oddly constrained in “The Burning Plain” (where Jennifer Lawrence and Kim Basinger vied for best-in-show honors), and was defeated by the most cursory of characters in the muddled “In the Valley of Elah.” She had more to offer in “Sleepwalking,” but no one was there to see it; meanwhile, let us not even speak of “Hancock,” a feeble third-wheel girlfriend role for which she could hardly have been more overqualified.

Theron”s been at risk of becoming one of those actors for whom one Oscar-winning next-level role remains the sole peak – she have followed it up with a second nomination two years later, but for a dutiful performance in a film (“North Country,” in the likely event that you”ve forgotten) it”s impossible to imagine anyone watching twice. And yet even through some lean years, Theron”s never attracted the kind of critical snark reserved for such post-Oscar underperformers as Halle Berry – partly because her triumphant turn in “Monster” (recently featured in our list of the greatest Oscar-winning biopic performances) is too immense a display of talent to put down to fluke, partly because she”s never actively off-key in even her most ill-judged projects.

Or is it because, breakthrough that “Monster” was, it wasn”t a completely unpreviewed announcement of her gifts? Rifling through Theron”s pre-Oscar CV turns up any number of unworthy scripts and thankless eye-candy roles, but a closer look at the films reveals she was working well above her pay grade in an awful lot of them. She has knowingly dippy comic zeal in the otherwise threadbare Jonathan Lynn retread “Trial and Error,” she sharply embroiders an underwritten part against an intimdating ensemble in James Gray”s “The Yards,” she obligingly vamps it up in two lesser Woody Allen flicks with a sparkle in her eye that says she knows better is to come. (Why hasn”t he used her since?) Along with Erykah Badu, she even dodges the treacle-quicksand of “The Cider House Rules,” finding clear emotional notes in the script”s ersatz assemblage of feeling.

At the time, I wondered if I was projecting too much into these performances, particularly given that I was living in South Africa at the time – a less-than-impartial critical environment where the Benoni native”s every performance, even in utterly unsalvageable hatstand roles like “The Legend of Bagger Vance,” was greeted with cheers and grand predictions for the future, even if still we kvetched about the alien pronunciation of her surname. (It”s tuh-RON, people. And give the ‘r” a roll.) Was I drinking the Kool-Aid of my compatriots? Was she that good, or did we just want her to be?

The chief exhibit in my case for Theron, prior to “Monster,” was an especially ignoble one. Taylor Hackford”s 1997 occult legal thriller “The Devil”s Advocate” is a gleefully empty-headed slab of high-spec trash in which a deranged Al Pacino, playing Mephistopheles himself, decides to do enough acting for two men – which is just as well, since Keanu Reeves ain”t doing any. Pacino”s performance is the kind of take-no-prisoners hamming from under which co-stars rarely emerge alive, and yet the film is somehow stolen by Theron, as Mary Ann, Reeves”s naïve apple-pie trophy wife who moves to Manhattan, bobs her hair and conveniently loses her mind at some speed.

It”s a role as stupid as anything else in the film, psychologically tenuous and borderline misogynistic in its shortcut to female pregnancy hysteria, and yet a wild-eyed Theron sells it, her gaze lending the character an awareness that exceeds the knowledge the script has written for her, and playing her breakdown as a gradual diminishing of resources rather than an escalation of tics. It”s exemplary between-the-lines playing – she cracked my personal Best Supporting Actress ballot for 1997, and while that list would likely look very different if I reassembled it today, she”d still be very much in the running.

I hadn”t seen “The Devil”s Advocate” in well over a decade when I recently stumbled upon it, approximately halfway through, during some late-night channel-hopping with a friend who hadn”t seen it before. “Is that Charlize Theron?” he asked uncertainly, as the actress”s then-fuller face, framed by unfamiliar dark hair, flashed on screen in one of the film”s many sub-“Rosemary”s Baby” setups. “She was really good even then, wasn”t she?” he observed a few minutes later, after Mary Ann had improbably but intensely topped herself with broken glass. She was. She still is.

So, who else was on the Theron train before the Academy climbed on board?

Welcome to Oscar Talk.

In case you’re new to the site and/or the podcast, Oscar Talk is a weekly kudocast, your one-stop awards chat shop between yours truly and Anne Thompson of Thompson on Hollywood. The podcast is weekly, every Friday throughout the season, charting the ups and downs of contenders along the way. Plenty of things change en route to Oscar’s stage and we’re here to address it all as it unfolds.

Are you ready for the most unorganized podcast of all time? This was perhaps the busiest Oscar week of the season. I forgot to ask for reader questions (sorry) and didn’t even get around to an actual rundown before recorded due to a big news item dropping right before we recorded. But hey, we can fly by the seat of our pants. Let’s see what’s on the docket today…

The Oscar telecast saw a lot of changes this week, starting with Brett Ratner’s resignation of the Oscarcast producing post, followed by host Eddie Murphy’s exit, then Brian Grazer getting tapped to produce and finally Billy Crystal coming on board to emcee. We talk about all the moving parts of this swiftly developing story.

There were a few other nuggets worth discussing, like “The Flowers of War” getting an Oscar-qualifying run. We discuss whether it has much of a chance at landing any attention.

AFI Fest has been on-going all week, starting with the “J. Edgar” premiere last week and wrapping up with the North American premiere of “The Adventures of Tintin” (which we’ll discuss next week) last night. We talk about this and that.

Morgan Freeman was tapped for the Golden Globes’ Cecil B. DeMille Award. We kind of talk about that.

Oh, and “Hugo,” which I saw this week after Anne caught it at the New York Film Festival. We disagree a bit on its Oscar potential. Plus lots more. We kind of just skimmed over a number of news nuggets.

Have a listen to the new podcast below with a Grazer and Crystal’s theme leading the way. If the file cuts off for you at any time, try the back-up download link at the bottom of this post. And as always, remember to subscribe to Oscar Talk via iTunes here.

“Theme from Superman (Main Title)” courtesy of John Williams and Warner Bros. Records.
“It’s a Tower Heist” courtesy of Nas, Rick Ross and Varese Sarabande.

Clint Eastwood’s “J. Edgar” opened in a few select theaters on Wednesday, but today’s it’s expanding to a wider audience and it’s about that time to get your thoughts. I’ve already rifled off my schizophrenic take from the film’s AFI Fest world premiere (and I like it less the further I spin away from it). Meanwhile, we offered up a list of the best performances from Clint Eastwood films to mark the occasion earlier this week. Now, though, it’s time to put the question out to the audience. If you get around to the film this weekend, do come back and give us your take.

Well. What a week, huh? If there’s a perspective the events of the last few days can be put into, I’m not completely sure what it is, but I think Steve Pond makes a valiant attempt in a lengthy take on the exit of Brett Ratner and Eddie Murphy from this year’s Oscarcast. He marks it as a signal — along with a few other recent events — of the end of an era. The list of Oscar emcees since Billy Crystal last hosted (which was itself a bit of a return after an uncharacteristically lengthy absence of three years) is interesting: Chris Rock, Jon Stewart, Ellen DeGeneres, Hugh Jackman, tandems. They were all attempts to shake it up. And everything else has been boiling down to a craven desire to appeal to a broader, younger audience. Maybe it’s time to re-center. [The Odds]

Ricky Gervais makes Hollywood a 2 for 1 offer: “I’ll host the Globes and the Oscars.” [Access Hollywood]

No surprise: Twitards, er, TwiHARDS are already lining up for the Monday premiere of “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1.” [Deadline]

Kenneth Turan on the “euphoric effect” Michel Hazanavicius’s “The Artist” has on people. (Okay.) [Los Angeles Times]

Sasha Stone is on the record, says the film “can’t lose” Best Picture. [Awards Daily]

Pauline Kael biographer Brian Kellow says the late critic would have loved “Bridesmaids” but hated “The Help.” [The Wrap]

Bill Nighy talks “Arthur Christmas” across the pond. [Guardian]

Using “The Dark Knight” to defend Penn State football coach Joe Paterno. [Badass Digest]

Werner Herzog talks “Into the Abyss” with the Andrew Goldman… [New York Times Magazine]

…and with David Poland. [Movie City News]

Steven Spielberg’s “The Adventures of Tintin” closed out AFI Fest this evening, a real coup for the festival and for Paramount Pictures (who are still well over a month away from release stateside). And the film is a dazzling experience, full of Spielberg’s trademark cinematic energy. It’s his best film in nearly a decade (since “Minority Report,” at least).

The film was reviewed in this space by Guy upon its UK release (being one of precious few Hollywood films that manage to hit the marketplace outside the US first), and I agree with his assessment. (I’m also happy he didn’t fall in with some other UK critics who seemed to have their knives out for the film overseas; I expect it to land more comfortably on these shores.)

For me, this film put a smile on my face and kept it there. It’s Spielberg invigorated, the performance-capture and animation process allowing him to do things with the camera that he had only dreamed of, conjuring angles and set-pieces that surely have existed only in his head for decades but now have the freedom to run wild on the screen.

Indeed, there is an action sequence in this film that I’d call the most exciting set-piece Spielberg has ever conceived and accomplished. A one-“take” race through the streets of a stepped Moroccan village, it literally had me rocking in my seat, electrified. And it’s not just the novelty of the single take. There is real creativity in every turn. Fantastic.

With that in mind, I’d like to formally offer up Michael Kahn’s film editing as my strongest “FYC” note of the season. The transitional work here is as creative as many of the “shot” selections, again, the kinds of cinematic strokes one can only imagine have lived in the editor and Spielberg’s head for years, waiting for a technological way in. The film is a tight, brisk zip that is nevertheless packed with intrigue. You’ll get your money’s worth and then some and Kahn’s handling of the pace and the action is a huge reason why.

The performance-capture is quite good and, despite this or that waxy visage, completely involving on an emotional and character level, I’d say. Jamie Bell is a fine front man for the project while Andy Serkis delivers his second fully realized, captivating (and this time completely different) mo-cap performance of the year as the perpetually pie-eyed Captain Haddock. Daniel Craig is deliciously devilish (somehow alliteration has taken hold) as the film’s villain, Ivanovich Sakharine, while Simon Pegg and Nick Frost give great comic relief as inspectors Thompson and Thomson. The performance-capture process really adds a lot to their contribution, too, expanding the performances.

Indeed, I appreciate “Tintin” for the hybrid of mo-cap and animation that it is, because obviously it was the only way Spielberg could do some of the things he wanted to do. The film is just a landmark of visual conception, plain and simple.

And John Williams is back! His frolicking score has a playful, jazzy accent here and there that gives it a flavor unto its own within the Williams canon, but is nevertheless of a piece with his legacy. (And I also loved the subtle “Raiders of the Lost Ark” flavor in the Sahara sequence.)

In so many words, “The Adventures of Tintin” is one of the year’s best films. Handily so, I’d wager. I hope it can find traction in the major Oscar categories. Adapted screenplay consideration wouldn’t be unwarranted, nor, frankly, Best Picture. I can easily see this one clocking in as a top-of-the-list favorite for many this season. Fingers are crossed it does, in any case.

More importantly, I hope the box office for the film is substantial enough to warrant a continuation of the franchise. Peter Jackson serves as producer on this effort and is anxious to take a stab at his own “Tintin” movie, with Spielberg in the producer’s chair.

When “The Secret of the Unicorn” (as this film is subtitled overseas) hits theaters next month, you could do a lot worse than put a little money toward the cause and Jackson’s proposed follow-up, “Prisoners of the Sun.”

You’re up, “War Horse.”

“The Adventures of Tintin” opens nationwide Wednesday, December 21.

The AFI Fest may chiefly get press for its starry gala premieres of Hollywood heavyweights like “J. Edgar” and “The Adventures of Tintin,” but it’s no less invested in showcasing far smaller works from the fringe and foreign sectors that could use the festival exposure — and it’s this aspect of the event that is reflected in their jury and audience awards, which shine a light on up-and-coming talents that could use the exposure.

Still, glancing down the list of winners announced earlier today, a few titles are familiar — particularly to those who have been following the submissions process for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar. Indeed, the one multiple prizewinner at AFI is Belgium’s candidate for the award, Michaël R. Roskam’s “Bullhead.” A reputedly tough-minded study of masculinity in the unlikely context of illegal cattle breeding (I haven’t seen it, but Drew McWeeny wrote a glowing review recently), the film took the audience award in the New Auteurs section, seeing off formidable competition including widely-admired Cannes titles “Snowtown,” “Michael” and “Oslo, August 31st.” 

The audience wasn’t alone in being impressed by “Bullhead”: a jury of critics, including Variety’s Justin Chang and the LA Times’s Mark Olsen, awarded leading man Matthias Schoenaerts their acting prize, “for his nuanced and intensely physical embodiment of bruised masculinity.” For an Oscar submission that was greeted with surprise and some displeasure by pundits rooting for the Dardennes’ Cannes favorite “The Kid With a Bike,” the lesser-known film is starting to look like a credible choice in its own right.

The jury handed their top award in the New Auteurs strand to Julia Loktev’s “The Loneliest Planet,” which stars Gael Garcia Bernal and has drawn strong reactions across the fall festival circuit, “for its bold exploration of societal structures and gender roles, set against a landscape that conveys both profound beauty and profound alienation.” Their Special Jury Prize, meanwhile, went to another Oscar hopeful, this time from Greece: Athina Rachel Tsangari’s offbeat coming-of-age tale “Attenberg,” produced by “Dogtooth” creator Yorgos Lanthimos, is something of a festival veteran by this point, having travelled extensively since winning Best Actress for young star Ariane Labed at last year’s Venice Film Festival (where I rather liked it)..

Going back to the audience awards, their top pick in the Breakthrough section was Alexandra-Therese Keining’s “With Every Heartbeat,” a lesbian romantic drama from Sweden that one can only hope makes good use of compatriot Robyn’s storming pop single of the same name.

Teacher-student themed indie comedy “Wuss” took audience honors in the Young Americans strand, while the outcome in the World Cinema section is something of a surprise: though the lineup included such critically lauded festival hits as “A Separation,” the award was split between two lower-profile US productions, Rwanda-set genocide story “Kinyarwanda” and culinary documentary “Jiro Dreams of Sushi.” (I won’t, however, feign astonishment that the audience didn’t go for “Faust” or “The Turin Horse.”) 

Finally, short film awards were handed to “Babyland,” “Frozen Stories,” “The Eagleman Stag” and “The Voyagers.”

It was a whirlwind week for Oscar. Between Brett Ratner”s hasty resignation as the Oscarcast producer followed immediately by Eddie Murphy bowing out of his hosting duties and Brian Grazer stepping in to join forces with Don Mischer to rescue the show, the Academy has barely had time to catch its breath, much less take proper notice of the @MuppetOscars campaign on Twitter. This afternoon”s announcement that Billy Crystal will host the 2012 Academy Awards effectively dashed any remaining “Rainbow Connection” Oscar remix dreams.

In the wake of Oscargate, Academy president Tom Sherak has stepped forward to assure Hollywood (and the Oscar viewing audience at large) that everything is thoroughly under control. “If this happened in January, I would be hiding under my desk,” he told Deadline in one of a number of interviews today. “Look what has happened. We are actually two and a half weeks ahead of where we were last year, in terms of naming a host.”

Crystal is a good choice as a host at this stage of the game. He is tried, true, and classic (read: In no way a dangerous risk taken in the hopes of enticing a younger viewing audience). Frankly, I have a deep affection for Crystal and believe he will deliver a solid and entertaining performance that illustrates that the Academy does indeed recall its place and purpose in the grander scheme of entertainment.

As to the details of this week”s controversy, there”s been a fair amount of speculation about the actual order of events surrounding Ratner”s resignation. Sherak had issued a statement in support of Ratner the very morning that the “Tower Heist” director”s lascivious, kiss-and-tell-all Howard Stern interview aired.

“But I didn”t hear Howard Stern into that night,” Sherak clarified to the Los Angeles Times. “I don”t listen to that show…I think I”m out of the demographic. I got an email. ‘Have you heard Howard Stern?” Later in the day I went home. I put it on and I started listening to it. Next morning he resigned.”

The Academy president admitted that after he heard the particulars of Ratner”s exchange with Stern he recalled exactly why he doesn”t listen to the shock-jock on a regular basis. “I felt appalled,” he said. “Thank God my wife didn”t hear it…Brett called me the next day. He said, ‘Tom, I need to resign.” I said, ‘Thank you.” He said, ‘I”m not going to hurt the Academy or you and I have to fix it. I have to resign.””

Ratner made said call while Sherak was in the midst of an officer”s meeting that had been planned two months ago rather than the “emergency” board meeting that many assumed had been convened to discuss Ratner specifically. But despite the events of this past week, however, Sherak asserts that he does not regret his initial decision to hire Ratner, “one bit” and would do it again based on the interview he originally had with Ratner.

Sherak contends that Ratner is human and flawed, as we all are, but that he ultimately, “went a step over the line in the accumulation of the things he did.”

As the dust begins to settle and Sherak, Grazer, Mischer (and now Crystal) piece together what will likely be one of the safer Oscarcasts that we have seen over the past several years, Sherek assures reporters (repeatedly) that “the Academy isn”t panicked.” Brian Grazer and his team were in fact among the first to offer support, saying simply, “You need our help, we are in.”

As the producers put their heads together to devise a plan we once again ask them to consider @MuppetOscars. Perhaps Billy Crystal, who is known to both sing and dance, wouldn”t mind sharing the stage (if only for a moment) with Kermit, Piggy and the gang. Nothing says a return to innocence and good, clean, comedic fun quite like The Muppets after all.

It is somewhat interesting to note the differences in tone and subject matter in Crystal and Murphy”s early comedy routines. The Academy was not surprised by Murphy”s departure, and seems, in a sense, to be taking it back to basics with Crystal. And in evaluating the takeaway from the past several days, Sherak had the following to say to The New York Times:

“The next person who tells you the Oscars are irrelevant, have them call me.”

Okay, so like I said, I imagine it went something like this: “Let's make this easy on everyone. Let's get Billy Crystal in here and let's forget this whole mess ever happened.” Sorry, Muppets.

Billy Crystal has been tapped as the host of this year's Oscar telecast. I'm fine with it. What was the last one he did? 2003? And he's been itching to get back into that seat. So I'm happy for him. And I'm happy this whole thing was settled so quickly. I wish the show the best moving forward and I have no doubt it'll be a fun and classy event.

It all started with a Tweet (which could have easily been a joke, but that doesn't stop the desperate world of online journalists from single-sourcing and running with it). But that news was eventually confirmed by the Academy to numerous sources, including HitFix. So Billy's our guy.

There isn't really much in the way of a nuanced discussion of what Crystal will add to the proceedings, is there? I don't really know what to say. “Boring” isn't the word I'm looking for, because I know it'll be entertaining. “Unremarkable?” Yeah, maybe that's the word.

“With Billy, we”re moving forward with one of the greatest hosts in Oscar history,” Oscarcast co-producer Don Mischer said via AMPAS press release. “His return to the Oscars is, in a sense, a celebration.”

Anyway, the question is, what do YOU think? Good call? Bad call? Rifle off your thoughts below.