by Cecily Squier

Staff Writer

As I loafed in front of the TV this past Sunday night, watching Halle Berry win an award for what was easily one of the most pretentious pieces of crap I've seen this year, the thought occurred to me: What do you do with a bad movie? Do you celebrate it for its wretchedness, or can specific parts be celebrated, independent of the view of the whole thing?

In a similar vein, the Oscars, stunning in the ceremony's length and torpor, left me wondering what to make of it. Okay, so some films were rightfully acknowledged, like the tech awards for ``Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring'', and the design awards for ``Moulin Rouge!''. Woody Allen's monologue and Nora Ephron's documentary about New York were engaging, without becoming maudlin, tributes to the Big Apple. Errol Morris, one of the bigger names in documentary film, assembled a genuinely entertaining and interesting short about what the movies mean to people.

Some presenters and winners, in addition to being richer, thinner, and prettier than I'll ever be, were also witty and charming. Randy Newman was as self-deprecating as some of his songs might suggest, Jim Broadbent was mercifully brief, and having Donald Sutherland and Glenn Close announce the ceremony made me very happy. I am also trying to talk my fiancé into inviting both Owen Wilson and Ben Stiller into our impending marriage.

But the downside was large and steep. The Academy seemed to be singling me out, personally, and saying, ``You know that Oscar contest you entered? Well, you're sure as shit not winning that entertainment center!'' None of the films I really liked (``Royal Tenenbaums'', ``Memento'', ``Mullholland Drive'', among others) won a thing, or were even nominated. And, historical issues aside, I can think of four or five other actresses who did better in better movies than Halle Berry did in ``Monster's Ball''.

Do yourselves as favor, spare yourself some pain, and avoid this movie. In addressing questions of race, the film lends itself to a fairly explicit approval of the unredeemed nature of most male-female relationships. How do the two leads express their growing devotion to each other? By buying each other stuff, mainly Billy Bob Thornton's taciturn Hank buying stuff for Halle Berry's poor, stupid Letitia. That and varying sexual positions. The film in and of itself is not an advancement for women or people of color.

Are the issues facing the film so content-based as to say that these plot issues make it not worth watching? No, there are plenty of other things that make this an unworthy pile; namely a whole slew of unnecessary deaths, and a pacing that makes it feel like more bloodshed is just around the corner. That sort of suspense feels fairly out of place with the heart of the story, and seems to be made with an audience in mind that is dumb enough to confuse uglified actors and explicit sex scenes with `art'.

Back to the ceremony: Whoopi Goldberg was a darn shame. Steve Martin should have been asked back; he does the `mean-thing' much better than Whoopi, and makes it seem effortless, not a desperate wringing of laughs out of the audience. And what was with those robe-thingies that she kept changing? The whole evening seemed like one big fashion mistake. I haven't seen so much dirty, uncombed hair since my ninth-grade science class, at the height of the grunge movement.

Now, I'm a transplant to West Michigan from Texas, and although both places are considered to be fashion wastelands, I know better than a lot of people. Namely, J.Lo. Though people often make fun of me for being from the state with the highest per capita sales of Aquanet, I've never seen anything like that, and I hope to God it doesn't start a trend. Life in a fallen world is painful enough; hair like that makes me think the Protestant Reformed have it right and there really is no such thing as common grace.

Also, and this is just a general gripe with the nominations, it chaps my hide that ``Waking Life'' wasn't nominated for Best Animated Feature, and that the two leads in ``Mullholland Drive'' were shut out. Of course the average Academy member pays attention to what made money (which is why I think these films were left out); I'm not presuming to command them to remove that factor from their considerations.

The blockbusters of the years to come will be films that take both from the established favorites, and from the innovations that the Academy consistently ignores. Maybe I'm rating originality too highly, but a surprise at the Oscars would be nice.