Gone Too Soon: Natasha Richardson (1963-2009)

I didn’t want to believe the story on the New York Post’s website the night of March 17, 2009 when they reported that Tony award winning actress and film star, Natasha Richardson, 45, was brain dead and was on life support at New York’s Lenox Hill Hospital; the result of a brain injury she sustained during a skiing accident while on vacation with family the day before in Quebec.

I had a couple good reasons not to trust the story in the Post.

For starters, the newspaper was the only media outlet to report the tragedy when no one else at the time had confirmation.

The other reason why I refused to accept what eventually became the truth was not only because of how unexpectedly sudden the tragedy had happened. It was because I never saw Natasha Richardson as a movie star, at least not in the sense that she made any noteworthy blockbusters or was always on the radar of the tabloid entertainment press stirring up senseless controversy.

Looking over Richardson’s filmography, I had only seen her in one movie, the little seen World War II drama and box office failure, “Fat Man and Little Boy” (1989), which starred Paul Newman and Dwight Schulz; the star of NBC’s “The A-Team” (1983-1987).

The role was a minor one for the Tony award winning actress who was 25 at the time in which she played the doomed mistress of Schulz’s J. Robert Oppenheimer; the architect behind the building of the atomic bombs eventually dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima that brought about the end of World War II in 1945.

Looking over her celebrity photos on the internet sometimes posing with her husband/actor Liam Neeson (the two starred together in the 1994 film, “Nell”, and married soon after), I saw Richardson more as a beautiful, elegant, happy, vibrant working mother of two boys who not only donated time to such notable charities as the American Foundation for AIDS Research (her father director Tony Richardson died in 1991 from the disease), but also put her family and kids first before work.

“I want my sons to be my top priority,” Richardson was once quoted saying in People.

Those celebrity photos as well as her work on the stage and screen are now images frozen in time.

What makes her death most upsetting is how it could have been avoided to begin with. The first reports said the actress was talking and joking saying she felt fine after taking a fall during a skiing lesson and refused medical treatment when paramedics were called in the first time. The situation, however, grew worse within the time she started having headaches. Suddenly, the idea of dying from what didn’t seem like a nasty fall but what is now, according to the autopsy done by the New York medical exam two-and-a-half-hour injuries caused by a blunt impact to the head sounds too much like a cruel unfunny joke.

My first reaction upon hearing her life threatening injury, given how people in this country want cheap nationalized health care the way Canada and other countries do is I have to wonder if her skiing accident had happened here in the states, would she have stood a chance.

In a USA Today article, Tarek Razek, director of trauma services for the McGill University Health Centre which represents six of Montreal’s hospitals in Quebec, was quoted saying the drive from the Mont Tremblant ski resort where Richardson was staying at is two-and-a-half hours from the nearest hospital.

“It’s impossible for me to comment specifically about her case, but what I could say is…driving to Mon Tremblant from the city (Montreal) is a two and a half hour trip, and the closest trauma center is in the city,” Rezak said. “Our system isn’t set up for traumas and doesn’t match what’s available in other Canadian cities, let alone the States…and many other developed countries.”

Centre Hospitalier Laurentien in Ste-Agathe, the first treatment center Richardson was taken to does not specialize in head traumas, Rezak said. Moreover, Quebec has no medical helicopter system unlike the United States.

“Not being airlifted directly to a trauma center could have cost Richardson crucial moments,” Razek said. “A helicopter is obviously the fastest way to get from Point A to Point B.”

Then there is the question, despite my refusing to believe that helmets prevent brain injuries much the way I don’t believe seat belts in cars save lives in auto accidents, why wearing a helmet has never been made a mandatory requirement whether you are a beginner or an experienced skier.

According to an unnamed staff member at Mont Tremblant, Richardson was offered a protective helmet during her ski lesson but declined.

“We are heartbroken that we didn’t do more to persuade her to wear one. A helmet would have cost her just ten dollars (Canadian),” the unnamed staff member told the British newspaper, The Sun. “Every skier is encouraged to wear a helmet, especially beginners like Natasha. But it is not legally enforced, and they can always refuse.”

The issue of what could have been done to save her is probably not what is on the minds of Richardson’s prominent acting family of both the stage and screen who include her sister, Joely Richardson, and their mother, Oscar winning actress Vanessa Redgrave, right now. They are not mourning the loss of a star but a daughter, sister, and a beloved and devoted wife of two boys.

Their personal loss and ours is like a nightmare. You wake up only to find out there is still no happy ending. It is just so…heartbreaking.

©3/22/09

Booze at Six Flags is a roller coaster of trouble

I have always wondered how police officers can tell when a person behind the wheel is driving drunk, even in a residential zone. For me, to figure out when a person is driving drunk is when I am on the highway and I see some idiot racing past me zigzagging between lanes at 80 miles an hour or more without using his turn signal.

I witnessed such a case coming home from work driving down 635 Tuesday night. Some idiot in an SUV way up front was going at an uncontrolled 80 miles an hour or more veering from lane to lane, going left to right and back to the left again with no turn signals. It was amazing that no one got hit. What was even more astounding was how the driver managed to keep from hitting the white poles on the left side.

I said to myself, "If this guy kills someone, I really hope it's just him and no one else."

I was not only furious with the moron, but even more upset in wondering where the police officers were. It amazes me at how they always are around Galloway and Town East in Mesquite for speed traps in their little "constable" cars waiting to catch someone going over 30. Yet after midnight when someone is creating a hazard, there are no Dallas police to be seen. All they do is wait for someone like me driving a "red" car because the color "red" stands out from other cars.

As if watching this wasn't enough, that same night I saw a story on the Channel 4 news' website about a 2-year-old boy who was critically injured in a crash by a drunk driver, who already had a long history of driving drunk. Doctors said the toddler, who is on life support, had 80 percent of his brain destroyed.

The next day, I read that Arlington's Six Flags Over Texas and Hurricane Harbor may begin selling beer in late March.

When it comes to alcohol consumption, I hate beer. I hate it. I hate the taste of it so much that I look at it as nothing more than urine (given its yellow color) mixed with yeast that causes people to develop giant guts. Granted, when it comes to margaritas or rum and coke, I can drink like a fish but at least I do it responsibly. If I am out with someone at a restaurant or bar and I want to gulp down four or five margaritas with no qualms about the $5 price tag, I'll do it as long as the other person stays sober and gets me home alive.

When it comes to drunk driving, I will never understand how former jailbirds convicted of DUIs can sit there and boast about how they've done time in the slammer, like they are proud of it. I do not know how I will react if I ever run into someone who not only boasts about how they did jail time for a DUI but killed someone in the process.

I have no sympathy for drunk drivers. I do not care if the police officers caught them just once and don't do it again. There ought to be a no-second-chance law. If you get caught driving drunk, you will never be allowed to get behind the wheel the rest of your life and if you wind up killing someone, then you get sentenced to life in prison with no parole.

When it comes to granting alcoholic licenses to amusement parks like Six Flags Over Texas, city councils should take into consideration the number of alcohol-related fatalities and how more could occur if beer is served.

That's what Carl Fors of Fort Worth-based Texas Sober tried to prove during hearings with the Arlington City Council over the past year in an article in The Dallas Morning News. Fors said children make up a larger percentage of the crowd at Six Flags than they do at such entertainment venues as Ranger's Ballpark and Texas Stadium.

Granting Six Flags an alcohol license would automatically signal more alcohol-related incidents, including fatalities, Fors said in the article.

Six Flags spokeswoman Sharon Parker was quoted in the article saying other entertainment venues sell alcohol.

"Our sister park in San Antonio, as well as other entertainment venues throughout the state of Texas, have proven that you can serve beer - and in some cases other mixed beverages - and still provide a family-friendly atmosphere," Parker said.

I don't see how a family friendly atmosphere can be promoted if alcoholic beverages are sold in the park, even if it is at designated areas only. I wonder if anyone will feel differently if someone in the Six Flags area is killed by a drunk driver who had consumed alcoholic beverages while at the park?

With Six Flags Over Texas and Hurricane Harbor being well on their way to selling alcohol, what is next? Selling it at movie theaters? It is bad enough I must deal with inconsiderate patrons who bring their one-year-old babies to the theater and allow them to cry throughout the whole movie. Just imagine what the atmosphere might be like if beer was served. I have a feeling patrons would have no problem paying the $5. They pay $5 anyway for a large drink.

What it all boils down to is money over safety. Amusement parks are more concerned with making a dollar. The ones who suffer are not going to be the patrons who shell out their cash to get plastered. It will be the ones who do not drink and who could become potential victims of someone else's recklessness.

©3/10/09

Rourke’s Best Actor loss causes right wing conspiracy theories to take flight

Something was eating away at my insides the minute I learned that Sean Penn, and not Mickey Rourke, had won Best Actor at the 81st Annual Academy Awards Feb. 22 for his performance as the late political gay activist Harvey Milk in the biopic, “Milk.”

I couldn’t put my finger on what it was that was troubling me. I suppose it could have been my stomach telling me it wanted to be fed.

Ok, which was part of it, but that was not the main issue at the time. The first thought that came to mind upon hearing Penn’s name and given that the lead character he plays is homosexual, was didn’t the gay community and AIDS sufferers get their day in the sun already at the 1994 Oscars when Tom Hanks won for his performance in “Philadelphia” (1993) playing an AIDS stricken lawyer fired by a conservative law firm?

“Was that not enough,” I asked myself.

It was really irritating me that I couldn’t figure out why Rourke, whom I and most everyone else who has seen him in his tragic comeback role as Randy “The Ram” Robinson in The Wrestler, and whom most believed would win Best Actor, lost to Penn.

In an Entertainment Weekly readers’ poll taken the week after the ceremony, 46 percent say Rourke should have won over the 37 percent who were for Penn, while 26 percent say the biggest surprise of Oscar night was Penn winning.

I got my answers a day later when I came across bighollywood.breitbart.com, a conservative website that gives readers the right-wing perspective on what liberal Tinseltown stands for. From there, the conspiracy theories flew, and I cannot say they were not illogical.

“Hmmm…why did Mickey Rourke win Best Actor in every other award ceremony besides this one,” wrote Brett Joshpe on the site. “As I said, the Academy punished Mickey for his gratitude towards President Bush for keeping our country safe from Islamofascism/terrorism. Instead, it chose to award its biggest donkey, Sean Penn.” Another writer on the site named “Mr. Wrestling IV” wrote how he knew already there was no way Rourke would win the Oscar.

“I knew this was never going to happen, that the Academy would never vote for a guy who said he was “not one of those who blames Bush for everything,” and that they vote for Sean Penn because of his political stances, not in spite of them, as Penn likes to pretend,” Mr. Wrestling IV wrote.

Rourke, who, at one point, left acting to pursue a boxing career, has always been one to not shy away from his opinion, even if it means ticking off everyone in Hollywood.

“Actors should shut up about politics because they tend to be ill-informed finger-pointers who just cozy up to some flavor-of-the-month liberal, you know,” he once said.

I am not going to argue with him on that one, after all look at who we now have as president.

As early as 2006, Rourke defended Dubya for the war on terror.

"George is doing a hell of a job during very difficult times, more power to him. Screw all them people who don't like him," Rourke said.

He came to Dubya’s defense again during the former president’s remaining days in office in January this year.

"President Bush was in the wrong place at the wrong time, I don't know how anyone could have handled this situation," the actor said in an interview with GQ magazine on dealing with the 9/11 and terrorism. "I don't give a (expletive) who's in office, Bush or whoever, there is no simple solution to this problem. I am not one of those who blames Bush for everything. This (expletive) between Christians and Muslims goes back to the Crusades, does not it. It is too easy to blame everything on one guy. These are unpredictable, dangerous times, and I do not think that anyone really knows quite what to do."

I would find it rather ironic, no, strike that. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the reason Rourke lost to Penn had more to do with his defense of “Dubya” than spending the last 20 years burning all his bridges with everyone in Hollywood.

I was really looking forward to Rourke’s acceptance speech on Oscar night if he had won, which most likely would have been filled with some colorful language that would have had ABC censors worried. I shed no emotion unlike everyone else in the audience who had tears in their eyes when the late Heath Ledger’s name was announced winning as expected, his best supporting actor nomination as The Joker in “The Dark Knight” posthumously. I cannot say the same if Rourke had won and dedicated the gold statue to his 18-year-old pet Chihuahua, Loki, who had just recently passed away and who he credits for saving his life. I understand where Rourke is coming from, being a dog owner myself who is also caring for a sick pet with heart disease and was just told by my vet that my 12-year-old Lhasa Apso named “Mad” Max, has maybe six to eight months to live, give or take if the medications he is on work.

Instead of awarding an actor who had been through the depths of hell, much of it his own making contemplating suicide and going through a divorce among them, and made a comeback, “Hollyweird” not only chose to award an actor who had already won once, but at the same time, made it into a political issue when it came to California’s Proposition 8 and how the state restricted the definition of marriage to only opposite-sex couples and eliminating same-sex couples’ right to marry.

To quote Sean Penn, thank you “you commie, homo-loving sons of guns.”

I am not going to argue that Penn didn’t deserve the award. If this had been a different year and both actors were not competing in the same category, I would have been all for Penn winning. By the same token, I am a little displeased that “Milk” has not been released in the Mesquite and Garland area theaters close to home and is only showing at art house theaters to where I got to drive 30 minutes out of the way just to see a two-hour film. For all I know, perhaps Mesquite residents don’t want a movie about a gay activist playing in the same theater where “Friday the 13th” is showing.

My problem with Penn winning is, like Michael Moore’s acceptance speech for “Bowling for Columbine” (2002) bashing President Bush at the 2003 Oscars, instead of having the win be about awarding the performance or the movie, it was about the individual promoting their own cause and personal agenda.

“For those who saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight, I think that it is a good time that for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes as they continue that way of support,” Penn said. “We’ve got to have equal rights for everyone.”

It is bad enough that the Academy Awards are no longer about American films getting top recognition and that we have no Titanic’s, no Godfather’s, no Star Wars, no Schindler’s List’s, to root for on Oscar night. Whatever happened to giving an Oscar to an actor or actress because of their performance? I thought Oscar loves comeback stories when it comes to out of sight stars returning to the spotlight with a critically praised performance.

As far as who the real winner was on Oscar night, there is only one and that is the actor who didn’t win.

I have always believed that awards are not everything. They may be accomplishments, but they are material things at most. You do not take that stuff with you to the grave when you die, you know.

Rourke summed it up best to Barbara Walters about what winning the Oscar would mean if he won.

“Personally, it would mean a great deal to me,” he said. “It would be a tremendous honor. It would sum up a whole comeback thing I guess in a material kind of way. But in the big picture, you cannot eat it, you cannot (expletive) it, and it will not get me into Heaven.”

Thank you, Mickey Rourke!

©3/2/09

All responsible homeowners who pay their mortgages should help the ones who can’t – I DON’T THINK SO!!!!

"The age of personal responsibility is obviously dead."

So said a blogger named Lynai, commenting about CNBC Business host Rick Santelli's on-air rant Feb. 20 on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade.

Santelli's outburst reminded me of Howard Beale, the mentally unstable, over-opinionated newscaster played by Peter Finch in the 1976 film, “Network,” where he said, "I am mad as hell, and I am not going to take this anymore."

Santelli referred to President Obama's $75 billion rescue plan, which is part of that stimulus package we are all going to be paying for the next hundred years. Why? To bail out homeowners who cannot pay their mortgage, courtesy of the 92 percent who pay their mortgages.

"This is America," Santelli yelled among the crowd of investors. "How many of you people want to pay your neighbor's mortgage?"

I noticed no investors raised their hand.

"You know, the new administration's big on computers and technology -- How about this, President Obama and your new administration? Why don’t you put up a website where people could vote as a referendum, to see if we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages; or would we rather buy cars and houses in foreclosure and give them to people who might have a chance to prosper down the road? Thus, rewarding people that could carry the water instead of drink the water?" Santelli asked.

Which brings me to the subject of what blogger Lynai said about personal responsibility and it being a moral issue.

Years ago, I worked for a company that stupidly eliminated late fees. This was the equivalent of President Kennedy's plan to axe the Central Intelligence Agency. Never mind the fact that doing away with all late charges meant doing away with millions of dollars of revenue, as well as corporate employees' jobs. By saying no more late fees, the company was telling its customers they no longer would be held accountable for their actions. They could return the item a month later if they wished and they would not be charged fifty dollars plus in late charges and the price of the item.

Well, so much for people accepting personal responsibility. I am not alone when it comes to people who pay their mortgages on time.

"They have mortgages and it's their responsibility to pay them," said one woman in New York in an interview on NBC Nightly News."

"I feel like I'm doing the right thing paying my mortgage, and now apparently I have to pay my neighbor's mortgage, too," said stay-at-home mom Kim Guymon, whose value on her Seattle suburban home has dropped $150,000.

And they have a right to be angry. I do not know how you feel but as someone who would eventually like to own a home, I do not care to be put in the group that Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling calls "Nice guys finish last." How do you homeowners feel about being referred to as that nice guy?

Even if I were a homeowner (I rent), and got myself into a financial mess, I assure you that I would make darn certain the banks got my mortgage payment every month. The credit card bills and anything else can wait. If you do not have a roof over your head, you are screwed.

You can say what you want about Santelli. A lot of what I have read on the blogs say his on-air rant has been viewed negatively, but there are a lot of bloggers who stand with him.

I do not watch CNBC and up until Feb. 20, I had not even heard of Santelli.

This is not about Rick Santelli, whose live exchange has been viewed over 1.2 million times on CNBC.com, according to The Associated Press.

This is about people taking responsibility for their own financial actions. Stop holding pity parties and waiting for the government to bail you out.

It is your nest, deadbeats. Now lie in it.

©2/23/09

Obesity not as funny as "Hollyweird" makes it out to be

A few weeks ago, I caught what has been the No. 1 movie for two straight weeks in January – “Paul Blart: Mall Cop.” It's about a divorced, overweight, self-conscious father, played by Kevin James, who lives with his mother and daughter and works as a security guard for the local mall.

The film, which has grossed $112 million to date, could be described as "Die Hard In A Mall" in which Blart battles terrorists who take over the shopping center on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving.

Despite being considered a comedy, the movie left me with a few disturbing impressions about how Americans look at obesity, with laughter at the top of the list.

In one scene, Blart and another overweight African American male, much larger than he, have a contest to see who can finish off a bowl of nachos first.

When the lead terrorist tells a police negotiator he wants a happy meal, the hefty African American kid later asks if he can get one, too.

I admit I smiled a lot at all the mock references about overweight people, this coming from someone who is overweight. Just like I laughed and actually felt honored when my former manager once told me how I reminded him of Bluto, the party drinking character John Belushi played in “Animal House” (1978).

Because of my Italian background and my size, he also told me I reminded him of Clemenza, the overweight capo regime, played by Richard Castellano, in “The Godfather” (1972). It wasn't because he pictured me dressed in an overcoat carrying a long thin box with a shotgun inside walking up several flights of stairs to blow away rivals of the New York crime family or sitting in the back seat of a car ready to garrot the traitorous son-in-law sitting in the front seat.

Clemenza's love of food and drink was the reason my manager compared me to the character. When he was not busy asking for a pitcher of wine at a wedding, Clemenza was seen teaching Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) how to perfectly cook up some meatballs and sausage, much to the annoyance of James Caan's Sonny.

Let's be honest. Of all the lines people quote from The Godfather movies, the most humorous is the one not mentioned in Mario Puzo's novel or the original screenplay where Castellano ad-libs his character’s infamous line, "Leave the gun. Take the cannoli."

What's ironic is whenever audiences aren't busy laughing at such memorable characters, they are busy criticizing how some celebrities, women in particular, have allowed their hot-looking physiques slide.

You need look no further than singer Jessica Simpson whose recent unveiling of her chunky side didn’t win rave reviews from the public. Only 24 percent in a poll said she looked great. I was among that group. People have no idea what the phrase, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" means. I had no problem with the photos, much like the ones I saw in 2007 of Britney Spears sporting a small pot belly during a televised dance number at the MTV Music Video Awards and Jennifer Love Hewitt's handlebars while sporting a bikini on the beach. The bottom line is: They were still better looking than I am.

The grim reality of obesity is that it is not funny at all. Yet, when Hollywood attempts to confront the issue head-on, such as criticizing overweight people, they get heat from the public. Such was the case early this year when comedian Ricky Gervais said people should just put down the hamburgers and go out and exercise.

"If your arse is too fucking fat, stop eating and go for a run," Gervais said.

I cannot say I do not agree with him. Like Gervais, who also admits he has a weight problem and wishes people on the street would call him "fatty" as he is walking by as a means to get him to do something about his girth, I'd personally welcome it if the girlfriend I meet was a cross between a foul-mouthed drill sergeant and a physically fit guru who was the equivalent of a muscle-bound dominatrix who wouldn't think twice about whipping my ass whenever I fall off the dietary wagon.

Every six months my doctor tells me how pleased he is that my blood sugar, cholesterol, and blood pressure are all under control, partially because I watch what I eat but mostly thanks to all the medications I am on. Before leaving, he always adds that all those symptoms will go away if I lose some weight, even just a little. But he does not get upset or throw a fit when he sees I have not made much progress on weight loss. It is because of the risk of losing me as a patient.

Maybe a little scolding is what we all need. I know what foods I should and should not be eating and I do go out for walks around the track a few days a week, but I need to do a lot more. As my trainer at 24 Hour Fitness once told me when it comes to dieting, "This ain't rocket science."

I have found when it comes to dieting and weight loss you must be of two minds on the subject; saying and doing. My problem is I do too much saying and not enough doing.

Of course, I am not going to waste column space quoting articles from the Center for Disease Control about how the number of overweight people continues to rise every year, and along with those numbers the rising statistics of people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, cancer, and sleep apnea problems. I have heard all this before and so has everyone else, whether they are hefty or not.

Paul Blart is not the first, nor will he be the last of memorable overweight, self-conscious characters people enjoy watching on the big screen. Fantasy, however, only lasts a couple of hours.

The reality is when the theater lights go off and the ushers are left picking up the remains of half empty boxes of stale popcorn, sodas, slushy’s, candy and half eaten-day-old hot dogs, microwave pizzas and nachos, obesity is not as funny as Hollywood makes it out to be.

©2/21/09

Could the reason no one tunes in to the Oscars is because of the movies nominated?

You do not have to be a brain surgeon to figure out why no one seems to be as interested in the Academy Awards, much like you do not have to see all the Oscar-nominated movies to figure out who will win. The answer lies in the movies chosen. Of the 50 plus films nominated this year, which includes all categories, eight of them (“Bolt”, “The Dark Knight”, “Tropic Thunder”, “Kung Fu Panda”, “Wall-E”, “Hellboy II: The Golden Army”, “Iron Man”, and “Wanted”), excluding “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”, which to date has made $119 million, are box office hits that brought in between $75 and $540 million.

All eight are a combination of action adventure, comedy, and animation; truly not the kinds of hard-hitting dramas and independent productions Oscar prefers to see on his list of categories. Yet those are the ones audiences shelled out money to see over the past year. They don’t want to see what practically all the critics recommend like “The Reader” or “Frost/Nixon”, both of which have yet to hit the $20 million mark.

To be honest, the last time I was ever excited about the Academy Awards, which could include most everyone else (OK-me and all the women because no guys consider “Titanic” (1997) a “man’s film.”), was back in 1998 when the ship “God couldn’t sink” won 11 of its 14 Oscar nominations. Back then, 55.2 million viewers watched compared to last year’s lowest: 32 million.

Along with the low ratings is how boring the telecasts are with only one big surprise that happens over the course of the entire three plus hours. The big surprise at the 2006 Oscars was when “Crash” (2005) won Best Picture. Last year’s surprise, in what I found to be a touch of class, was when host Jon Stewart brought Oscar winning singer Marketa Irglova back on stage again allowing her to give her thank you speech for Best Song for “Once” (2006), which she shared with Glen Hansard. The moment would not have happened if the orchestra had not butt in cutting everyone’s acceptance speeches short with music to keep the running time under four hours.

If anything unexpected happens at this Sunday’s Oscars on Feb. 22, I’d like to believe it’s going to be that the late Heath Ledger will not win the Best Supporting Actor nomination for playing the Joker in “The Dark Knight.”

Now wouldn’t that just be a complete pisser to all the nerds and Batman fans who have been pushing for the star to not only get an Oscar nomination but to win as well since the 28-year-old actor passed away last January as a result of an overdose on prescription medications? I can just see the Oscar statue swimming in an ocean with Dark Knight fans and nerds circling like angry sharks with fins on their backs ready to snack on the golden statue’s innards.

That is what I would like to see happen. If nothing else would make the night, not to mention the aftermath coverage the loss would get from the entertainment press, so much more newsworthy.

This is not, however, a perfect world. When it comes to movie trivia, Ledger is going to go down as the second actor in Oscar history to win an Academy Award posthumously, the first being Peter Finch for his 1977 win as “The Mad Prophet of the Airwaves” Howard Beale in “Network” (1976). The only reason Ledger will win is because you cannot tell if that is really Heath Ledger under the white makeup. It is as if we really are watching a homicidal maniac on the big screen. So let the nerds have their day in the sun.

Then again, stranger things have happened. Maybe the ratings will pick up this year. Perhaps people will be interested to see what was going through the producers’ minds when they decided to have actor Hugh Jackman host the ceremonies instead of a comedian. Maybe they did it to attract more female viewers since Jackman won People Magazine’s Sexiest Man Alive last year.

Then again, Oscar has never been much of a people person. The golden statue does not care what the people want to see nominated, much less the critics. This is all about him or it. That’s why they have The People’s Choice Awards so the public can get their say on who they think deserves the highest honors.

So don’t be surprised in the days after the ceremonies are over if among the questions you hear being asked by reporters on “Entertainment Tonight” and in Entertainment Weekly as “Who wore the best red dress?” and “What was the biggest surprise of the night?” if you once again read about how the ratings were either down, or the same as last year’s and what can be done to make next year’s ceremonies more interesting.

©2/15/09