It has been confirmed that the Denny Dillon piece was a hoax…and I hear she's quite upset about it. Of course, now that I know it's a joke, that seems obvious to me and I feel a bit dumb for not having caught it right away. I need to stop blogging when I'm half-asleep.
More reaction to the Oscars last night. To some, the omission of Joan Rivers from the In Memoriam reel is and will forever be the social injustice of our times. I could certainly make the case either way and I'd also note quite a few others who weren't included: Carla Laemmle, Richard Kiel, Dickie Jones, Jan Hooks, Elaine Stritch, etc. And those are just actors. There are probably hundreds of behind-the-camera folks whose families were disappointed that their departed loved one was not included. (An awful lot of the articles online today also mention Harold Ramis, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Shirley Temple and others as having been "snubbed" but those folks were all in last year's reel.)
Given the inevitably of some arguable selections being excluded, I can't get too worked-up over not including Joan. They should have put her in just so we didn't have this silly controversy. Frankly, I think she would have loved it. Nobody, not even Sarah Palin, played the Victim Card to such good advantage as Joan Rivers. And no one ever cared less about hurting the feelings of stars of her magnitude.
I didn't mention the tribute to The Sound of Music. That's not a movie I especially loved but I do love surprise appearances and bringing Julie Andrews on at the end was a great moment. Many today are praising Lady Gaga's singing and saying that she proved she is a performer who should be taken seriously. Fine. She was great. But I always thought that by dressing the way she usually does and calling herself "Lady Gaga," she was trying real hard to not be taken seriously.
In non-Oscar news — yes, there is some — I think we need to declare an end to politicians declaring they know what's in each others' hearts and when someone is not really of the religion they claim. Talk about what these people do, not what you'd like to make voters think they are.
I have a new theory (I don't think I've said this before) that when a politician says something outrageous and in questionable taste, it's sometimes to please a very tiny, well-heeled audience. The person goes to someone like Sheldon Adelson or a Koch Brother or even Warren Buffett seeking financial backing either for a candidacy or, as more likely with Rudy Giuliani, a business deal. The rich guys says, "Well, I like you and your ideas…but I haven't seen you get out there and tell the world that the president dresses in women's lingerie. That's a fact, you know."
And then the politician says, "Oh, I've said that many times. In fact, it's already in the speech I'm giving tomorrow afternoon!" And then they rush to write it in and say it because, you know, you never argue with someone who could write you a check with a whole lot of numbers on it. Plus, you can always walk it back later or, as Giuliani has been doing, deny you said what you said or meant it the way you knew everyone would take it. The rich person probably doesn't mind the walkback because he understands that to be effective for his purposes, you need to do that and he's gotten what he wanted.
Hey, as I was writing this message, I received an e-mail from Denny Dillon asking me to remove the fake blog from my site. I'm going to go write her back that I already did and repeat to her my apology for not realizing it sooner. See you later.