Oscar Shows--and No-Shows : Who’s There and Who Isn’t Can Say a Lot About What’s What

An inquiry to the office of former Columbia Pictures chief David Puttnam the other day revealed that he will not be attending the Oscar ceremonies Monday night. Said the polite member of his staff over the phone, “He’ll be in Toronto teaching a class.”

This is the studio executive who gave the green light to two of the movies nominated for best motion picture of 1987, “The Last Emperor” and “Hope and Glory.” And he won’t be there?

That’s right. And there are a lot of others in the Hollywood firmament who won’t attend, either. You rarely see some of the bigger stars, unless, of course, they are nominated or have something to sell or need a shot of High Visibility. When was the last time you saw the Redfords or the Pacinos at the Oscar ceremonies?

But these are the facts of Oscar life as I’ve come to know them. The statuette’s star power is the victim of users. One motion picture publicist I know calls the ritual “the ultimate universal media event, the most prestigious event you can get a client to appear on.”

So there are certain clues to look for and different subtexts for the appearances and non-appearances at the Academy Awards.

In Puttnam’s case, there are several ways to read the fact that he won’t attend. One is to say, well, even if either of those two films wins, he himself would not need to be there to collect the Oscar. (The award goes to the producers.) Besides, Puttnam made an unceremoniously early departure from Columbia.

Another is to simply take it all for what it is--that there is no animosity. (After all, Putnam did attend the Oscar show the year his “Chariots of Fire” was named best picture and he was observed afterward clutching his Oscar with such a firm grip that it looked like he’d never let go.)

I choose to read Puttnam’s absence this year as a mix of both: If one of his films should win, he becomes the hero in absentia, the man who lost the battle at Columbia’s parent company, Coca-Cola, but who won the war at Oscar time.

Paul Newman wasn’t at last year’s Oscar ceremonies when he was the sentimental favorite to win the best-actor award, but he will be present tomorrow. You have to go back many years to see the full picture.

At the time of last year’s ceremonies, Newman, who had been nominated five times before for best actor and had never won, probably figured, oh no, not again. Of course, last year he won.

The year before, he had received a special Oscar for the body of his work. Even though he knew ahead of time that he’d be presented with that prize, he was a no-show. By satellite, he gave his thank-you message from the Chicago location of “The Color of Money.”

Last year’s excuse? He was busy working with his wife on a film version of “The Glass Menagerie” in the East.

So this year Newman will be on the program handing out an award. You see, in a sort of twisted Hollywood way, it makes up for the absent years. It proves he has no grudge against the Academy--as long as he can be present on his terms.

Cher will be there. Not surprising, since she’s considered by many to be the odds-on favorite to take home the best-actress Oscar. But just in case she doesn’t, she’s also been booked as one of the presenters. In the eyes of publicity agents, this guarantees her exposure to a 1 billion-member audience. Not bad. After all, she’s only been on the cover of every magazine you can think of in the last four months.

But let’s face it. The real reason we’re looking forward to Cher’s spot is we’re all dying to see what she’ll be wearing--up close.

It’s no surprise that Marlee Matlin, last year’s Oscar winner for best actress, will be there; it’s tradition for the previous year’s winner in that category to present the Oscar for best actor (likewise, Newman will announce best actress). But there’s more working here than just Oscar protocol: Matlin’s presence has the additional plus for her of reminding us she is still around. Where’s she been since the last awards? (OK, she was in “Walker,” but who saw that?)

Then there’s Faye Dunaway, whose presence just might be read as, “Hey, I don’t care that you didn’t nominate me for best actress this year. I’m here, anyway!” (She starred in the well-received “Barfly,” and many people were surprised that she wasn’t nominated.)

The academy likes to have stars from some of the major money movies of the year on hand, just to remind us that despite what films win, the industry really is in touch with the masses of moviegoers who are the backbone of the industry. That’s one reason why you’ll see Eddie Murphy, Mel Gibson, Patrick Swayze and Robin Williams, among others, on the program.

As presenters, there also will be some of 1987’s biggest film pairings: Glenn Close and Michael Douglas (both nominees) from “Fatal Attraction”; John Lone and Joan Chen from “Last Emperor”; Nicolas Cage and Cher from “Moonstruck,” and Kevin Costner and Sean Young from “No Way Out.” What a great way to remind the viewers of the range of last year’s movies--many of which are still playing in certain locales and abroad.

Probably the guy with the most attention to be gained by an appearance on the Oscar show this year will be the guy celebrating his 60th birthday, just like Oscar is: none other than Mickey Mouse. We’ve heard of the Oscar show being used for just about everything. Now it’s a birthday party for 1 billion guests.