Richard Dreyfuss or Nick Nolte: Who Was Crazier on Oscar Night?

It wasn't all tepid, frustrating and demoralizing Sunday night at the Oscars. We'll always have the red carpet with all its bitchy tweets, tuxedo sabotage, wheelchair awkwardness and wackadoodle screen vets getting the live, televised attention they so richly, richly deserve. Take Richard Dreyfuss and Nick Nolte, for example. Who was crazier?

Oscar-winner Dreyfuss practically melted with contempt for the whole post-Oscar scene, veering from modulated bickering to some rant about retiring from movies, the Constitution, the conservative political patrons the Koch brothers, and... Well, here. Watch:

It made for a fine complement to the evening's earlier red-carpet batshittery, with nominee Nolte making the most of his face time by discussing crows, pinball machines and whatever else his interviewer brought up (when he could hear and/or understand her):

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Down and Out in Beverly Hills: The Senior Years? Someone find Bette Midler, let's get on this!

Follow S.T. VanAirsdale on Twitter.
Follow Movieline on Twitter.


  • Patrick Hallstein / McEvoy-Halston says:

    You do nowhere near a good enough job convincing us you're banal enough to not know the most sadly troubled people weren't the interviewees but the interviewers, S. T. I certainly recognized something profoundly human in Dreyfuss and Nolte, and I think you did too. Confronted with such artifice, with people so artificial and almost not-existing, I'm not sure I want people with depth to maintain the skills, the grace, required to fit neatly in with them. It might just worsen them, and, if immature people are convinced that something real, a conversation, had taken place, shortchange society as well.

    • MartiniShark says:

      Patrick, there's only one problem with your assessment; if these stars are reacting with contempt to artifice there is a simple solution -- do not attend these functions. I'm the first to say these vacuous interviewers are rife for scorn, but to say the stars are above this pageantry is ridiculous. They showed up knowing what transpires; to be put off by the media coverage is idiocy.

      Dreyfus in particular is baffling, because as he drips in condescension towards the affair he was free to stay home. He heaps scorn on films ("I don't go to movies, I'm busy.") yet he does have time to show up to a staged Oscar event. Which is shallower? And if the artifice were really a problem with him I doubt he would have been the featured celebrity on the website for "Night of 100 Stars" event he could not resist attending.

      • S.T. VanAirsdale says:

        Are we dialed in or what?

      • Patrick Hallstein / McEvoy-Halston says:

        Martinishark, if this was even a year ago I think I'd with you, but as I think we're entering a time where to just possess depth will mean that even if you intend to go along as cooperatively, graciously and respectfully as possible, you'll have trouble being able to do it 'cause your authentic reactions aren't in sync with what's expected and can be inhibited enough -- I picture "you" at some point stunned/aghast at others' lack of moral response, in what is otherwise a very civil interview, and find yourself looking confused or crazy even while afterwards you try and knit yourself back in. You're going to be tainted by it, left behind because of it, and so more of the good to the wayside. So my honest response to watching it is certainly go Nolte!, who wasn't being an ass, and even go Dreyfus!, who was, but still also a flesh-and-blood human being being questioned by one of the stones we've seen building up the entirety of our new world, that seems to have acquired the ability now to talk.

        • MartiniShark says:

          Trust me, I'm harboring no sympathy for those reporters with the dentition of a Muppets character and a head filled with balloon juice. I'm just laughing at the idiocy of a Dreyfus who is filled with scorn for having to endure an event he was not required to attend. He effectively was condemning the process while standing on a red carpet and in front of an ad wall. He cannot be bothered to go to movies but he CAN attend one of these moronic events??? How backwards is that?

          All I'm saying is he's no different than somebody complaining in the stands at a monster truck rally. If do not walk out, and your ass is in the seat, then you do not get to complain about the destruction and loud noise. (Those people always ruin it for me.)

    • S.T. VanAirsdale says:

      "Profoundly human"? Seriously?

      I totally disagree. I mean, if you're so above the proceedings, why would you even attend? Dreyfuss was walking the gantlet at that ridiculous Night of 100 Stars party, which is about as desperate a relevancy-grab as one can make in the Oscar cosmos. At least Nolte was a nominee with the excuse that the interviewer essentially baited him, but he swallowed it. He didn't have to. But it made sense at the time -- because he's crazy!

      You can't pretend to play the game and take your ball and go home at the same time. It's one or the other.

      • Patrick Hallstein / McEvoy-Halstonaal says:

        There are people who won't attend. But some of those who don't I almost wish would, because otherwise even if I hear their point, then not genially, easily, as part of the conversation: it'll feel sorta like I'm amidst an anarchist camp and out of the moderate, and I’m wary of too much heading out there. The Oscars for me is not just a ceremony, it's a landmark destination along the only road I know. Presently along that road I encountered two people here who knew what the world was like 40 years ago, people who exist in three dimensions, even if now grimed along every one, and look about as out of place, as untethered, as I think everyone who has done so should feel. We got it easy this time -- Nolte and Dreyfus were long-established discards (I love Nolte, though; and, I admit, still readily find some respect for Dreyfus) before they even spoke a single crazy word; I think at some point we're going to be made very uncomfortable with who else starts being categorized with them, by who loses it amidst some function they in their case had every intention of accommodating.

  • Mike the Movie Tyke says:

    Dreyfuss wins. I never blame a star for rolling their eyes and pushing back at some of the insipid questions asked by ridiculous, plastic interviewers at these functions, but in his case the reporter asked comparatively solid queries and even knew of the actor's focus on the Constitution, which seemed to surprise him but set off the untimely political diatribe. As for Nolte, even I needed time to figure out what the hell that woman was talking about and after gushing questions about pet crows and pinball machines he was more patient and respectful than required.

  • Tom says:

    I get your basic point, but since Dreyfuss is well-documented as having bipolar disorder, could Movieline possibly think of another way to describe the situation other than 'crazy' and 'batshit?'

    I get that you're the 'irreverent' site and all, but those of us who care for people with mental health issues are hoping for the day when the media finds other just starts to seem lazy. I'm not saying Dreyfuss' statements don't deserve scrutiny...just a description that takes even a slightly higher road.

    • S.T. VanAirsdale says:

      Give me a break. This has nothing at all to do with mental illness or insensitivity toward those suffering from it. This is about a guy whose attitude got away from him in a public forum, and the harder he tried to smooth it out, the sillier he looked. He knew what he was doing. "Irreverence" aside, it's the direct OPPOSITE of my job to excuse him.

      • Tom says:

        Go back and read what I said more carefully. I made it clear I wasn't asking you to excuse Dreyfuss for what he said...I've got absolutely nothing invested in that.

        Could you even consider when referring to people who have that disorder to avoid using 'crazy' 'batshit' etc?
        You're a have access to better words.
        Of course this is the response that's given when people make this suggestion or connection: 'Give me a break', etc. In other words, asking for even a modicum of sensitivity in language falls into that category of being too 'politically correct', right?

        • MartiniShark says:

          Speaking of reading carefully -- the bat shit reference was in regard to Nolte's words, not Dreyfus. Unless that is insensitive to 12-stepping . . .

          • Tom says:

            amazing and revelatory distinction.

          • MartiniShark says:

            It is a valid distinction. You were taking somebody to task for using an inappropriate term towards somebody with bi-polar disorder, when in fact the term was applied to somebody else entirely.

  • blizzard bound says:

    I could understand that woman perfectly, so Nick's inability to do so, along with his puffy, red face and bloated body, made me wonder if he was (sadly) back doing drugs and booze again. I've been a fan of his since Rich Man, Poor Man and think he's been brilliant in some of his recent movies, so it was upsetting to me to see him so out of it.

    Dreyfuss, on the other hand, was arrogant and the rant at the end of his interview was wha-the-fu?? I vote Dreyfuss for the crazier.

    • Sarah T. says:

      I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND HER AT ALL! WHAT'S HER PROBLEM!?!? Why are there so many foreigners interviewing our celebrities? What are Kate and William too busy eating biscuts and walking their new dog?

  • Loralee says:

    Who was that illegal foreigner interviewing Nolte? What the h*ll was she saying? I needed captions just to follow along. She needs to go back to where she came from, from her side of the pond!!!