Skip to main content

First lady Michelle Obama, appearing on screen, and actor Jack Nicholson present the award for best picture during the Oscars at the Dolby Theatre on Sunday Feb. 24, 2013, in Los Angeles.

Chris Pizzello/AP

In a few short days, Michelle Obama has suddenly become the coolest first lady ever.

First, she charmed television audiences with her goofy "mom dancing" moves on NBC's Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. Then last night, she made a surprise appearance as actor Jack Nicholson's co-presenter at the Academy Awards, winning over audience members once again.

Appearing on a video screen, live from Washington, Obama congratulated the nominees for best picture, noting that the films all conveyed messages that "apply to all of us no matter who we are, what we look like, where we come from and who we love," as the Los Angeles Times reports. She then went on to announce the winning film, Argo.

Story continues below advertisement

Obama was praised for appearing elegant and eloquent. But would she have presented the award had it gone to director Kathryn Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty?

That film, about the hunt for Osama bin Laden, has been deemed highly controversial (although some argue misguidedly so) for depicting the use of torture in seeking intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts.

As the Bloomberg news agency reports, Zero Dark Thirty was largely shut out of the Oscars, in spite of emerging as a leading contender for best picture, best actress and best original screenplay only three months ago.

The only award Zero Dark Thirty managed to secure was for sound editing, and it had to share that honour in a rare tie with the James Bond flick Skyfall.

Days earlier, Jill Serjeant of Reuters had predicted the political fallout surrounding the film would be too hot for the Oscars.

Did Zero Dark Thirty deserve more than it got?

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies