Why do we care what type of dress Daniel Day Lewis's wife wore to the Oscars? More importantly, why do the Slate editors allow Dana to post this tabloid trash? Dana writes that Lewis's wife Rebecca Miller is "just too cool and smart to be wearing that dress unironically." Oh really, Dana? Thanks for the insight! Maybe after you're laid off here they'll give you your own column in Us Weekly. And she's obviously wrong about Miller purposefully wearing an ugly dress as a way of saying "fuck you" to everyone not married to Daniel Day Lewis -- right???? I know this comment was made with tongue in cheek, or perhaps even as a complete joke, and normally I would shrug it off, but it just seems so obvious to me that Dana makes this remark because this is precisely why she would be wearing an ugly dress if she were married to Day Lewis. Of course, Dana is on to something when she calls Lewis a "hyperevolved exemplar of superior humanity" -- he might be a true genius, not just an actor but a one in a billion artist who has chosen acting as his medium, as Mozart chose music or Shakespeare drama (I said "might. . ."). Dana acknowledges this, but she does not discuss his genius, his art, his humility, or, if her piece was supposed to be circumscribed to the award ceremony, the nature of his eloquent and gracious acceptance speech. Instead, she focuses on. . . his wife's clothes? Huh?

Why do we care what kind of dress Daniel day Lewis's wife wore to the Oscars? Are you kidding?

The gowns, hairstyles etc. that show up at the Oscars are now and have been for as long as I can remember, a staple of Oscar coverage.

This is a trashy over-the-top Hollywood event not a celebration of genius even if some genius, or at least talent is certainly on display.

Don't take it all so seriously.

I thought Ms. Miller's clothes would have gone great with her husband's suit from the previous time he won. Maybe they spent their vacation in Whitby, Yorkshire.

Ebg57, you say: "The gowns, hairstyles etc. that show up at the Oscars are now and have been for as long as I can remember, a staple of Oscar coverage."

I agree. E! network and Entertainment Tonight and People Magazine and people like you have allowed boring nonsense like dresses and hairdos to overshadow the actual films for quite some time now. However. Just because this is the way it is does not mean this is the way it ought to be. Do you understand that? And, in the alternative, just because this boring stuff is a part of the Oscars, that doesn't mean that film critics ought to acknowledge or embrace it. I think film critics should work to reverse this unfortunate trend, not reinforce it.

And the Academy Awards is most certainly a celebration of genius, though it is more often a celebration of artistic acheivement, but only because genius is rare.

I take this seriously. Why shouldn't I? I invest a lot of time and energy into watching movies throughout the year, I love doing it, and I love to watch the filmmakers praised for their great work. And when I come to a website like Slate the next day, I want to read intelligent commentary, not the same kind of tabloid trash I can find on some teeny bopper blog. Do you understand that?

You think fashion is trivia. I disagree. There is every bit as much artistry in creating a beautiful gown as there is in most movies I have seen. Do you understand that?

Furthermore the Oscars are not about "the movies". They are an awards program that usually rewards what is big and successful not what is artistic or well made. And they are about glamour and celebrity and the red carpet. That is their reason for being.

You can find film reviews on Slate. This article was not reviewing a film but an Awards program. A silly Awards program as most people can recognize. Climb down off your high horse and take it for what it is.