The award for unexpected political significance goes to...the Oscars

At least, at last, the Oscar ceremony was set into context. The reality of the world, and of the famine, war and pestilence always with us, finally encroached upon the sequestered and artificial world of gargantuan wealth, lachrymose self-congratulation and look-at-me frocks. On many occasions, members of the "Hollywood community" have espoused political beliefs from the Oscar platform. On Sunday night, though, the whole event was charged with political significance.

At least, at last, the Oscar ceremony was set into context. The reality of the world, and of the famine, war and pestilence always with us, finally encroached upon the sequestered and artificial world of gargantuan wealth, lachrymose self-congratulation and look-at-me frocks. On many occasions, members of the "Hollywood community" have espoused political beliefs from the Oscar platform. On Sunday night, though, the whole event was charged with political significance.

It would have been quite wrong, I think, for this event to have been postponed. Of course, it was bizarre and ironic to view this celebration of excess intercut with news flashes from the Iraqi frontline. Of course, a plum instead of a scarlet carpet, less dramatic dresses and a moratorium on necklaces does not constitute much of a sacrifice. But at least the ceremony offered, for once, a tiny acknowledgement of the deep, wide, ugly chasm between the haves and the have-nots of this world that lies festering at the roots of all our troubles.

Those who felt unable to attend at this time of grave crisis, among them Will Smith, Cate Blanchett, Peter Jackson, Paul Newman, Aki Kaurismaki and winners in more minor categories from Germany and from Japan, nevertheless made a valid statement. But those who attended and spoke out, or even the many who merely wore lapel pins subtly advertising their affiliations, did so much more to bring focus to the event than those who stayed away.

Among those who talked about the war, the most rhetorical and incendiary was, predictably enough, Michael Moore, who won an Oscar for his documentary feature Bowling for Columbine. His award was greeted with the most enthusiastic standing ovation of the night. His speech, which he delivered while sharing the platform with the other nominees in his category, was less generously accepted but was greeted passionately with some cheers – and a growing roar of boos.

"We live in a time when we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president," he boomed. "We live in a time when we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons – whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr Bush. Shame on you, Mr Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up."

Other anti-war statements were more measured, and were generally applauded warmly. The young Mexican actor, Gael Garcia Bernal, was the only presenter to speak out, although Susan Sarandon managed a jauntly little peace sign. After introducing the performance of a song from the much-nominated biopic about the Mexican artist Frida Kahlo, Mr Bernal calmly suggested that "the necessity for peace in the world is not a dream but a reality. If Frida were alive today, she would be on our side – against war." Since Mexico's stand against the US is indeed a brave one, and one in which it has much to lose, he was right to honour it.

Adrien Brody, who won best actor for Roman Polanski's The Pianist, spoke of how "My experience making this film made me very aware of the sadness and dehumanisation of people at times of war, and the repercussions of war".

Several others made shorter statements similar to this one, acknowledging the situation and its horror, but still managing to cling to the fence. Chris Cooper, best supporting actor for Adaptation, blinked back the tears to announce: "In the light of all the troubles in this world, I wish us all peace." Nicole Kidman, while accepting the best actress award, acknowledged that the "world is in such turmoil" but said she had come "because art is important". It's not as important as access to clean water, but at least she understood that her position needed some justification.

As is so often the case, though, the most significant moment of all found expression without speeches. A year ago, the announcement that Twin Towers, about 11 September, had won the award for best short film would have inspired barn-raising acclaim and whooping ovations. This year the applause was respectful, but muted. Americans, or American liberals at any rate, may at last be realising that the wave of patriotism that followed the atrocities has helped to lead their nation down dark and dangerous paths.

And while it might easily be argued that the posturings of some very rich actors do not mean much in the wider scheme of things, there is an extent to which the fact that they feel they can speak out is indicative of a broader change in the American psyche. Not long ago, even people with pulling power were loath to speak out for fear of causing widespread offence. On Sunday, while it was obvious that only the "talent", and far less often the technical "talent", were willing to stick their necks out, there is clearly less worry that any sort of criticism will immediately be condemned as unpatriotic, or there is at least a greater willingness to challenge that.

War has always been held to be a matter of conscience, and it is wrong when opposition voices stay silent out of fear. Opposition has grown a great deal since the war against Afghanistan, in Britain and the US. But it seems that polarisation has grown, too. Those of us with deep reservations about the war have been called appeasers, cowards and more.

Likewise the anti-war lobby is free with its own insults against those we style as warmongers – just as the insults Mr Moore threw out were jeered on a night when other anti-war views were politely respected. Voices in the Stop the War coalition are calling for deselection of all MPs who voted with the Government on action against Iraq. The growing hatred and inability to communicate across the divide is frightening and may have a pernicious effect on the course of the humanitarian effort, the peace-keeping arrangements and Iraq's future self-governance.

Talk of revenge and reprisals among ourselves is inappropriate when the possibility of revenge and reprisal in Iraq is so much more important. It ought to be possible to find away of respecting the views of at least most of those against whom we stand, reminding ourselves that there are some moral (though to my mind mistaken) reasons why the war against Iraq can be supported.

Most who support the war do so not because they are bellicose, inhumane or self-interested, but because they consider it to be the lesser of two evils. The terrible thing is that in this conflict, so often styled as a fight between good and bad, there really is only the choice between two kinds of evil. It's not a familiar script in Hollywood. But if Hollywood can grasp this, however dimly, them the rest of the world can.

d.orr@independent.co.uk

More from Deborah Orr