Dame Judi Cinch

"And the Academy Award for Best Female Performance in a Major Motion Picture goes to...Helen Hunt." I was sure the next scene at the 71st annual Oscars would be Hunt dragged away in cuffs, charged with unarmed trophy robbery, with everyone humming the theme to "Mad About You" in the opulent background. But that, sadly, wasn't the case. All of us who saw "Mrs. Brown" knew one thing: If there was any justice, Judi Dench would be heard from again come Oscar time.

But the Dame hasn't just been heard from; she has been louder than a banshee employed as town crier. Dench went on to be nominated the next three years, including this one, and all of those who once praised her name now only pray for the day we will stop hearing it. Judi Dench is no longer losing to Helen Hunt; Judi Dench is Helen Hunt. But the Dame doesn't stop at stealing Oscars. She steals nominations, too.

We have only to begin with "Shakespeare in Love." Absolutely an imaginative movie. Absolutely a Best Picture nominee. Should Dench have been nominated for Best Supporting Actress? Absolutely not. But it happened, despite the fact her onscreen time was about the equal of the "hair gel" in "There's Something About Mary." But this was clearly payback for the Hunt injustice. This was Oscar saying, "Sorry I took the wrong girl to the prom. Just wanted you to know I was thinking of you." But Oscar didn't stop at the thought. No, he made the same mistake, only this time using his former victim as the accomplice. The golden cur danced with Judi that night, while he left another more deserving girl jilted — Any of the other four nominees, in fact.

But we all let the Dame off with a warning. After all, she was due a statuette, even if it was for the wrong year and the wrong part, which, again, wasn't even enough to be considered a part in Steve Buscemi's glare-friendly hair. Yes, we promised ourselves that we would forget this wronging in time. But just not in time for the very next year when...

SHE GOT NOMINATED FOR "CHOCOLAT!" Some will debate whether the movie itself should have ever been considered for a Best Picture nomination, but few will argue if Judi should have gotten a nom. Here she played an old woman with diabetes who eats chocolate anyway. What bravery! What courage! What forgetfulness of a question mark in the last two sentences! Oscar, most didn't get anything gratifying from her role, except when we realized her character would die. Even so, you included her yet again. And the nominees for Best Supporting Conspiracy/Actress in a Major Motion Picture are...As serious moviegoers drank their "special punch" last Nomination February, we all slurred that surely Dench's acting feet would never get a chance to be considered for the Oscar dance again.

But here came this year's nominations, and there was Judi. This time for "Iris(k making a mockery of my career)." It seems ironic that she is nominated for the role of someone who is losing control of her ability to make choices Ñ as is the case with Dench when it comes to all her recent project selections. But unlike the Alzheimer's-ridden character she plays, the Dame can remedy her disease by simply remembering why we fell so deeply in love with her in "Mrs. Brown"—because her character was reserved yet found a way to display great emotion within the slightest movement. But there is a difference between slight and slighted. We feel the latter much more than the former.

But I will admit, unlike all her other movies mentioned, "Iris" is one I haven't seen. And won't see. Strangely, the dominating reason I refuse to gaze upon it is the very reason that many will—because its main performer is a four-time Oscar-nominated actress. I've just been disappointed by my Dame a few too many times as well as by the Academy for encouraging her continual divergence from an otherwise stellar career. Rest assured, if she hadn't done "Iris" then she still would have been slipping on her dancing shoes for "The Shipping News." But Oscar couldn't consider inviting her to the prom twice in the same evening. Because that would be wrong.