But on Sunday we have the 97th Oscars which starts at 7.00pm in Los Angeles (midnight our time) with the red carpet arrivals commencing earlier.

This year’s Academy Awards ceremony is set against troubled and controversial times in the US with the impact and scope of the Donald Trump presidency becoming ever more apparent at home and overseas; with the devastating Pacific coast wildfires of January still fresh and raw in the memory; and this week with news of the shocking death of the noted double Oscar winner Gene Hackman who was found with the body of his wife at their home in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Although no Irish actors will be able to claim the laurels in 2025, last year’s best actor, Cillian Murphy, will be on stage ensuring that the world gets a reminder of the stunning creative talent which exists in the Republic.

The Oscar winners can often provide a compelling cultural insight into the mood of the moment and this has changed markedly since the nominations were first announced. 

Then, Emilia Pérez, a musical about a transgender gangster escaping the drug wars in Mexico, was named in 13 different categories.

It was considered a huge favourite until historic information emerged about the views of its star, Karla Sofía Gascón, on issues as varied as Black Lives Matter, Islam and China. Support has tanked and recovery will be a major surprise.

While there is plenty to uplift the heart ( Wicked, A Complete Unknown) Oscar has developed a much more serious mien during the first two months of 2025. 

The Brutalist, a heavyweight contender with a run time of nearly three and a half hours and that old-fashioned thing — an interval — explores post-war architectural style and the composite life story of one of its evangelists, an escapee from Nazi Germany.

If the attractions of stripped-back concrete design have their limitations for readers there is another compelling lesson from history with a moving account of family life under Brazil’s military dictatorship which ran for 21 years from 1964.

While people in other nations were bossa nova-ing along to 'The Girl From Ipanema' and donning yellow and green jerseys to celebrate the World Cup victory of Pelé and Jairzinho, citizens of Brazil were subjected to forced disappearances, institutionalised torture and extra-judicial killings.

I’m Still Here recounts the true story of how a brave mother held her family together after her husband was taken from their Rio waterfront home, telling her: “I am going to help these men, and I’ll be right back.” She never saw him again.

If the first awards of the second coming of Donald Trump are mainly marked by a collection of protest and independent films then Ireland has at least two shouts for success with our involvement in The Apprentice, which tells the story of the early days of The Donald and his relationship with his shark-like lawyer Roy Cohn.

It's a movie the president hates, to the extent that his lawyers sent its Irish producers, Julianne Forde and Ruth Treacy from Tailored Films, cease and desist threats in an attempt to block its distribution.

Happily, that bullying failed. 

In a world currently dominated by so-called “strong men” any success it garners deserves rousing cheers and your support.

AI system training tantamount to theft

It would be a boring world indeed if all newspapers in the land delivered the same front page.

However, that is exactly what happened during the week when every publication in Britain produced an edition attacking the rapacity of technology companies and the lamentable acquiescence of the British government in supporting the theft of content of all kinds.

Keir Starmer’s administration, as part of its Washington charm offensive, wants to weaken copyright laws to facilitate AI companies to train their systems on creative content — drawn from songs, books, films, and news organisations.

They would simply be able to scrape it away without any obligation to pay a fee or gain a licence from the creators.

The Make It Fair campaign featured on every single front page — online and print. 

And those who are tempted to portray it as another example of special pleading from privileged old legacy media should note the wide and diverse support for it.

Leading musicians such as Annie Lennox and Kate Bush, no doubt remembering the traumas of the Napster file-sharing era, released a completely silent album, the track listing of which spells out the message: “The British government must not legalise music theft to benefit AI companies.” 

It’s difficult to contemplate why an industry already dripping with cash should be given precedence over those who create original content.

It’s a decision founded in commercial illiteracy by opportunistic politicians.

The principle must be resisted here, and in Europe, given that our neighbours can’t be relied upon.

Doing the (side) hustle

Is there anything inherently wrong with our elected representatives swelling the ranks of many of their voters and developing a second job — a “side hustle” in the lexicon popularised by Gen Z and millennials, groups ranging from the late teens to mid-40s?

The increased incidence of people taking more than one job can lead, as far as elected representatives are concerned, to accusations of conflict of interest.

And that, presumably, in the “Age of Transparency” is what is behind a Social Democrat suggestion for Dáil reform.

As part of the debate stimulated by last month’s row over speaking rights, the party is arguing that TDs should be required to declare their liabilities and income levels from second jobs even more extensively than currently.

A new register this week revealed that nearly one in five TDs are landlords.

The rules at present are that a TD has to state if they are paid beyond the €2,600 level, but there is no requirement to detail how much income they receive in total — that being a matter between them, their accountant, and the State’s tax authorities.

Critics say that this is little more than a token gesture in the cause of openness.

Becoming irritated at such demands, as some political hopefuls might, is a little like complaining about the wind.

That’s just the way the weather is at the moment.

However, an equally worthwhile question might be why so many people find it necessary to run more than one job.

Something which originated with people in their mid-30s and younger has, largely since the covid pandemic, grown across ages and classes.

While younger people used to declare that committing everything to a single employer was risky, there are other complex reasons now at play.

Financial pressure from inflation is certainly one, but lack of fulfilment is another.

One survey reports that 68% of Gen Z professionals in Ireland state that their employer does not meet their career expectations, the highest of any age cohort, and precisely the group that companies are expecting to guide their fortunes and performance over and into the next decade.

Firms are struggling to come to terms with staff demands for flexible hours and hybrid work arrangements.

At least part of that reluctance is a corporate anxiety that workers might be carrying out their “side hustles” while on the company dollar.

All that talk about “quiet quitting” plays to that workplace narrative of management insecurity and suspicion.

Whatever the reality of those fears, it is clear that employers must become used to the idea that their salaried staff may have more than one set of professional demands in the future, and will need to meet them to fund accommodation, savings, and pensions.

This is going to redefine the meaning of work and new tools, such as those created within AI, will accelerate the transition.

Strap in.

It’s going to be a bumpy ride.