THOUGH it might not have seemed like it, as the widely tipped winners took away their statuettes, the 2014 Oscars did have its surprises.
And chief among those surprises was that the best picture won the best picture:, not always the case with an Academy where the old, white, wealthy and easily dazzled hold the voting power.
This time the Academy saw beyond the fun but fundamentally shallow American Hustle and The Wolf of Wall Street, and went for a mould breaker.
But Steve McQueen's slavery drama does not deserve to be dismissed as merely a worthy winner.
This is an arthouse success that is on the way to the lower end of blockbuster riches.
With a production budget of just $20 million (£12m) - a fraction of what the average superhero movie costs - 12 Years has so far grossed $140m worldwide. And it has turned Solomon Northup's nineteenth century memoir into a 21st century publishing phenomenon.
As for what McQueen does next, he can now name his price and project.
The rest of the night belonged to Gravity (like 12 Years the only other film to be awarded five stars by The Herald), an international success story that both sides of the Atlantic could share.
Also worth a mention are the plucky little Baftas, for calling the awards split correctly. Similarly, the Glasgow Film Festival - which ended on Oscar night on another ticket sales high - showed it was no mean picker of winners.
It had scheduled 20 Feet From Stardom, the Oscar-winning documentary about backing singers, back when it was a mere glint in Academy voters' eyes.
From Glasgow's Rose Street to the Hollywood and Highland Centre, home of the Oscars ceremony, the lights go up on a surprisingly vintage year.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article