The Oscar ceremony was held on March 10. That same day, the New York Times published an obituary of Paolo Taviani — “Half of a Famed Italian Filmmaking Duo,” who has died at 92. The other half was Paolo’s brother Vittorio (who died in 2018). Probably their best-known film is Padre Padrone, released in 1977.

I was rather moved by the closing paragraph of Paolo’s obit, quoting him in a 1986 interview: “Making movies has allowed us to go to strange places we would never otherwise have seen and encounter so many new people — including ourselves — who keep changing all the time. It’s a wonderful calling, and after all these years, it hasn’t let us down yet.”

It is a wonderful calling (and happy are those who ever get a calling at all, and even happier are those who are able to act on their calling — or who are able to answer it, if you will).

I have not been a moviegoer in a very long time. But I movie-goed — movie-went? — like mad in decades past. It is a wonderful art: bursting with possibilities. Everyone says that if Wagner had lived in the time of movies, he would have made movies — musical ones — rather than operas. I suppose that is true. He wanted access to every artistic angle.

Also on March 10, I saw a letter, written by Barbara Stanwyck in 1986. (Quick historical aside: Stanwyck was both a colleague and a friend of Ronald Reagan’s.) Whit Stillman, the filmmaker, noted it.

Isn’t that a wonderful letter? Makes me wish I could sit down and interview Barbara Stanwyck.

Before moving on, let me say that, if you have not seen Whit Stillman’s movies, treat yourself: to Barcelona, The Last Days of Disco, or something else.

Last month, Micheline Presle died — died at 101. The subheading of her obituary in the Times said, “A link to France’s first golden age of cinema, she drew international attention for a 1947 film that created a scandal in France and was banned in Britain for years.” That film would be Le Diable au Corps, or Devil in the Flesh.

Let me quote from the obit:

In a statement after her death, the French presidency praised Ms. Presle’s “limpid gaze” and “ingenuous pout,” as well as her ability to “incarnate a thousand faces of humanity.”

Ah, France, never change — a country whose presidential office can speak of a woman’s “limpid gaze” and “ingenuous pout.”

Speaking of Continental sirens: How do you like the opening paragraph of this obit?

Ira von Fürstenberg, who came as close as one can get to having it all as an Italian-born princess descended from Charlemagne, an heiress to the Fiat fortune, a Vogue model, a big-screen ingénue and a globe-trotting bon vivant, died on Feb. 19 at her home in Rome. She was 83.

Amazing. (For that obit at large, go here.)

• You have read about the scandal in Britain — the scandal concerning the royal family, and Princess Kate in particular. It made me think of something that Bryce Harlow said. He was American, not British. And he was talking about Washington, D.C. But still: “Trust is the coin of the realm.”

For those who need to do some catching up, I will quote the Associated Press:

Kate, Princess of Wales, apologized Monday for “confusion” caused by her altering of a family photo released by the palace — an image of Kate and her children that was intended to calm concern and speculation about the British royal’s health, but had the opposite effect.

The report continues,

Several news agencies that initially published the photo, including The Associated Press, withdrew the image over concerns about digital manipulation. Issued by the couple’s Kensington Palace office on Sunday to mark Mother’s Day in Britain, it was the first official photo of 42-year-old Kate since she had abdominal surgery nearly two months ago.

In a social-media post, Princess Kate said that “like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing.” She further said, “I wanted to express my apologies for any confusion the family photograph we shared yesterday caused.”

Well and good. We all make mistakes. But listen: “Trust is the coin of the realm.” If I were the British royal family — there’s a funny statement! — I would not mess with the British public. Such messing, such manipulation, could lead to a rupture, which would be bad news for royals — even ones as lissome and winning as Kate.

• The world of artificial intelligence is promising. I’m not a Luddite about it (or don’t want to be). And yet, it also promises much ill. I grew up with an advertising slogan: “Is it live or is it Memorex?” These days, one must ask, “Is it real or is it fake?”

An AP report begins as follows:

At first glance, images circulating online showing former President Donald Trump surrounded by groups of Black people smiling and laughing seem nothing out of the ordinary, but a look closer is telling. . . .

The fabricated images, highlighted in a recent BBC investigation, provide further evidence to support warnings that the use of AI-generated imagery will only increase as the November general election approaches.

I hate this kind of thing. I really do. Deception is a curse on humanity. And technology opens enticing new avenues for deception. I hope that counter-deception can sort of keep up.

• Maybe we can have a little language? See what you think of the below:

Is “toss salad” okay, rather than “tossed salad”? It is, yes. It is very English — very English-language. I suppose I still say “candied apple,” rather than “candy apple.” (I think I say “tossed salad,” too). But these things evolve.

People used to say “armed chairs.” They became “arm chairs” (now “armchairs”). People used to say “iced cream.” Yes, they did.

Which made sense, right?

• Another language note — this one of a darker nature: Have you heard the term “abortion care”? My friend and colleague Alexandra DeSanctis Marr took note of it. If it is not outright Orwellian, it is creepy, in my opinion.

• You often hear from populists that America has a “uniparty.” There is no real difference between Republicans and Democrats, they claim. And they are right in three respects, I think: Neither party recognizes the benefits of international trade. Neither party will do anything about the national debt or the federal budget deficit. And, relatedly, neither party will tell the truth about our entitlement programs, much less act to keep them solvent.

There’s your uniparty (though it’s not the kind of thing the populists have in mind).

Let me recommend Brian Riedl, in The Dispatch: “Ten Myths Sabotaging Social Security Reform.” He has performed a public service. Riedl is one of those weirdos who remained a conservative after 2016. Bless the weirdos.

• Deborah Lipstadt is the veteran historian who now serves in the State Department. Her title, formally, is “special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism.” In recent weeks, I have podcasted with her and written about her.

Daniel Roth took note of what she said about Argentina. Interesting.

• A few months ago, I wrote an essay called “Dress Codes and Their Discontents.” Maybe I could quote the start:

In September, there was a contretemps in the U.S. Senate: Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, relaxed the dress code (unwritten). No more would men be required to wear a coat and tie on the Senate floor. This was a favor to John Fetterman, the new senator from Pennsylvania, who favors shorts and a hoodie. Schumer was cutting Fetterman some slack: no slacks.

Against the new latitude, there was a backlash. “Decorum!” people cried. Among the criers were some of the least decorous people in the country. They did not really care about a coat and tie; they didn’t like Fetterman (or Schumer). If Fetterman were a senator they liked, they would have hailed him as a Man of the People stickin’ it to the fancy-pants elite. Be that as it may . . .

I thought of this last week, on State of the Union night. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R., Ga.) was in full MAGA regalia, complete with red hat. Think any of the people aghast at Fetterman’s shorts and hoodie emitted a peep about MTG?

There’s an old saying: “If it weren’t for double standards, there would be no standards at all.”

• I have a concert review to throw at you — a review of the Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra in Carnegie Hall: here. On the podium was Lahav Shani; serving as piano soloist was Daniil Trifonov. Some interesting issues come up.

• Couple of shots of New York? In this one, a photographer shoots two other photographers:

Yesterday, I was in the Empire State Building, on bidness. The views out the windows were . . . pretty darn good. Here’s one:

Thank you for joining me, moviegoers and non-moviegoers alike. See you soon.

If you would like to receive Impromptus by e-mail — links to new columns — write to jnordlinger@nationalreview.com.