Disposable nappies (in 95th place) would probably have earned more votes had it not been for contraception (in 12th). Computers, in second place, have pushed the printing press down to third, but the overall winner, perhaps surprisingly, is “the toilet system”.
Now there can be little doubt that proper sewage systems, drainage and soft lavatory paper have been responsible for greater improvements in the quality of life than anything else one can name, but describing “the toilet system” as a single invention suggests that the entire survey may have been out of, as well as in, Focus. The Chinese had some sort of primitive flush lavatory around 4,000 years ago; the first modern water closet was invented by Sir John Harington in 1596; yet could anyone have considered the toilet system worthy of first place in the roll of man’s ingenuity before Mr A Ashwell of Herne Hill patented the Vacant/Engaged sign in 1883?The list taken as a whole displays some disturbing priorities. The widget (30) and carbonated drink (90) appear to show a preoccupation with fizzy drinks, yet champagne is totally absent. Surely Dom Perignon’s invention of the cork, which considerably aided the secondary fermentation needed to produce the fizz in bubbly, was worth a mention. And while we’re on the subject of drinks, how can instant coffee squeeze in at 100 while teabags are totally absent?There is no arguing with Da Vinci’s genius in inventing scissors (72), but we see no mention of Isaac Newton’s greatest contribution of all: the cat flap.

And can anyone really claim that the brassiere (88) has done more for civilisation than the wet T-shirt?Taken altogether, this compilation of the “100 Greatest Inventions” is disturbing if it is seen as the best achievements of mankind. Are nuclear weapons (32), Post-it notes (68) and roller-coasters (69) really our finest moments?Perhaps, though, our criticism should be directed at the lack of imagination of the compilers. They have, after all, missed the most useful invention of all: the list Where would we journalists be without it?n. They’re just a bunch of no names or three-names, yelled the New York Post, bewailing this year’s Oscars’ lack of star status: “Billy Bob Who? Armin Mueller Which? Kristin Scott Huh?” Here in Britain, where we recognise that three names help to confer genuine star status, we are looking forward to next Monday rather more. Will the Brits triumph? And if they do, will it be a British triumph? The English Patient, with 12 nominations, has a British director, British actors in the lead parts, an American producer and American finance. It’s made by an independent studio which just happens to be owned by Disney.

“It’s a British-led film,” say the film’s publicity people with linguistic dexterity.
Despite these inconvenient technicalities, the Oscars seem certain to bring a good deal of reward to British talent But we shouldn’t count our chickens. The Academy can suffer awkward fits of patriotism when deciding on its awards. And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that excellent black comedy thriller Fargo upsets the British hopes in at least one category.Watch for two awards in particular. If Ken Branagh’s Hamlet wins Best Adapted Screenplay, Branagh will have a tortuous acceptance speech to make. Since he has pointed out many times that he has used Shakespeare’s full text, unamended, just what would he be getting the award for? His speech could be a rationalisation exercise worthy of Hamlet himself.Watch out also for any success that Sling Blade might have. This Arkansas- based drama was viewed privately by President Clinton at the White House. Its lead actor and director, Billy Bob Thornton, is an old friend of the President, and its producer Harry Thomason tells me the President has been “pulling for it”.

What can this ungainly phrase mean? Unseemly presidential lobbying of the Academy?And lastly, will someone somewhere explain the difference between Best Film and Best Director? Jerry Maguire is nominated for Best Film, but its director doesn’t get a look-in in the directors’ category. But if you are responsible for the Best Film, how can you then not be the Best Director? Unless the subtext is that, despite your direction, the acting, photography and costume design made this the best film of the year. All very confusing.But for those who want to risk the price of a cinema ticket on the principal awards, here are the runners and riders and the odds according to our man on the sidewalk in Sunset Boulevard…Best FilmThe English Patient 7-4 favouriteSecrets and Lies 11-2Shine 4-1Fargo 2-1Jerry Maguire 20-1The last one is the only traditional all-American formulaic film up against all these arty challengers And it lacks the stamina for this Group 1 race. The English Patient’s epic romantic sweep should win this, unless an anti-Brit betting ring switches its support to Fargo.Best DirectorMilos Forman: The People vs Larry Flynt 10-1Anthony Minghella: The English Patient 5-2 co-favouriteJoel Coen: Fargo 3-1Mike Leigh: Secrets and Lies 5-2 co-favouriteScott Hicks: Shine 5-1Hollywood has warmed to Mike Leigh, and Secrets and Lies is critically acclaimed as his most accomplished film, funny and poignant with an undercurrent of inexpressible tenderness.