Oscars

[MMJ_fanatic]

One way street=conservative film makers shut out--e.g. Mel Gibson and his fine work.  This is one example of the prevailing attitude in Hollywood.

P.S.--Bowling for columbine was loaded with exagerations and misleading twists of fact.

[EC]

P.S.--Bowling for columbine was loaded with exagerations and misleading twists of fact.

I wouldn't disagree with that.  The Charlton Heston interview was a terrible, terrible thing.  However, I think that Michael Moore is capable, for whatever reason, of providing a good role model for an opposite way of thinking than is generally presented in mainstream media.  He's not your average good looking newsperson, he wears whatever he feels comfortable in, he speaks well, he's intelligent.  Yes, I agree, the dude needs to understand that the more manipulative he gets with his facts, the less credibility he'll have.  However, Michael Moore is actually out there doing something about this world - whether you agree with him or not, and for that, in my eyes, the dude's the shit.

[MMJ_fanatic]

I'll give Moore his props for what he is--an entertainer.  he has a captive audience (read: choir) that loves to hear him preach his propaganda.  I take his "info' with a large grain of salt :)

[EC]

I'll give Moore his props for what he is--an entertainer.  he has a captive audience (read: choir) that loves to hear him preach his propaganda.  I take his "info' with a large grain of salt :)

Ah come on.  He's more than an entertainer.  

And I don't think it's fair to say that he's only preaching to converted.  In fact, I learned a lot of things from Michael Moore that I didn't know before.  AND, there was a time when I would have thought that Michael Moore was an idiot.  And now I don't.  He convinced me not to think that.

I also take his work with a grain of salt, as I do with everyone.  You're never going to agree with everything that a person stands for - that's why we're all different.  That's why political parties are a terrible way to create a system, and why it's more important to focus on individual issues than on platforms.

Anyhow, I hear you on Michael Moore - unfortunately, he isn't as effective as he could be because he says stupid things like "Canadians don't lock their doors."  Let me tell you something - I know that town.  People lock their doors.  I'd lock my door if I lived there.

Yes.  I suppose we shall agree to disagree.  :)

[BIGVICLBI]

I think what Michael Moore has to say is mostly true, its just that he bombards people and yells and screams. But are his antics any different than George Bush landing on an aircraft carrier in the gulf? I mean he's our president, he has a huge responsibility to the country, why should he take the risk? Because the only way to reach Americans is to be loud and stupid. George Bush is a great president for the times, because he's stupid.(ok he's not really loud though, you got me on that :)) As far as Mel Gibson's movie, yes he's a great director and he's a great actor but do you really think that movie was great or that its message was great. Maybe a best actor nominee would be inline, but the movie? Nah, not great, though visually stunning at times. Now I am not one to bash music of any kind as too commercial, but maybe I just won't listen too it. The point of music is to make people feel good and The backstreet boys made my sister feel that way, so as a doting older brother(I'm 27 she's 14)I went out and bought hercd's and posters. Might I try to play MMJ when I take her to a movie? Yes. Just think, thanks to George Bush maybe the BBB will tour in Afghanistan :) :)

[MMJ_fanatic]

I wonder why so many people feel The Passion is not a great movie.  Is it perhaps it makes us squirm just a bit more than we care to?  The fact is Mr Gibson tried to capture as best he could the horror endured by a gentle, wise man at the hands of barbarians (Romans) and fearful vengeful weak men (Pharisees and Jewish leaders in bed w/Rome).  There is a definite battle occurring now in the US between secularists and those who choose to follow the religion of their choice.  It is a disturbing battle but if I have a voice in it I will not be pulling for the secular side.

[BIGVICLBI]

The reason you have a voice is because of the secularists! Wait till one religion takes over the country and it turns out not to be yours. That would suck, no?

[EC]

Good point Vic, and it ties in with mine:

There is a definite battle occurring now in the US between secularists and those who choose to follow the religion of their choice.

fanatic, if you're referring to any form of religion in politics (ie Bush's pushing of Christianity), then I have to respectfully disagree that politics and religion should never be joined.  There are many reasons for this, but the main reason is that so many people believe in so many things, and the US is made up of so many different religions.

I don't know about the battles between the secular and the religious, so perhaps I'm wrong, and you're not talking about politics...

[BIGVICLBI]

I wonder if we are gonna get a sticky label on this? I have never seen one before!

[SmoothOprtr]

On Michael Moore:  While I agree with little of his politics, I agree with EC, that he is clever, and provokes both thought and discussion on his chosed topics.  I think Fahrenheit 9/11 was the weakest of his three films, but at the same time, had Kerry won the election, we would be viewing that films spot in history much different.

On Passion of the Christ:  Passion of the Christ was honored at the Oscars in some technichal categories, but wasn't nominated in the Best Picture/Director categories, nor any of the acting areas.  The reason is quite simple too:  IT DIDN'T DESERVE TO BE NOMINATED.  POTC was hardly present on any respected critics top 10 list (and you can't have it both ways- if you hate the mainstream film industry, than the critics always toting the more obscure works are the polar opposite; their tops choices are often passed over and they are considered professionals in the field *side note- Gene Siskel went to the grave believing critics should vote the Oscars*).  You think it's great because you like the message it sends because it jives with your religious beliefs, and that's fine- but the hardest thing for people to realize about film is- what you like and what are good are NOT the same thing.  

"It's so frustrating to see all this crap that's labelled as art, that has zero integrity and is made by people who don't give a fuck.  For the most part, human beings aren't idiots.  We know when somebody has been careful about their creation, and we know when somebody's just trying to make themselves into a popular star.  But the problem is that the junk is more easily available than the good stuff.  And maybe people are lazy, I don't know.  I can't figure out why people listen to Britney Spears, and I guess I don't care.  Well, I do care, but I don't want to spend time thinking about it."

You right, the junk is more available and I can't remember Independence Day, Armageddon, The Fast and the Furious, Con Air, National Treasure, Twister, etc receiving many nominations.  Sideways, Hotel Rwanda, Kinsey, from this year- would likely have been accessible to far less people if it were not for the attention the Oscars brought them.  I think you are WAY off base claiming that directors like Speilberg, Scorsese, Eastwood, and many others have no integrity and don't give a fuck.  Half of what our kids in school know today about history- Speilberg made possible.  I'm sure Roman Polanski's "The Pianist" which won best director and actor was also an empty tale made for the financial benifit of it creator?
 
"And, for those people who exist in the world who DON'T know about the "other" kind of art, the "other" kind of music - the stuff that you have to seek out"

How many films in your entire life time have you seen that have been nominated in the Best Short Film Live Action, Best Short Film Animated, Best Documentary Short, and Best Documentary?  Most people probably average 0... I'm guessing many have seen Bowling for Columbine and Super Size Me and little else. Are you seeking these films out? Or are you "lazy?"

The bottom line is this: we will never agree 100% on the choices, films will always get left out, and personal politics will never be totally void in these selections... but the Oscars do a good job of honoring film, creating discussion, and bringing people to the movies.  They have more consistently nominated more artistic efforts than major studio crap which turns a lot of people away who have never seen any of the films.

[EC]

I think you are WAY off base claiming that directors like Speilberg, Scorsese, Eastwood, and many others have no integrity and don't give a fuck.

To be sure, I never claimed that.  I'm not a huge fan of any of those directors at this point in their careers.  Eastwood, I give credit to.  But I think that Speilberg and Scorsese have lost a little of what they once had.  I'm NOT taking away their major roles in the history of filmmaking, of course.  But I find that the big Hollywood films that they make, are not interesting to me.  To ME.  It's me.  That's who I'm talking about.

How many films in your entire life time have you seen that have been nominated in the Best Short Film Live Action, Best Short Film Animated, Best Documentary Short, and Best Documentary?  Most people probably average 0... I'm guessing many have seen Bowling for Columbine and Super Size Me and little else. Are you seeking these films out? Or are you "lazy?"

Personally, I've seen quite a few.  But that's because I am familiar with the industry.  

I will agree with you that the Oscars get people out to see movies.  That's all you hear around Oscar time "How many of the best picture nominations have you seen?"

And perhaps I wasn't as clear as I'd hoped - my major problem with the Oscars is the presentation of them.  Now granted, I haven't watched them in a couple of years, so maybe everything's changed.  Who knows.

[SmoothOprtr]

Well I'll agree the presentation leaves something to be desired, and they made changes this year that made it worse.

First off, in an attempt to appeal the show to a younger hipper audience, Chris Rock was chosen as the host over more conservative hosts like Hope, Carson, Crystal, and Martin in the past.  This was a big mistake.  Rock appeals to people who watch Chris Rock movies, none which will ever likely warrant award attention.  The conservative route is much classier.

Cut the best song category- it's only purpose is to give Oscars to the Beatles, Phil Collins, Sting, etc.  The songs nominated usually play while the credits role and have little impact on the films themselves (Bob Dylan's Wonder Boys song did set the feel for that movie).  They're aren't enough musicals anymore, and even if there were enough quality song selections, for a group so concern on trimming the shows time down, do we need to see every performance?  Show a clip and tell us who wins!

They presented a few awards this year in the aisle!  How special.  You just won the biggest award of your life and they're going to give it to you in the aisle like handing the beer man money at a ballgame.

Show more clips!  I hate when they don't show the clips of the actors performances before the tell the winner!  The more clips of the movies they show- the better.  The less lame presentation jokes the better.

[MMJ_fanatic]

The reason you have a voice is because of the secularists! Wait till one religion takes over the country and it turns out not to be yours. That would suck, no?

I know that will never happen because the government is set up not to promote one religion over any other that's why a radical muslim high school sponsored by saudis exists right in Virginia, probably not far from a nice Catholic High School.

[MMJ_fanatic]

On Passion of the Christ:  Passion of the Christ was honored at the Oscars in some technichal categories, but wasn't nominated in the Best Picture/Director categories, nor any of the acting areas.  The reason is quite simple too:  IT DIDN'T DESERVE TO BE NOMINATED.  POTC was hardly present on any respected critics top 10 list  

I think your are completely wrong.  The reason this movie was marginilized is because Hollywood is full of secular people who want no moral judgements made on their behavior or anyone else's and also because Mel Gibson is a man ostracized because of his views.

[BIGVICLBI]

Yeah my heart bleeds for mel, he just bought a 20 million dollar island near fiji. Since you are his #1 fan, maybe he'll let MMJ play there ;D

[MMJ_fanatic]

I never said I was his #1 fan (although I have almost the whole dialogue of Mad Max memorized, as I am a motorhead) I just used him as an example of how Hollywood is a one-sided pulpit soapbox (rethunk ma 1st word choice, pulpit seems out of place applied to H'wood)

[EC]

I think your are completely wrong.  The reason this movie was marginilized is because Hollywood is full of secular people who want no moral judgements made on their behavior or anyone else's and also because Mel Gibson is a man ostracized because of his views.

Well, I'll partially agree with you, fanatic.  However, in all honestly, I thought Passion was crappy and self-serving.  And I actually kind of WANTED to like it.  

I mean, religion is hard.  Christ is hard.  It's hard to try and make a movie that pretty much every single person in the world has an opinion on, and most of those opinions are going to be pretty different.  Jesus Christ is the most popular celebrity, I would imagine.  And people are PASSIONATE about him.

However, in truth, and being distanced enough from all of the hype and propaganda that came along with it (I hardly ever read the news, and I never watch tv), I was extremely disappointed.  I thought the film was very interesting on a cinematic level, but I thought it was fairly manipulative, in the sense that I felt as though I was trying to be made to feel something.  As opposed to just allowing me to feel what I felt.  And that always bugs me, and it ruined the film for me.  Plus, I don't understand how a director thinks he can direct a film in a foreign language to him.  To me, that is plain megalomaniacal.  Is that the right word?  I think it is.

And it's a stupid thing to do.  According to me.

[SmoothOprtr]

The saddest part about Passion of the Christ is that all it would have taken was one high ranking church official to go out and condem this movie, and it wouldn't have made cent one.  All the goof balls who flocked to this thing, were told what to believe about it, as the church lead them be their noses as usual- none of them would have seen.  I know several churches in the area that were arranging church outing to go see this.

[marktwain]

WoW! this topic has gotten heavy.  I just want to mention that I haven't seen the Passion, and I don't plan to, even though I consider myself Christian.  This is because Christianity as I understand it should focus more on the life of Christ, and how to be Christlike, than on the gory details of his death.