Posted on 03/11/2005 11:00:10 AM PST by w6ai5q37b
The recent Academy Award celebration of last year's movie fare has made transparently obvious the huge chasm between the cultural elitists and Middle America.
The year 2004 is certain to go down as a defining point in the decades-long war for the heart, mind, and soul of America. The cultural elites who reign over the fields of entertainment, the arts, the news media, and academia are triumphantly celebrating our descent into a post-Christian, neopagan society. They are celebrating an ongoing revolution that threatens to transform a culture of life, light, virtue, and hope into a culture of death, darkness, degeneracy, and despair.
This celebration of our moral decline was nowhere more blatantly displayed than at the 77th Academy Awards on February 27. Considered by many to be the premier annual cultural event, broadcast to a global audience of hundreds of millions, the Oscars have been sliding down a slippery slope for many years. But this year's nominees for the coveted golden statue comprised, in the words of USA Today, an especially "bleak slate."
In a February 25 cover story entitled, "Exploring Oscar's Dark Side," USA Today described the grim reality behind this year's glamour and glitz:
Open the winning envelope? For this year's Oscar hopefuls, it's more like opening a vein. Drug addiction, mercy killing, mental illness, genocide, abortion, ill young mothers and borderline alcoholism — these are a few of Oscar's favorite things this year. Here are a few more of Oscar's favorite things, as deduced from the Academy's nominees: homosexuality, pederasty, adultery, pornography, nudity, incest, blasphemy, profanity, and Communist revolutionaries.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
I think he was being sarcastic. It's a solid film.
Yes, Borges, I am very disappointed in the Cap Alert. They seem to think Hollywood should just make 50's Disney movies. Audiences have moved beyond the kind of cotton candy world they seem to want.
The Hayes Code was dead by 1965. Audiences were ready for heroes who shot first. Culturally, the audience fragmented as the country did between Right and Left.
In Hollywood studios, I suspect a major reason the Left won is that the Right tried in vain to recreate the success of "The Sound of Music" by blowing money on lame big budget family musicals while the Left made harder, edgier films with generous amounts of nudity. Nudity is the cheapest special effect and the most cost effective (they didn't have VCR's or cable soft porn then). The "family market" couldn't support money pits like "Hello, Dolly" or "Paint Your Wagon" and just about any woman taking off her top was more entertaining than "Song of Norway".
Coppola, Scorsese, Depalma
3 leftwing Italian Americans who have only made movies about killing, cursing, and the disrespect of life.
Coppola is the worst - a friend of Fidel Castro. Coppola needs to shave, loose whgt, and take a bath!
So am I snarks. I just don't go to see that tripe. But I differ with you. Hollywoody would just sell overseas. And maybe eventually move there. In my opinion, many of our leader across this land just suck. It's all about their pockets regardless if they are preachers, actors, politicians, school boards, local gov. etc. The list just go on. I have reined in many of my money leaks.
But isn't that very largely because of cable, VCR's and DVD's ? Hey, a lot of movies these days are never meant to be in movie theaters.
Assuming that's true, it makes perfect sense given that most of us now have DVD or VHS players, pay-per-view, cable TV, cable TV movie channels & movies on network TV.
Would you expect otherwise?
I rarely go to see movies in the theater. But it has nothing to do with quality & everything to do with the fact that I know I'll soon see those movies on DVD or PPV in the convenience of my own home.
Never said that the people couldn't decide for themselves. Never said that you were a kid, but good argument. Government has everything to do with it. It was also an analogy.
But 'Song of Norway' had Florence Henderson and Peer Gynt! 1965 was the watershed year of sorts. the Pawnbroker came out which was the first mainstream film to have nudity albeit in a very serious context (about Holocaust survivors). The Sound of Music and Doctor Zhivago were hugely popular and could not be duplicated. Even by their own directors (Robert Wise and Julie Andrews tried it again with Star!, David Lean with the disasterours 'Ryan's Daughter' the failure of which pushed Lean out of film making for over a decade.)
>>most of those Soviet favoring films were essentially war porpaganda that was sanctioned by the goverment.<<
Yup. Once Uncle Joe turned on the Nazis, the enemy of our enemy became our friend. And since the liberal elites in both Hollywood and the government had always been sympathetic to the Soviets anyway, they regared this as a natural evolution toward a better world.
Remember that during the Depression, many Americans came to believe the capitalist system had failed and that socialism/communism was the solution. After WWII, when the Soviets began to take over eastern Europe, and the truth about purges, mass starvation, etc., began to come out, most Americans turned away from the Soviets. Liberals, however, never did. They promote socialism to this day.
Yeah--that was the whole point.
As for it not saying anything new about the subject, I must have missed all those dozens of movies that depict drug addiction in aging women with no lives. I've never seen the horrors of addictions depicted so believably.
If you have a list of all these other movies about the same subject, I'm all eyes.
BTW, being faithful to the source material is a good thing. I prefered the movie's actual depiction of the situations to the book, which was even worse than Last Exit to Brooklyn.
LOL. I thought maybe, but couldn't really tell!
They turned away from Stalin. Who modern communists claim perverted their movement. But in the 1930s communism in America was much more common and mainstream then it is today. It seems like every other American film of the 30s was based on class differences in some way.
And yet, are these not reflections of what is going on in our society?
Ignore the actual income (which is huge but distracting) and look at the numbers for "change" and "tickets sold".
As you can see, the actual number of tickets sold has grown substantially since the first year tracked, 1980.
not sure what you mean. Less people are going to movies, some for moral reasons, some because they know they can wait 4 months or less and catch it on pay-per-view in their own home.
the National Association of Theater Owners has similar information on their site as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.