Posted on 02/02/2006 8:23:41 PM PST by MrBallroom
Hollywood Does It Again
by Jennifer King, Managing Editor
February 3, 2006
Liberals have become so predictable, it’s almost boring prognosticating what they’ll do next. Anything to poke a stick in the eye of the unlettered bourgeoisie. All efforts must be aimed at insulting plebian Red America.
Thus, at the “Golden Globe” awards, the alleged precursor to the Oscars, the winners included a plethora of tediously tendentious offerings. Brokeback Mountain, a movie about gay sheepherders whose illicit lust destroys both of their heterosexual marriages, won for best drama, best director, best original song (which some wag dubbed, “Homos on the Range”) and best screenplay. Actress Felicity Huffman won best actress for her portrayal of a transsexual man undergoing a sex change operation. Actor Phillip Seymour Hoffman won best actor for his portrayal of Truman Capote, a gay man who deeply involved himself with notorious drifters who had murdered an entire family in Kansas. Rachel Weisz won best supporting actress for her work in The Constant Gardener, a LeCarre take on the evils of Big Pharmaceutical. George Clooney’s film, Syriana, was a conspiratorial take on Iraq and Big Oil. Tiresome.
The film industry is in precipitous decline, even in “Old Europe” which should be anxious to depart with their Euros for the chance to see their version of America vindicated. In Germany, home of Mohammed Atta, movie going has seen a 20.6% decline. In Spain, it is 15%. In France, 10%. In the United States, only 9% of the population goes regularly to the movies. In the 1940s, that number was 60%.
The industry studiously avoids examples of good films which make serious money. C. S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia, the Lord of the Rings series and The Passion of the Christ should have shown Hollywood that movies with a good moral message (and underlying Christian themes) would do well in theatres. Nevertheless, the industry continues to bleed away dollars trying to sell Americans on the triad of white liberal guilt, corporate corruption and the evils of religion.
The parallels with the news media are inescapable. As The New York Times, the Orlando Sentinel, and other papers continue to shrink in volume and ad copy, one would assume that they would examine their bottom line and perhaps adjust their journalists accordingly. Nay, they grow increasingly shrill, thrashing about like a dinosaur caught in the tar pits.
Their anger propels them to new heights of absurdity - available everyday on the web pages of fevered leftwingers, weekly in the editorial pages of the increasingly marginalized papers and monthly in the new releases from Hollywood.
Eventually, the bean counters should have their day. We can all anticipate it with joy. ***
© 2006 Jennifer King
COPYRIGHT © 2006 BY THE AMERICAN PARTISAN
All writers retain rights to their work.
Sorry, no. I'm enjoying it. And you? :-)
We require consistency because refusing it creates a ridiculous level of indignation in the gay community, which further militarizes it - giving them more funds and more supporters. We could accomplish exactly the same outcome by allowing them a hearing, then shooting them down - there would still be no new homosexual lobbyists at the UN, and better still the homosexual community wouldn't be in a tizzy.
Make no mistake - we are in a war with these people for the social and ethical mores of our society. Winning that war means winning battles like denying them access to bodies like the UN, as Dr Rice has done here. However, winning the war will take more than simply winning battles - we also have to be sure not to create more enemies on our way. My argument is that we could have won this battle while not inflaming the homosexual activists, which strengthens them and makes them more dangerous. It's like our fight in Iraq - people opposed to the war are so obsessed with "getting the troops home" that they don't see that doing so will only breed more terrorists and make us less safe overall; the same thing is true here, by analogy.
Won't argue with that statement. It's hard to see anyone deny it with a straight face when there are 20-ft screens with two cowboys sodomizing one another in almost every major American city:
"No, there's no gay agenda...that's just...uh...what cowboys do! It gets lonely on the range and...uh...it's an accurate depiction"
/liberal
My, my. What a twisted bunch of illogic. You're really grasping at straws. Either that, or as I noted before, profoundly ill-informed.
So, according to you, in order to not enflame the homosexual activists, out of fear and trembling they should be allowed a platform to spew their lies and gain legitimacy and power.
Ever hear of the word "appeasement"?
Homosexuals do not deserve a platform from which to spread their propaganda. They deserve compassion, as anyone with mental or emotional illness deserves compassion, or those addicted to any deleterious vice. And they deserve the choice of seeking treatment so they can leave the "gay" life.
You told me my comments were off topic. Now you're agreeing with me that they weren't off topic.
Please, do a FR search using the keywords "homosexual agenda", read for at least two hours, and get back to the thread in the morning.
I can appreciate that you have a more idealistic view of how we should handle this, but I think more in terms of a kind of realpolitik - sometimes, the inconsequential loses out when you're dealing with a foe as underhanded as these people can be.
Did somebody say, "tar pits?"
They were off-topic within the scope of the original discussion - however, since we've decided to expand that scope I'm comfortable with dicussing them here too.
I wasn't thinking as broadly as you were when I posted that, and I apologize.
Nonsense. What you're espousing is doublespeak. Give in to their demands so they don't get angry and demand more.
Total, unadulterated appeasement and support of the "gay" agenda.
What do you mean "now?" You just showed up. In fact, you joined tomorrow.
It's always best to post respectfully for awhile before launching into "admonish" mode. Otherwise people will think you're a stupid, rude, arrogant twerp.
You're right, it is doublespeak - the kind of doublespeak that won the Cold War, the kind of doublespeak that kept Communism contained behind the Iron Curtain. You do nothing explicitly that would give them something to point at and go "look, they're attacking us!" but you block them at every possibly opportunity that matters. That's why we let the USSR onto the security council, that's why we let Soviet leaders come to the United States - we extended a crushing handshake to the communists, while blocking their every political move. And it worked.
And that's what we've got to do here. I can understand if you're too principled to do it - great men, like Patton, were too - but sometimes we need an Eisenhower as well as a McCarthy.
Ummm.... It's the production and distribution companies which make Hollywood, well, Hollywood. The two are inseparable. So, if the production and distribution companies *need* the revenue income from the movies theatres to survive, then the rest of Hollywood does as well...
the infowarrior
After all, this person who just signed up clearly knows far more than any of us about the movie business and the cultural implications of its content.
And apparently registration date supremacy trumps all, as well? I've been reading this forums regularly since the Terri Schiavo fiasco, and read them off-and-on before then but was never able to do much more than read because my only access was from work, and so couldn't commit to any actual discussion. But apparently you would have just rather had me spend a year or so posting "I agree".
Hollywood doesn't need a movie to be a success in secondary (less populated) domestic markets to survive. This is particularly true for low budget movies. They can make impressive profits in key markets, international distribution, DVD sales and television rights.
+
You clearly have no idea how the market operates- the two are by no means inseperable. In fact, there's recently been much concern in the community about foreign distribution companies trying to edge into the American market; notably those from so-called "Bollywood" in India. The two are very different, and very distinct entities in the film industry, and if you'd bother to read the economic literature on this, you'd see that any cogent analysis identifies and addresses this distinction.
When your fourth post in the forum characterizes a writer (who happens to also be a fellow poster here) as offering up "idiotic screeds" and "whiny, snide and empty-headed drivel," be prepared.
But apparently you would have just rather had me spend a year or so posting "I agree".
You've been rude and insulting (out of the gate). That's miles from posting "I disagree."
I call them like I see them.
If she happens to be a poster here, then I would (respectfully) disagree with her characterization of Capote and non-mention of Harper Lee, both of whom are important American writers. Lee, for the record, is still alive.
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.