Posted on 01/17/2005 7:47:57 AM PST by JFK_Lib
"Sideways" (search), the tale of two friends on a soul-searching trek through wine country, snatched the top comedy film award and "The Aviator" (search), the biopic about neurotic airline mogul and movie director Howard Hughes, captured the top drama film award at Sunday night's Golden Globe Awards. "The Aviator" also took home best actor in a drama. Child star and heartthrob Leonardo DiCaprio (search) can now add "Golden Globe winner" to his list of credentials for his portrayal of the eccentric billionaire Hughes in the film. DiCaprio paid homage to the movie's director, Martin Scorsese (search), who lost his best director bid to Clint Eastwood (search) and his boxing film "Million Dollar Baby," earlier in the evening. ..... His (DeCaprio) competitors in the category were Javier Bardem for "The Sea Inside," Don Cheadle for "Hotel Rwanda," Johnny Depp for "Finding Neverland" and Liam Neeson for "Kinsey." ..... "The Aviator" earned composer Howard Shore the Globe for film score, while Mick Jagger (search) and Dave Stewart (search) won the song honor for "Old Habits Die Hard" from "Alfie." ..... Actress Teri Hatcher (search) won the television Actress, Musical or Comedy award for her role in "Desperate Housewives," beating two of her costars as well as "Sex and The City"'s Sarah Jessica Parker and Debra Messing of "Will & Grace."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Excuse me for watching the movie and thinking it stands alone as entertainment and its message is little more than the traditional movie message.
I looked up the writer of the original story. It appears that he is very nearly Eastwoods character. I doubt a 69 year old man who has been in boxing for his entire life really cares too much about euthanasia. It does appear that he does care about boxing though, and he wanted to tell a good story with boxing involved. The producers didn't seem to have a severe liberal bent in the movies they produced. Several had a close working relationship with Eastwood who is also a producer as well as a conservative.
I found Sideways to be absolutely HILARIOUS, I hope it wins.
Really! As they say, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make hime drink!" I've laid out the argument that there's more to this film than a simple touching story. You don't want to dig any deeper than the surface. Why? You're not interested? Afraid? You're comfortable with the status quo? We have lots of elephants in the living room, and Hollywood is one of them.
No, I don't believe there is anything more to it. I explained why I believe assisted suicide was a needed plot element. I do not believe that just because something I disagree with is in a movie, it is propaganda. You might have a point if the movie centered on the issue, but it doesn't. Or if the director was a repeat offender, but Clint does little besides expertly direct movies. What is the message of his other films? You would have better luck convincing me that The Aviator was pro-mental illness because it showed Howard Hughes acheiving with several.
What planet are you from? The only thing the average person can think about on the way out of that movie is the manner of her death. To say the movie didn't center on it is to say that only because it occurred at the end. In many ways it was like Miller's "The Crucible" Starts out slow and builds to an unexpected climax of death. An ending you can't forget.
I was more taken aback by the way she was injured than her death. Her death is not the center of the story in the way that Keyser Soze is the center of The Usual Suspects. It centered on the relationship between the two main characters. That is what the movie is about.
Well, that isn't what everyone, including you and I, is talking about.
Is every violent movie about violence? No, but that is what people talk about when they come out. Tarantino movies are famous for being incredibly violent, but when you watch them he holds back much more than many other directors. The violence is alluded to but not shown. This movie is not about assisted suicide but that is what people want to talk about. That doesn't mean that the producers set out to make people talk about it. It seems that they set out to make a good movie, and succeeded. If you check imdb.com the poll today will show that it is easily considered one of the best of the year, but movie people. And obviously all movie fans are not going to be pro-assisted suicide.
I think it does.
If they were, there wouldn't be any point to producing propaganda about it, would there? But since they are not, as you pointed out, those with an axe to grind have stepped in with a beautifully crafted piece of propaganda.
So by the same token every film produced with violence in it would be made to make a point about violence? It is a part of the plot but not the turn upon which everything depends on. That is the part where Eastwood agrees to train her.
It seems you have more of an axe to grind about this subject than anyone involved with the film. Swank has come out and said she does not agree with the decision. Why would she star in a propaganda film about something she disagrees with?
I am reminded that you don't think it's the central point of the movie, but that's even what the stars in it are talking about.
Money?
The stars talk about what they are asked about. It is what has caused the most talk about the movie. The fact remains that that isn't what the movie is about. Not that people always get the point of movies and books. Fight Club is ultimately anti-violence but all anyone who didn't like it said was that is was very violent. Do you think The Passion was about the violence in it or Jesus' sacrafice? What did people talk about?
Thank you for acknowledging that little morsel of fact.
I disagree, that's the only thing "$MM Baby" was about.
I give people more credit than that. If people don't get the point, it wasn't very well done. This movie was very well done, and the point was assisted suicide and nothing else. That people are talking about that and asking the stars about it proves the point.
I didn't see it. You are right though, there was a great deal of talk about the violence. And ultimately that's why we didn't see it.
This movie was well done, but it has a controversial plot point that is being blown out of proportion. It is easy to center in on that and forget about the rest of the movie.
People miss the point a lot, American Psycho the book was very misunderstood when it came out. So many times disturbing images become all a movie is known for when it really strives for something bigger. I don't think this movie is striving to make a great political point. Even if it were a propaganda piece it failed miserably for many reasons. As a very good film it excelled.
There is a recut version of The Passion coming out in April that eliminates 5 minutes of the more brutal scenes. There are rumors of it becoming a yearly release at Easter.
Just for the record, I wasn't the one who didn't want to see "The Passion" because of the violence, not that you care, but when I do see it, I don't want to see some stupid watered down version that doesn't represent what the producers originally wanted me to see.
I was another one who didn't care to see it because of the violence. I try to refrain from commenting on the actual film too much without having seen it. I was just letting you know that if you wanted to see a slightly less violent version, one would be available.
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.