ACADEMY AWARDS ABOUT TO "JUMP THE SHARK"?

Network America ^ | 25 Jan 2005 | Jim Condit, Jr.

[Robert Drobot]

"Jump the Shark" is a semi-known phrase meaning "lose all credibility" or "it's all downhill from here."

The phrase comes from www.jumptheshark.com - which catalogs and debates the (paraphrase) "defining moment when you know you're favorite TV Show has reached its peak and its all downhill from here."

The phrase "jump the shark" comes from a Happy Days episode - late in the series - where Fonzie went on a vacation with the Cunninghams. In that episode of the sitcom, Fonzie jumped over a jaws-like shark while waterskiing on the ocean.

Fans generally thought this moment was so absurd, that it was the signal that Happy Days was about out of steam. Happy Days had lost credibility. Happy Days had "jumped the shark."

Another example given is that "Charlie's Angels" jumped the shark when Farah Fawcett left the show (which was after only 1 year, according to the site). Get the idea? OK.

Well, network nightly TV has itself long ago "jumped the shark" as far as I'm concerned. And it is long past the time when those producing nightly network TV shows should have been arrested for corrupting minors.

And despite the already debauched image Hollywood has achieved, there has still been a sense that there was at least a good faith ATTEMPT to give the nominations and Oscars to those who deserved the awards each year, more or less.

But this year, the Academy Awards along with Oscar himself may "Jump the Shark."

As if it wasn't bad enough that Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion of the Christ", became the 9th largest grossing film of all time - and as if it weren't bad enough that the film was hailed by just about everyone outside of Hollywood as one of the most remarkable films, if not the most remarkable film, that many had every seen - 2004 turned out to be a really, really very bad year for memorable movies, let alone movies deserving the Oscar for Best Picture.

Things were so bad that a seeming scramble took place to release flicks which might pass as credible Oscar Nominees. A flurry of films being touted for nomination were released near the December 31, 2004 deadline.

ONE PROBLEM: none of the other mentioned Oscar nominee contenders did very well at the office. A quick internet survey revealed that all of the other movies being touted as potential nominees -- including "Ray", "Million Dollar Baby", which is actually a right-to-die movie, "Kinsey", a falsified life of the pervert which never made it to 300 screens on the way to bombing, ("The Passion of the Christ" by contrast made it to about 3000 screens), "The Aviator", "Sideways", "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", and "Finding Neverland" - all together hardly made the box office which was achieved by "The Passion of the Christ."

BIGGER PROBLEM: If you don't know much or anything about the rest of this "march of the mediocre" films - don't feel bad. If you keep up with the news at all, you probably know that "Ray" is about the life of recently deceased singer Ray Charles. But I would be hard pressed to tell you much of anything about any of the others. All of which means that nobody is talking about them, and nobody can find anything much to say about them - not even in the media.

Does anyone seriously think that ANY of these other movies will be talked about 5 years or 10 years from now? - as "The Passion of the Christ" surely will be?

I don't think so - because - hear me now - no one is talking about these other movies FIVE DAYS or TEN DAYS after they see them!

The more relevant question is: Is anybody talking about these other films FIVE MINUTES or TEN MINUTES after they see the films - while they are catching a bite to eat shortly after leaving the theater?

The artistic brilliance of "The Passion of the Christ" includes - and this is just from off the top of my head from the last time I saw the movie (this time on DVD) a few months ago:

* The aerial scene of the crucifixion which leads to the teardrop falling from Heaven;
* The camera work as Longinus the soldier thrusts the spear at Jesus' body which gives the feel of the blood and water from Christ's side almost hitting the viewer in the face;
* The strategically placed flashbacks which evoked emotion or made some important point, such as that Christ worked for a living and had a sense humor;
* The absolutely great acting performances turned in by the actors and actresses who played Jesus, Mary, Mary Magdelene, and Pontius Pilate. The important thing here is that all the actors did a good job in the movie - you always felt you were in the action and in the moment - one mark of a great movie. (If you wonder how good Jim Caviezel was in realistically portraying Jesus - just go back and look at the other performances in other movies about Jesus.)
* The scenes where Director Mel Gibson approximated great paintings or works of art. One of these scenes was where Christ's right hand was being nailed to the Cross, while he looks at his right hand out of the corner of his eye; another was at the end of the movie when Mary holds the lifeless body of Jesus, which had just been taken down from the Cross, and looks at the camera; this scene approximates Michaelangelo's Pieta.

Moving to another point: some news articles are claiming that Michael Moore removed himself from the documentary category. How can this be? Michael Moore's movie, Fahrenheit 911 - IS a documentary. It is not a movie version of anything. It is a documentary. How does anybody get to move their production from the category it belongs in to a category it doesn't belong in? In any case, this shoots down the argument that the Academy can't award "The Passion of the Christ" the Best Picture award because its characters speak two foreign languages.

To conclude this Network America e-wire: the Hollywood elite are in a real box this year. From an artistic point of view, from an cinematic historical point of view regarding the probable longevity in the public mind, and from the aspect of box office success - then "The Passion of the Christ" is the clear winner (not just a worthy nominee - but the CLEAR winner) for the categories of both Best Picture and Best Director.

One article entitled, "Choosing the Best Film Will be Trickier than Ever" ran in the Daily-Herald based in Provo, Utah. The article noted the following:

"While "The Passion" is sui generis in terms of subject and execution, it has the financial credentials: It was the third-biggest earner of the year, with more than $370 million gross. And, more important, it fed the moviegoing desires of a growing and increasingly influential segment of the country -- including an untapped reservoir of people who would never otherwise go to the movies.

"Does Hollywood, already wearing the Mark of Cain for being licentious, immoral and Jewish, want to antagonize the entire fundamentalist Christian community by overlooking its favorite film?"

And Pat Buchanan, guest hosting for Joe Scarborough on MSNBC a month or two ago, made this point (paraphrase): Do the Academy voters hate a really effective movie about the Passion of Jesus Christ so much that they will forego what could be the largest ratings in their history? Buchanan asked how it would be possible to attract more people to watch the Academy Awards worldwide than if both "The Passion of the Christ" and Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" were both nominated for best picture of the year? Such a lineup would probably attract the largest audience ever for the Academy Awards.

It seems a certainty that the Academy is going to completely snub Jim Caviezel for his portrayal of Jesus. This is raw religious discrimination, trying to signal actors and actresses, young and old, that they'd better do soft porn or "politically correct" themes, and not wholesome movies - if they want to be recognized for their work.

But if the Academy snubs "The Passion of the Christ" - I wouldn't be surprised to see, for the first time ever, more protesters on the outside than attendees on the inside - as the cultural war divide continues to widen.

I also wouldn't be surprised if we could all hear a collective world wide laughter if we walk outside our houses at the moment the Oscar for Best Picture is awarded to one of these other comparative turkeys, rather than "The Passion of the Christ."

NOTHING is harder to rebound from for an institution that wants to be taken seriously - than to find itself the object of derision and laughter.

Will the Academy Awards and Oscar himself - "jump the shark" this year?

We'll find out a few hours from when this e-wire is released. You will find that we sent this Network America e-wire out at 11:45 PM California time on January 24, 2005 and it is so time-stamped on the independent website www.topica.com in the Network America section. The Academy Awards for movies released in 2004 are slated to be announced 6 hours from now, at 5:30 AM on January 25, 2005.

End of this e-wire.

Jim Condit Jr.,
Director, Network America Ewire List
Director, Citizens for a Fair Vote Count

[Bella_Bru]

Out Of Africa. A good film.

So so many people think the Passion should sweep only because of it's subject content?

But then again you seen to be an expert at that when it comes to Hollywood.

Oh, I forgot, only the self appointed Diva knows anything about Hollywood.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

LOL! Do you know how to do any research at all? Here is a hint... Why not try googling the Best picture winner for 1986! ( You are wrong again -but I am getting so used to that at this point)

More smoke and mirrors!! *snicker*

[Bella_Bru]

ooops. That was 1985. So sorry, Madame Diva. Please forgive your royal highness, my queen, my emporess! Please, please, ooohhh... please forgive me.

It's true, you know everything! Oh, I am so lower than you. Allow me to wash and kiss your feet.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Well that is kind of gross.. you could just admit that you are wrong- and leave the discussion to people who know what they are talking about ,but I see that is not easy for you to do.

I don't allow many girls touch me.. so..

ummm....

no.

:]

[manic4organic]

Almost all the awards shows are past their primes. Ratings are down. Most people recognize them for what they are: industry patting itself on the back.

[Pharmboy]

Funny you should mention Driving Miss Daisy--for my money one of the most annoying (and awful) movies ever made.

[Pharmboy]

This guy prolly hasn't seen any of these movies. I've seen "Ray" (excellent movie--Foxx will win the AA--see it); "...Spotless Mind" (eh--miss it); "Sideways" (ok--but did not live up to the hype--wait for the DVD). Just my opinion...

[hosepipe]

So true about the "Oscars"....
But I finally saw the Passion, I'm more of a shoot em up kind of guy..
One scene stands to me more than any of the others..

Both Marys mopping up Jesus blood with rags on the ground kind of like two groupies mopping up the sweat of Elvis after a performance at Caesars Palace in Vegas.. it was disgusting and funny too.. No movie ever has made me use those two words in the same sentence before.. But then I don't watch porn.. The, useing of the subtitles, for the Aramaic was cute.. To wit, a bit too Roman Catholic for me, mostly.. maybe the Maryolatry bent my nose too far up.. Causing me look down my nose at it.. Mel Gibson's deepest innards were displayed in that project.. shows he is a good director..

However, it was a big box office smash.. An Oscar for 'the musical SCORE" and makeup is also funny.. could be a "dis".. probably is a "dis".. but Hollywood is funny in a disgusting kind way.. kind of like a sissy fag.. is disgustingly funny.. Hollywood is a very queer place.. In Hollywood queer is not queer.. The rest of the country is queer to "Hollywood".

You got to give it to Jesus though.. I can think of no human being that has had as much impact on human society as Jesus.. Its almost like it is supposed to be that way.. What ever Jesus was doing, "worked".. Probably every person that has read about him seriously could make their OWN movie about him.. Mel just displayed his own version.. Who in history had that much impact.. Nobody I can think of.. The best actor should go the Jesus.. Mohamaad's act was a spoof of Jesus.. done poorly.. Budda was merely an ex-Hindu in protest, and Moses was a shemozle.. Jesus should get best actor.. his performace dwarfs all others.. for nigh on to 2000 years give or take a generation..

[Borges]

What didn't you like about 'Eternal Sunshine'? You really don't think it's even worth seeing?

[Borges]

The Oscar winner for Best Picture of 1986 was Platoon. The highest grossing film of 1986 was Top Gun.

[Pharmboy]

I dunno...mebbe it's an generational thing. I did think Kate was excellent, but I don't have too much patience with movies that are based on (to my mind) a silly sci-fi proposition.

And, BTW, I asked my brilliant friend who is a novelist why all these movies lately about memory loss (Memento, this one and others)? He said it goes along with the proposition that everything goes and is forgettable...i.e., no memory, no responsibility.

[Borges]

I don't agree with your friend's assertion at all. It all comes from living in the age of hypertext. It's hard to distinguish perception from reality these days. Simulacras everywhere. Macherey had it right. The Matrix was a bare bones intro to his ideas.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "Ishtar was better"

Woe man what an insult. You don't sound like you are in touch with your true feelings. How do you really feel about the movie?

Don't hold back, let it out you will feel better to vent.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "I was completely bored by "Ran"."

I'm sorry I can't help you with that. :-)

When I saw it the first time I was mesmerized. Since I was aware it was based on King Lear there was a point in the movie when I realized the end was near so I glanced at my watch and realized we had been watching for nearly 2 hours. It seemed like we had just walked in 15 min earlier. Visually it was a work of art for that alone, and the touch of Kabuki theater was very exotic. As you can see I loved it.

[Betis70]

>>I'm sorry I can't help you with that. :-)

I know. :( My movie taste usually includes such movies too, don't know why "Ran" didn't do it for me. I think I might have been defective that night...

[Robert Drobot]

Attempting to compare comic book hero films scripted in English with a foreign language film depicting the spiritual heart of one of the largest religious followings in the world is an apples oranges thing.

Previous poor attempts by Hollywood - DeMille and that pathetic list self-described 'directors' who do not deserve to walk behind Mel Gibson - have an Oscar for their pretensions celluloid creations.

The anti-Christian Western religion hating Asylum of Motion Pictures refused to even place "The Passion of The Christ" in a foreign language category.

On behalf of every man woman and child who call themselves American Citizens ( If Richard "I am the world" Greer can do it, so can I. ) I rise to congratulate Mel Gibson for his moral fortitude in single handedly unveiling of the self-indulgent, bigoted, and corrupted mind-set that is 'Hollywood'.

This feat in itself is deserving of the highest honor a civilian can receive from the United States government - the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

President Bush is duty bound to God and country to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mel Gibson for exposing the true colors of the Hollywood film industry - commie pink.

[Borges]

The film was not eligbile for the Foriegn Language Oscar. The excerpt previously posted from the Academy's site with the rules verifies this. The country in question must submit it...America cannot submit a film for this award. No it's just a case of the movie not getting enough votes. And Demille's religious films were very popular with religious leaders many of whom served as advisors on them.

[Robert Drobot]

Blah, blah, blah.

You, and they, just don't get it. Continue wearing your diamond studed blinders. You deserve them.

Christian America ( that 86% of the country ) knows the essence of Hollywood, and it ain't good.

[nutmeg]

bookmark bump

[Borges]

I get the rules which you don't seem to care about. O.K. I wouldn't have wanted them to do what Al Gore tried to do in the 2000 election which is change the rules after the fact.