Posted on 01/13/2006 7:54:16 AM PST by Millicent_Hornswaggle
Every year since I was old enough to stay up late, I've watched the Academy Awards. This year, however, I have absolutely zero desire to watch the Oscars. In recent years, lack of quality from Hollywood has turned the Academy Awards into a special-interest-group get-together. If you're crazy, gay, have a disability or are a member of a minority race, you'll likely be nominated for an Oscar; if your film tackles a "deep social issue" (normally an issue dear to the hearts of Hollywood's liberal glitterati), you'll have an excellent shot at grabbing a gold statuette.
The combination of declining product quality and rising Hollywood disdain for mainstream America has opened the door to the agenda-film crowd. It began with the 1994 Oscars. "Schindler's List," "The Fugitive" and "In the Name of the Father" all received Best Picture nominations; other excellent films of 1993 included "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?" "Searching for Bobby Fischer," "Shadowlands," "Fearless" and "In the Line of Fire."
Still, Hollywood had to take a shot at mainstream America, and they found their vehicle in "Philadelphia," throwing their honorary liberal activism award to Tom Hanks for his weak performance as a dying AIDS-stricken gay lawyer in "Philadelphia." Unbelievably, Hanks' cheesy hospital-bed routine beat out Liam Neeson in "Schindler's List" and Daniel Day Lewis in "In the Name of the Father." "Philadelphia" is, clinically speaking, a maudlin, ham-handed attempt at social commentary.
The remaining 1990s were filled with weak movies and weak performances. On average, high-school audio-visual clubs make better movies than Hollywood put together in the late 1990s.
Then, our illustrious decade: With great films scarce and politically mainstream Academy voters even scarcer, 2000 featured the victory of repulsive anti-suburbia and pro-homosexuality hit piece "American Beauty." Of course, it beat out a film lionizing an abortionist ("The Cider House Rules") and another attacking the tobacco industry ("The Insider"). Most disturbingly, the Academy handed Hilary Swank a Best Actress Oscar for playing a transgendered biological girl murdered by a bunch of hicks. And 2002 was the year of the African-American honorary Oscars, when Denzel Washington took home Best Actor for his decent if overrated performance in "Training Day" and Halle Berry took home Best Actress for her highly touted simulated orgasms in "Monster's Ball." In 2003, homosexual agenda films like "The Hours," "Frida" and "Far From Heaven" grabbed the largest share of nominations. In 2004, Hollywood couldn't hold off "Lord of the Rings" any longer, but Charlize Theron, playing an ugly lesbian serial killer in "Monster," won Best Actress. And last year, the Best Picture was forgettable pro-euthanasia film "Million Dollar Baby."
And then there's this year. "Brokeback Mountain," the stomach-churning story of two 1963 cowboys who get cozy while bunking down in Wyoming and then carry on their affair over the course of decades, is likely to grab Best Picture honors. The critics love it, mostly because critics love anything that pushes homosexuality as normal behavior. The New York Times raves about it, mostly because the Times has always wanted to carry a ridiculous story proclaiming that "there has always lurked a suspicion that the fastidious Eastern dude of Owen Wister's 'The Virginian' harbored stronger than proper feelings for his rough Western compadres, and that the Red River crowd may have gotten up to more than yarning by the campfire whenever Joanne Dru was not around." Maybe that's what Pinch Sulzberger thinks about when he watches John Wayne on screen, but the Times should be more careful when speaking for the rest of us. By the way, don't believe the "hit movie" hype -- this supposed blockbuster has netted a grand total of $8 million. "Hostel," last week's No. 1 movie, a cheap horror film, has already netted almost $15 million.
Best Actor honors are likely to go to Philip Seymour Hoffman for his performance in "Capote" -- this would mark the first time that an actor in a gay role has actually deserved his Oscar. Best Actress will probably fall to Reese Witherspoon in "Walk the Line," but supporters of Felicity Huffman's transgendered father/mother in "TransAmerica" could push her over the top.
Aside from pimping for GLAAD, the Oscars will provide a platform for other leftist talking points. "Good Night, and Good Luck," George Clooney's blatant attempt to bash the Bush administration through the mouth of Edward R. Murrow, and "Munich," Steven Spielberg's attempt to equate Arab terrorism with Israeli self-defense, will likely garner nominations. And to top it off, Comedy Central partisan hack Jon Stewart (who is less and less funny each day) hosts this self-congratulatory leftist feting.
I won't be watching. Neither will most Americans.
He may paint himself as conservative, but no true conservative (social conservative)would even give this perversion a quick glance, much less a favorable review. People have become so brainwashed by this filth that they don't even realize it.
--
There are various flavours of conservatism. One can be a fiscal conservative while not caring what consenting adults do to one another just as easily as you can be a moral conservative who does care.
Best Picture winners have generally been quite popular as far as Box Office goes. The last one that can be called a flop was 'The Last Emperor' in 1987.
I fall into the moral conservative category. I don't like what the homosexual agenda is doing to society.
Skipping the wha..? Last time I watched the Oscars was when they stiffed "Apollo 13" because it was a true story about crew-cut white guys who smoked and were real heroes, as opposed to whores, scoundrels and comic book goofballs.
This will be the lowest rated Academy Awards in television history.
How many of the movies nominated since 1990 hold a candle to the films nominated between 1947 and 1953 ? Johnny Belinda. Twelve O'Clock High. The Heiress. Treasure of the Sierra Madre. All About Eve. Sunset Boulevard. Gentleman's Agreement. On the Waterfront. A Streetcar Named Desire.
'Gentleman's Agreement' is pretty dated. It's not regarded as great cinema by anyone I know. And while we're at it...Johnny Belinda? :-) I'd take Schindler's List, Pulp Fiction or Fargo over those two.
From the perspective of now, Gentleman's Agreement is as dated as Bernard Shaw's "Arms and the Man". They seem dated because they attack attitudes that no longer exist (WASP country club anti-semitism, romantic pre WW1 attitudes towards war). But they are nowhere near as dated as, say, some Barbara Seagull 1972 hippie movie.
Lost me there. American Beauty was a great film, and Spacey was masterful. The scenes of his "transformation" are remarkable. And how is it pro-homo?
Again, lost me here. I saw "Baby" after hearing the fury about euthanasia, and it turned out to be a tempest in a teapot. It is not a "pro-euthanasia" film. Clint's priest warns him if he does this he will be "lost". And he struggles with it, seeing the Swank character bite her own tongue off trying to kill herself. After he kills her he disappears, suggesting that the priest may have been right after all. Also it is hardly "forgettable". Ben is a good writer, why toss in bad examples to spoil his good ones?
C'mon Ben, this is untrue. At the time Ben wrote this it had grossed $24 million. Why write something the left can easily show to be false? What is more interesting are the scattered reports of near-empty theaters for which a "sold out" sign had been posted...making it obvious billionaire Harvey Weinstein is artificially pumping up the gross.
He books articulate, educated, soft-spoken leaders of radical protest groups on his show all the time. Recently he schmoozed with the moral-equivalency author of an "Islam is a religion of peace" type of book for most of his program.
Instead of the usual radio interview/discussion time of a segment or two, he gives them an hour, sometimes more, to deseminate veiled or un-veiled anti-America, anti-war or anti-Bush propaganda.
Now I realize Medved likes to debate the enemy at length, and he's pretty good at it. But the crafty enemy guests don't care one whit what poor Michael is saying in rebuttal, all they want to do is get their messages out......and let me tell you, some of these messages make a great deal of sense to the uneducated who get sucked in. That's why these radicals are leaders, they're smooth-talkers and know how to snare converts. Michael gives them their golden opportunities.
Medved probably thinks he's being "fair and balanced", but he's naive to think his show is not being used by the left.
His show is dreadfully boring, to boot. He's one of those droners. I doubt if his show has exceptional ratings.
BTW, I've read Medved's past books on Hollywood and the Left. They were absolutely excellent and strongly conservative.
However on the other hand, his bland left-coast show leads me to believe he backs off a little when it comes to live radio. IMO, his program remains on the air because he doesn't make too many waves, he appears "fair", plus lefties, radicals and commies are always welcome to participate at length in his studio.
His media mogul bosses may like this totally cozy scenario.
Leni
I don't remember the last time I saw the Academy Awards...
I liked the part in the article about the other good movies: "Searching for Bobby Fischer" was an awesome movie.
There are so many movies that are great, but never get any acclaim... There was a movie I caught on cable late one night, and I never heard of it before or since, was titled "My First Mister" with Albert Brooks (pretty much playing the same character he always plays, just "less funny") and Leli Sobieski (sp?). There was really something about that movie that I loved.
Mark
I missed any enthusiasm on FOX about this film -- glad that I did.
I agree, however, that FOX has become far too liberally enthused for most of our viewing support. Also commercialized...I see three minutes of programming and 2.8 minutes of commercials when I'm not seeing 3.0 minutes of commercials to every 2.0 minutes of programming recently on FOX. Very disappointing.
I love Herzog too but my fave is probably Errol Morris. http://imdb.com/name/nm0001554/
In a general sense this author is right about Hollywood and the Oscars, but on a lot of his specific opinions about certain performances and films he is off.
If you simply turn down the volume when Kiran is on you probably don't have to worry about hearing that sales pitch for this disgusting film. She's so far left that she's gone off the scale.
Fox gives the liberal Hollywood culture way too much airtime! It grates on my nerves when those childish acting weekend hosts get so caught up in the Hollywood spin that they talk over each other and tee-hee on a constant basis. It would be nice if they could grow up just a bit. I mean, I couldn't care less who has gotten who pregnant and who's breaking up and who is staying together! These morons aren't worth giving the time of day to.
My main problem with him is, that while he can be a very witty writer, his film reviews seem to hurried, and he doesn't devote enough space explaining why he has taken a particular position on a film, leaving him open to the type of potshots he frequently takes from the far left. He does that much better in his longer essays.
Morris should have the one award three times (for Gates of Heaven, The Thin Blue Line and Fast Cheap and Out of Control) before he finally did get his trophy.
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.