Posted on 02/14/2006 10:08:57 PM PST by dervish
No, no, no - you don't understand. Out of the idea that "with speech comes responsibility" we need this picture to win.
Hollywood is so beyond reasoning...
They'll now even put out movies they know will end up dying at the box office. Even if only ten people get to see the movie, it will be nominated for an Academy Award and win.
You can't win the Presidency, fall back on Congress.
You can't win Congress, fall back on the courts.
You can't get your programs inforced by the courts, fall back on propaganda.
The democrats are so out of touch it's not even funny. It's just plain sad. The Left Wing, Commander in Chief, the other trash that is foisted off on the public, are just day-dreams made public by the world's most prominent losers.
You're not a loser if you're born to poverty or fated to an early death. You're a consumate loser if you're born to wealth in the greatest most fair nation on earth, but grow up to dispise it and seek to destroy it.
On so many levels, Hollywood is there. Subverting the nation's youth, suberting the nation's values and openly advocating moral relativism and the victory of those who hate us, over our own men on fields of combat.
There's a sickness in the land, and it's name is the MSM in all it's forms, entertainment and information disemination.
---------------------------
ping
Thanks for the ping.
FReeped, signed and sent! Thanks for the ping!
Of course I'll sign the petition but Ben already said it all for me:
Why I'm skipping the Oscars this year
By Ben Shapiro
Jan 13, 2006
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.
Copyright © 2006 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
<< You're not a loser if you're born to poverty or fated to an early death. You're a consumate loser if you're born to wealth in the greatest most fair nation on Earth, but grow up to dispise it and seek to destroy it. >>
Hear! Hear!
And here am I, today, sitting right here in the middle of Hollywood.
Go figger.
What's up, D1?
Blessings - Brian
Thanks for signing and for the article.
I rarely go to the movies anymore because when I go I can't see actors anymore up there on the screen in their stage personas, I just see their real life selves -- idiot trashers of the US and terrorist apologists.
But this has hit a new low IMO.
I also figure that one day the bottom line will weigh in and if for no other reason than profitibility they will have to change.
And, while the actual bombers themselves are humanized a bit, their handlers and the ones who send them on their task are portrayed in a very, very negative light. And one of the 'bombers' - the one portrayed most sympathetically - comes to his senses and refuses to go through with it. He even tries to stop his friend.
Anyone who thinks this film glorifies suicide bombers hasn't seen it.
"Anyone who thinks this film glorifies suicide bombers hasn't seen it."
Uh huh.
Well I recommend the following trailers for those who wish to make that decision themselves:
“Finding a Suicide Bomber’s Motivation”
“A Good reason”
“Sacrifice”
listen to the “Director’s interview” at 3:30 minutes
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/paradise_now/trailers.php
Also I believe the mother of a boy killed by a suicide bomber over you. I know her agenda. What's yours?
As many folks here have ranted about at length, one could cut a trailer to make Brokeback Mountain look like a straight love story.
My agenda? To comment on what I saw in a movie, as opposed to what those who haven't seen it have to say. I guess that means my 'agenda' is accuracy.
But if that doesn't concern you, keep on saying it is pro-suicide bomber or whatever. That's silly and somewhat stupid. I don't know if you even watched the interviews you recommended, but if you did you saw one of the lead actors say, on the 'motivation' of the bombers, that he still doesn't know why they do it. You heard the lead actress call it 'disgusting.' But go ahead and say it promotes suicide bombing, if that makes you feel better.
Anyone with an ounce of sense who sees it will know better.
In case you missed it the mother says:
"I watched the movie "Paradise Now" trying to understand what it is trying to say, what message it carries? "
So you are telling me I shouldn't believe that she saw the film, IOW she is lying. Instead I should believe your analysis of the film.
No thanks.
Also many critics - including usually liberal ones like Roger Ebert and New Republic, describe the film as "humanizing" the murderers.
Also your analogy to Brokeback Mountain is faulty. You make the point that a trailer could cut out the homosexual parts. Sure. But the trailers I linked were actively damning not damning by ommission.
"You heard the lead actress call it 'disgusting.' But go ahead and say it promotes suicide bombing, if that makes you feel better.
Anyone with an ounce of sense who sees it will know better."
I heard the lead actress 1) bemoan the loss of her loved ones and 2) question the efficacy.
Tell me does the film bemoan the loss of Israeli lives?
The typical Palestinian condemnation of terror never touches the morality. If they condemn, which is rare in and of itself, it is because 'it hurts their cause.' That was the precise position of the female lead.
I heard the director descibe the justification based on the usual 'Israeli Occupation.'
I heard the director equate the two sides and then state that the obligation for change was on the Israeli side.
I respect her "bias." It is my bias too.
Also the incompleteness of her statement does not mean she did not watch it.
I'd argue that homicide bombers shouldn't be humanized. Even a bit.
Most decidedly. And in what I considered to be a very powerful way. There is no Israeli loss of life in the movie. But the ones that you do know, from watching the movie, lose their lives are shown in a very touching way prior to it happening. The end of the film is the moment before it happens. And the bomber who backs out doesn't do it because it will 'hurt their cause.' He recognizes the wrong in it, and how that approach has damaged the sensibility, the very humanity, of his people.
The director is a Palestinian. I suppose you expect him to not view it as an "Israeli occupation". And you are correct that he puts the onus on the Israelis to do the most to correct the situation. But the movie is an unabashed plea for peace. If you don't want to believe me, you should take a look at how it is viewed by the militant Palestinians. They don't like it very much, either.
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.