LA SLIMES' NOTABLE OSCAR QUOTABLES -- NICOLE KIDMAN ON ONE SIDE... AND FR'S "RONDOG" ON THE OTHER!

LEFT ANGELES SLIMES

[AnnaZ]

So I finally start going through, page by page, the Oscar coverage in today's Slimes (that's right... still reading  it so that you don't have to). And then I almost had a heart attack.

 

The "E"/"Calendar Part 1" Section is dedicated to Oscar coverage, E1 starting it all off with a big pic of Best Actor winner Adrien Brody smooching presenter Halle Berry and the beginning of the story.

 

Following it in to E2 and E3, there are a bunch of huge picture of various winners from the night, the top of each page prefaced with a huge bold quote.

 

On the left side (heh, heh) is one quote: 

 

 

"Why do you come to the Academy Awards when the world is in such turmoil?

Because art is important."

 

Nicole Kidman, accepting the best actress award

 

 

 

On the right side (in more ways than one ;^) is another quote:

 

 

 

"If John Wayne was here, he'd be doing what we're doing.

He'd be supporting the troops."

 

Ron Smith, demonstrator at Hollywood and Highland

 

 

 

CONGRATULATIONS, RONDOG!!! You ROCK!!!

[xp38]

Kahlo was a communist...it would be a good guess she would be against Bush and the war.

[CarmelValleyite]

Re who views the movies to be voted on for awards -- FYI, oftentimes the movies are viewed by friends or family of the "voters" rather than the voters themselves. I personally know of several such scenarios....

In my opinion, the "awards" are pretty much a sham.

[CarmelValleyite]

Probably; but she's DEAD. How dare this kid speak for a dead person?

[AnnaZ]

Contemplating if I should reply to their # 68... however, that, too would be a waste. No sense in arguing reality with someone who just wants to be contrarian, and cannot see the bigger picture for themselves.

Unfortunately, I have found that there's little conversation to be had with the outright hostile. How does the saying go?.. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

[AnnaZ]

That's a pretty limited view of art.

 

I've always believed that great art imitates life. It takes a fleeting moment of beauty and immortalizes it, secures it, so that it can be experienced by others.

 

Is that better?

[Heyworth]

Yeah, that definitely goes on in the major categories, which all the Academy membership is allowed to vote on. But in the minor categories, like Foreign Language Film and Documentary, the voters have to prove that they saw all the films, either by attending the sanctioned screenings, of which there are only a few, or by saying when and where they saw them outside of that. And in the case of that bird movie, that was pretty much impossible, which is why Moore was bitching about it so hard. Other categories, like the technical stuff, are only voted on by the people in those guilds.

[AnnaZ]

For you, babe, anything. (...but a drive to Rancho Palos Verdes... ;^)

[Heyworth]

In my opinion, the "awards" are pretty much a sham.

Thank you. The real question is why ANYONE thinks they're important. It's a freakin' awards banquet without the food, for God's sake. It's only the fact that it makes good television that has elevated to the secular holiday that it's become. It's the industry passing out some trophies to itself. People take it way too seriously, both here on FR (where it's seen as evidence of some cultural conspiracy) and in the industry, where, to be fair, the trophy is worth some money at the box office. But beyond that, it has no more importance than the plumber's convention giving out their "plumber of the year" award.

[Revolting cat!]

but would you deny that it creates an aesthetic experience in the viewer?

Well, that's the familiar ezxcuse for much of modern "art", like the crucifix in a jar of urine, like the blank canvases and empty rooms, like the "musical" piece by, I think, John Cage, consisting of nothing but one (or more) minute(s) of complete silence. They made their clever point the first time, but repeated incessantly after that, it quickly became predictable and lame. Anybody can conceptualize it, anybody can do it!

[Heyworth]

Is that better?

A bit, but it still locks art to the reflecting the natural world. I think that the aesthetic experience can be more broadly based than that. But now we're getting to the area of taste. I think a Jackson Pollock painting is amazing. You might think it's just a bunch of randomly splattered paint.

[Heyworth]

No disagreement from me there. I think that "conceptual art" has been a disaster. Any work that needs to be explained, rather than standing on it's own, is no longer about the artwork, it's about the explanation. John Cage's pieces don't need to be experienced, you can just read about them to get the "idea," such as it is. I remember seeing something at the Contemporary Museum in Chicago--a pile of rocks on the floor. Nearby was a page-long explanation of the artist's intent. Take that away, and it was just a pile of rocks. Bah. Art implies craft, and the craft isn't the written explanation.

On the other hand, you mention blank canvases. I hope that you don't lump Marc Rothko's monochromatics in that category. Of course, there is paint on those, and it has a lot more depth and detail than a first glance might relate.

Finally, I don't want to defend Andres Serrano particularly, but the legendary "Piss Christ" wasn't actually the crucifix in the jar of his urine. It was a photograph, and in a weird way, it was rather beautiful, mostly because of the effect of the lighting on the urine. It certainly created an aesthetic experience. That said, the work wasn't really about the picture, it was about the title, which he did purely to shock. If it was called "Vinegar Christ" or "Olive Oil Christ," would anyone have cared? So once again, it's conceptual art, less about the artifact than the text.

[skinkinthegrass]

HEHEHEHEHE

[mel]

They are a sham, especially considering last year, what a joke.Halle Berry's statement was so unclassy and just plain weird.

[Anamensis]

I'm not sure if W plays golf at all. Anyone know?

I'm picturing Chretien tied to a tree with a golf ball balanced on his head while W stands 20 paces away with an M-14 saying "Well, this is how we play 'golf' down here."

[HangFire]

"If John Wayne was here, he'd be doing what we're doing. He'd be supporting the troops.

What Would Elvis Do???

[RonDog]

What Would Elvis Do???

LOL!

Elvis was my SECOND choice for a sign...

We KNOW what Elvis did, from www.top40-charts.com:

ELVIS JOINS THE US ARMY


By the end of 1957, Elvis Presley was the unchallenged King of Rock'n'Roll. With nine US chart-topping hits behind him achieved in less than two years, he was the hottest item on any menu, but that very fact may have strongly influenced the US Government in their insistence that Presley should be drafted for national service in the US Army...

[Erasmus]

"Why do you come to the Academy Awards when the world is in such turmoil? Because art is important."

--Nicole Kidman, accepting the best actress award

---

"Knowledge is good."

--Faber College

[Guenevere]

#114...and it was directed by a man who can't show his face in our courtry!......or he will be arrested.

[Erasmus]

Well, that's the familiar ezxcuse for much of modern "art", like the crucifix in a jar of urine, like the blank canvases and empty rooms, like the "musical" piece by, I think, John Cage, consisting of nothing but one (or more) minute(s) of complete silence.

Ah, yes. You're thinking of Cage's "273 Seconds."
No, wait! It's "4.55 Minutes."
No, wait! It's "4 Minutes and 33 Seconds."

[Erasmus]

Does this qualify me for the A.F.C. list?