Posted on 03/03/2014 8:23:57 PM PST by This Just In
Oscar snubs are part of the annual Academy Awards tradition. Which actor or actress got denied a nomination?
Snubbing an actor who didn't make the Oscar ceremony's "in memoriam" segment is another matter.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
True, but some actors known for television, like James Gandolfini and Sid Caesar were mentioned, while others like Jonathan Winters weren't. They were all in movies (as was Monteith, if only in small roles).
If they left Dennis Farina out, that was another disgrace. By this point, the Oscars ought to be used to complaints like this and try to include doubtful or marginal cases:
In the past, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has received heat for leaving out Donna Summer and Lupe Ontiveros (2013), Jeff Conaway (2012), Corey Haim and actress Betty Garrett (2011), Farrah Fawcett (2010), George Carlin (2009) and Brad Renfro (2008).
You can’t get everybody into that montage. Arguing about who gets left out is done every year. I’m surprised no one here has complained that they included Roger Ebert. No matter how good a critic he was his connection to the film industry extends to writing one camp film 45 years ago. He was included because of his singular stature and as someone who was generally well liked in the industry.
Im not talking about Sean Penn. I’m talking about people who have ADMITTED that they voted for a film they did not see. If you wish to downplay and coverup Hollywoods double standard and hypocrisy, by all means-be my guest.
That sort of thing goes on in ALL of these awards shows. Just like you have people voting for candidates because of the way they look. That doesn’t invalidate elections.
No surprise there. He's been their shill or stooge for decades.
Ummm he was a terrific critic in his prime. He was pretty vocal when he disliked a film.
You are completely MISSING my point. I repeat: There is an underlying “agenda” in Hollywood. What wins Oscars, etc. You will be blackballed if you go off the allowed “script” like a Mel Gibson. It is proven over and over.
I know how “drama” works....and I have an art degree. I understand “artistic license”. Do you actually “think” movies like Michael Moore’s is deserving of accolades when it actually consists of Lies/misinformation? Agitprop that makes Goebbels proud? Same with “An Inconvenient Truth”????? Lies!!!!!
Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying Argo is even close to a Michael Moore movie. It was actually a movie I thought worth watching (although I will never watch it again). I actually liked Affleck’s acting in this, unlike in Pearl Harbor—a completely dismal portrayal of that event with horrible acting to boot.
I just hated the “spin” they put on Jimmy Carter in the end-—that’s all. I didn’t really know about the Canadian snub. It was JC who practically ruined the whole movie for me-—and I will never watch it again. Much like it did for this guy....http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=34598
Why are you bringing up Shakespeare????? LOL. That is rather irrational.
Nothing in movies is by “accident” (which is my point). Every placement of a cigarette or coke bottle or vulgar word, like in ET, is intentional and “for the children”/Worldview. You have obviously not read about Edward Bernays-—he is the nephew of Freud, and the first “public relations” person who was essential in making women smoke cigarettes-—literally. By pictures, news stories, etc. He was hired by cigarette companies, to make it attractive for women to smoke. It worked so well-—Hollywood took note (and so did the billionaires.)
You obviously don’t know the difference in having little boys talking and joking with each other and adults putting vulgar words into their mouths on big screens with millions of dollars. You don’t understand how music with pictures produces artificial emotions, which tie worldview to concepts and have tremendous impact on children’s “Reality” although artificial. It is a very powerful medium, particularly to shape how children “think” and “feel”. When promoting Virtue, it is great, but in promoting vulgarity...it is very corrupting to normalcy.
It isn’t a “miracle” that there is no morality in most children any more. STDs, abortions, unwed sex, sex under age 17, divorce, all used to be extremely rare in Leave it to Beaver days (along with sodomy) until after the destruction of obscenity laws and “Deep Throat” promotion, and other laws which made ET possible. —unlike prior to ET. Think again how seeing things on a Big Screen is not the same as children playing in the back yard.
You haven’t studied the Weimar Republic—or you wouldn’t think intentional vulgarization and sexualization of children by adults, no matter how slight, is “hilarious”. Innocence in childhood is required for emotionally healthy mature adults.
The big Oscars are decided based on prestige...what the industry thinks will make it look good...and rewarding older actors and directors and welcoming newcomers. That’s about it. Your conspiracy theories are tin foil worthy. Mel Gibson’s career is just fine. He’s making a film with Schwarzenegger now. His follow up to Passion flopped with moviegoers of all stripes. Documentaries are typically made by independents who are driven to spread their point of view (like Moore, who won one Oscar 11 years ago) Do you think all the docs that have won about the Holocaust are also part of an agenda? I bring up Shakespeare because your contention that you can’t embellish historical events in drama is nonsensical and not backed up at any point in the history of the West.
And Medieval fiction was much more bawdy than most Hollywood films. The most bawdy figures in Shakespeare’s plays are typically women. Study the history of fiction before ranting. The notion that Spielberg was out to promote sodomy in E.T. is insane. The film is actually a Christian allegory. If there’s an underlying message in all of his films it’s how needed father figures are in kids’ lives. Most of his films feature absentee or flat out terrible fathers.
“he Leftists HAD to honor John Wayne-—and they did it in a backhanded way—only because the masses loved him and forced them to do it.”
—
He wasn’t a great actor either,but we all loved him.
.
Sodomy in E.T.? Argo about Carter? Seriously?
Look... You have a point, so far as it goes. I think any right-thinking person knows that there is a liberal, anti-family, anti-Christian bias in Hollywood. Not everywhere in Hollywood, but it’s there.
But really... I think maybe you need to loosen that bone a little, Wilma.... It’s pulling your hair a little tight.
Gee whiz....forget that I stated anything. Ideas don’t matter. Producers don’t have any “agenda” they are promoting. Ever. Just watch your movies and eat your popcorn, and just take in their messages and Worldview they program you with, like that wife of the Fireman in Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451”.
Children are just as innocent as the “Leave it to Beaver” kids—with the same “thoughts” in early childhood.
And in Shakespeare’s England, kids were so adored and protected and had such beautiful innocent childhoods, like what Dickens describes in his books. LOL.
As far as I am concerned Red Storm Rising is his best book followed closely by Without Remorse!
He didn't need to be a great actor because he was almost always playing "John Wayne"...
But when he did do some excellent acting he won the Oscar and no matter how many times they try and remake True Grit... John Wayne will always be Rooster Cogburn!
All art has a message. Even if the creator didn’t intend it.
“That sort of thing goes on in ALL of these awards shows.”
Prove it.
My point did not focus on invalidation/validation.
A lot of people in the Arts community don’t care about these sort of awards and don’t take the voting seriously. It’s been that way from the start.
Of course, it does. But you have to understand that the fundamental worldview is intended, always. Yes, there can be some unintended consequences, but with today’s understanding of the “Marketing of Ideas” and psychology/lab testing.....not really. Wundt was testing human “reactions” in the mid 1800s—to stimuli and charting physical reactions.
Spielberg understands exactly what he is doing-—that is why he changed the “guns” to walkie talkies in ET, and the “terrorist” costume idea to “hippies”. He includes a scene now, with ET taking a bath with Elliot (How cute is that!!!)
Klavan-—an author, whose books are made into movies by Clint Eastwood explains it better than I can:
You did not prove your point because your statement isn’t true.
“A lot of people in the Arts community don’t care about these sort of awards and don’t take the voting seriously. It’s been that way from the start.”
Prove it.
Of course there are many who care about these awards. The recognition grants some artists more creds as well as earning power.
I wasn’t talking about the many but the inevitable few who don’t give a fig. Woody Allen, Sean Penn and others. I don’t know what proof you want. It’s generally known.
A worldview isn’t always intended. It just comes out. In any case you don’t have to agree with the worldview to like the work. I don’t agree with Dante’s medieval Catholicism but love his poetry. The guns/walkie talkies was craven and he got criticism about that from all fronts. I stand by the original version of E.T. BTW what exactly did you think he was ‘intending’ by showing E.T. and Elliot taking a bath? I’m curious but I think I’ll be sorry I asked...
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.