Thread: Watching the Academy Awards.

I am seeing it also. I found it so funny when that guy from snl and the guy from the office were presenting best make up.

How many awards did that gay bareback bucking movie win? There was a lot of good movies that hardly got mentioned that were way better the ones that were.

Dear Hollywood,

I’m writing on behalf of all Americans. It’s been a while since you’ve been in touch with us. You haven’t called, you haven’t written, but you keep sending films. Just thought I would drop you a line.

You see, I’m concerned about you, and about your future. We saw your Oscars show last night. Some things were just like we remember. Jon Stewart behaved himself quite nicely and, though very different from other emcees we knew and loved, I still think Bob Hope would have been proud. The red carpet, pretty dresses, all the glitter…I know it’s all a bit superficial, but it’s captured our heart just the same. It’s always exciting to see familiar faces and get a feel for what our favorite actors and actresses must be like in real life. Oh, and the drama of it all. Don’t change that!

But I do have one question. What’s your idea of “good film?”

These were your favorite films this year, along with their ranking in box-office ticket sales, and number of Oscar nominations:

• Brokeback Mountain: 27th place, 8 nominations
• Crash: 49th place, 6 nominations
• Good Night, and Good Luck: 90th place, 6 nominations
• Memoirs of a Geisha: 45th place, 6 nominations

I didn’t want to see any of them, and I haven’t seen any of them. And judging by the numbers, neither did anybody else. These “masterpieces” were playing to mostly empty theaters for most of their theater run.

"March of the Penguins," nominated in the Best Documentary category, actually grossed more money than any of the Best Picture nominees.

“Crash” took your high honors, but the theater owners don’t share your enthusiasm, because we the people don’t. You gave 8 nominations and 3 Oscars to Brokeback Mountain, which only came in 27th at the box office. Capote didn’t even make the top 100 at the box office, but you liked it a lot: 5 nominations (including Best Picture) and an Oscar.

Actually, America’s favorite film this year was "Star Wars III." We paid $380 million to go see it in theaters. You gave it a single nomination: for makeup. It proves the old Hollywood maxim: “People will flock to theaters in droves and stand in long lines to get in to see movies with good makeup.” Or did I just make that up?

That’s why I’m announcing today the first annual We the People awards. There’s only one criterion: whether audiences actually wanted to go see the movies. Revolutionary! Drum roll, please… the We the People (WTP) award winners for this year are:

• Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith: $380 million gross (1st place for the year), 1 nomination
• Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: $288 million (2nd place for the year), 1 nomination
• The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe: $288 million (3rd place for the year), 3 nominations
• War of the Worlds: $234 million (4th place for the year), 3 nominations

Oh, look, I think I see a pattern. None of these movies glorifies homosexuality ("Brokeback," "Capote"), squeezes in 182 expletives ("Crash"), bashes McCarthyism ("Good Night") and America in general ("Syriana" — 2 nominations) or features subject matter unmentionable in this column ("Geisha," "Transamerica" — 2 nominations). In a word, none of them is propaganda. Maybe that’s why we wanted to go see them.

So it’s agreed, then… you have your awards ceremony and we’ll have ours.

But let’s talk seriously for a moment. Remember what Samuel Goldwyn, one of MGM’s founding producers, used to say? “If you want to send a message, use Western Union.” Movies are just pure entertainment, right? Wrong. Very wrong.

Even Michael Moore and I will agree on this much: filmmaking is much more than entertainment. It’s psychology: a viewer watching a film moves in the actor’s world as though it were his own, and even, to some degree, lives in his place. The viewer begins to identify himself with the actor’s situation and values. That’s why we come away from movies feeling happier or sadder, quoting lines and humming tunes.

So movies can sweep us up to beauty and truth or degrade us, warping our fundamental attitudes about life and about each other. Michael Moore uses all kinds of powers of suggestion to get you to think a certain way about moral issues. So does Ang Lee. For that matter, so does Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel. Psychology is not bad, it’s what you do with it.

Here’s the principle: moviemakers have a responsibility to society. A movie that doesn’t respect the truth about who man and woman are is simply poison. Remember the line from "Spiderman 2," “With great power comes great responsibility?” A side point: "Spiderman 2" would have won a We The People award in 2004 for grossing $374 million to finish 2nd for the year. As a matter of fact, it just barely beat out "The Passion of the Christ," with $370 million, another WTP would-be winner (and the all-time gross money maker in the R-rated category).

Some will object: "Hollywood is just entertainment." I respond: "If that’s so, this year it entertained very few." Others will object: "Hollywood is just a business." I respond: "Not a good one, at least not this year." Still others will chime in: "We’re just reflecting what’s already out there." I respond: "You’re great people, but remember, you live in a subculture that has been sick for a very long time — lots of demons. Change the angles of your mirrors, and see new realities. Then let them shine."

Anyway, Hollywood, if you’re still reading, keep this mind. Your overall box-office receipts have been falling steadily over the last three years, and two-thirds of all films still lose money. Something has to change. There are lots of ideas out there. Some make money. Some don’t. Leave Hollywood and Malibu for a while and get back in touch. Write to us. Call us. Visit us. Ask us what would be a reflection of what We The People really think and what we’ll pay to see.

God bless, Father Jonathan

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186949,00.html

despite the sales numbers Crash is a great movie.

Originally Posted by Robert DiMaggio

despite the sales numbers Crash is a great movie.

I agree.. I liked Crash.

my favorite is the transamerica movie about a tranny chick and his/her child

give me a break

Originally Posted by busyLivin

Dear Hollywood...

I don't believe that merely ticket sales reflects the quality of a film. . .that's why they have those People's Choice Award ceremonies. Moreover, since people did go see these films, Father Jonathan hasn't been appointed or elected to represent the viewpoints of anyone else but himself...

In terms of genre of film, romantic dramas rarely do as well as action-adventure films, but it isn't impossible. If you look at Brokeback Mountain, which had a budget of $14 million, it has grossed an estimated $129 million worldwide since December, and it has only been in circulation in other countries since January. It ranks number eight in all-time romance-drama movies already, passing The English Patient this past weekend. It also ranks just behind the Back To The Future film in the Western category for all-time grosses in that genre. Not exactly a financial failure.

One wonders what qualifications Father Jonathan has for determining what forms of communication are beneficial to society. If he's Catholic, perhaps he could address the tens of thousands of weddings, funerals and baptisms performed by pedophile priests in that church (and the subsequent coverup) as an example of benefit to society. Maybe if Hollywood had produced a film about that subject this past year, it might have grossed higher, though the Vatican would have surely condemned the venture.

Moreover, I highly doubt that a religious organization is very qualified to know much about the "truth about who man and woman are..." particularly if the clergy in that denomination are celibate by nature. Since millions of Americans don't assign their identities by decree from a clergy (and hence don't bother going to the church to dissolve their marriages, either), this dude really doesn't have much of a point, does he?

There were some difficulties in some locations about showing at least one of these films, mostly because certain local churches decided the public didn't have the right to view the films. So there were pickets thrown up in one town in Indiana, and the film was kicked out of theaters in parts of Utah and Washington state not because people didn't want to see it, but because someone else decided they shouldn't be allowed to see it. I guess that's the good Father's idea of "protecting society" from the evil that he alone identifies according to his own thoughts.

On the other hand, Passion of the Christ did so well in part because congregations were ordered to attend the film and special screenings in megachurches were scheduled. Of course, even if the film did come off as a religious S/M festival of pain and tribulation (slow-motion beatings as art) it did well at the box office -

Apparently, Father Jonathan, like most 'conservatives" who are appalled that a motion picture is allowed to circulate which doesn't exclusively reflect their interests, doesn't mind missing opportunities to expand his exposure to new stories and experiences. For someone who said he didn't see any of these films, he certainly decided he knew all about them, likely by consuming information provided by Faux News. Too bad for him.

Originally Posted by lnvanry

my favorite is the transamerica movie about a tranny chick and his/her child

give me a break

Hey . . .I just saw that film, and it was actually pretty damned amazing. Huffman was actually believeable in that characterization and provided a stellar performance and the film actually proceeded in a story line that came together by the end of the movie.

Are you saying that there aren't people out there like that. . .and if there are, they don't deserve to see a single film which portrays their experience?

I believe the point was that Hollywood is out of touch with the public... which is evident in ticket sales. People go to see what interests them... which obviously wasn't those mentioned/honored.

Well shoot. . .and I like how the Right embraced March of the Penguins, particularly when homosexuality exists in penguin cultures. The leading cause of abortions in the penguin community occurs because males leave the nest when they get hungry and the females haven't returned from feeding. . .thus deserting the eggs.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

On the other hand, Passion of the Christ did so well in part because congregations were ordered to attend the film and special screenings in megachurches were scheduled. Of course, even if the film did come off as a religious S/M festival of pain and tribulation (slow-motion beatings as art) it did well at the box office -

Yes, I'm sure thats where the 600 million came from

And how exactly is that public represented by a single religious figure's opinion?

Apparently the public has gone to see those films - they've made quite a good profit. Isn't that the whole point? The profit margin is determined by the cost to make the film in regards to its gross ticket receipts. . .if you make a movie costing $1 million, and it grosses $11 million, is it a failure if you tapped into the market for the film?

That is actually where a good chunk of that audience came from. . .and, Hollywood learned about forty years ago that you can't depend on reaching a broad audience by remaking biblical stories as expensive epics and courting them as your sole releases. Are you saying that every religious movie ever released has scored blockbuster status at the box office?

It is just another wingnut myth that Hollywood is "out of touch" with society. . .as if somehow Rush Limbaugh IS in touch, or Father Jonathan. If the movie made a profit, received critical acclaim for its artistic presentation, and reached an audience, what's the wingnut beef? That they should be censored, restricted, never made. . .because they don't appeal to you so that makes the filmmaker immediately "out of touch?"

Originally Posted by kbm8795

That is actually where a good chunk of that audience came from. . .and, Hollywood learned about forty years ago that you can't depend on reaching a broad audience by remaking biblical stories as expensive epics and courting them as your sole releases. Are you saying that every religious movie ever released has scored blockbuster status at the box office?

No. I didn't. I just think your assumption that all the money came from an assignment from priests is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. The Catholic church alone wasn't too pleased with the movie. My pastor actually advised against it because of it's seemingly obsession with pain & blood. I disagreed.

Regardless, you made a statement like that with no facts to back it up.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

And how exactly is that public represented by a single religious figure's opinion?

Apparently the public has gone to see those films - they've made quite a good profit. Isn't that the whole point? The profit margin is determined by the cost to make the film in regards to its gross ticket receipts. . .if you make a movie costing $1 million, and it grosses $11 million, is it a failure if you tapped into the market for the film?

Every state shot down gay marriage, so don't try to say the movie would interest a large audience, I find that impossible to believe. Sure it made money: there is an audience for it.

It may be a great movie, I personally find no interest in it. That was the point, IMO.

Do you have to have your hand held in order to read anything outside your own private little world? It was broadcast regularly on every wingnut televangelista network and hyped endlessly by every wingnut church in the country. Whole congregations rented the movie theater to have showings just for their church. . .and there were private screenings in churches before the general release.

Of course it doesn't account for the entire box office take, but it also doesn't mean that box office sales = automatic quality. The Academy is about recognition by peers in the film industry, not a reflection of people at the drive-in. That allows films which can't afford wide distribution a chance to be screened along with those produced by large corporate entities. Most of the nominees this year were independent entries, a credit to an industry that is more limited when large corporations control the entire art form.

I hardly think the public would be served by returning to those bleak little television days where married people had to be shown sleeping in separate twin beds and the viewing public was told that babies came from storks.

Again, I'm not talking about the quality of the movie, but what is attracting to the public.

But it is true that The Passion being snubbed is more than enough evidence of Hollywood's agenda.

If you had perhaps SEEN the movies, you'd know they weren't ABOUT gay marriage. . .but of course you are an independent thinker who always explores things without being told what to think and do. . .

Actually, not every state shot down gay marriage anyway, which is besides the point. California's state legislature passed a marriage law which Arnold vetoed. . .and Connecticut's legislature approved civil marriage unions. Besides, none of those constitutional amendments were about establishing gay "marriage" - there were no such proposals. They were merely the knee-jerk fear/smear paranoia reactions of Republicans who thought that defining "marriage" in the constitution was in the public's interest. The public will change their minds about that when the Repubs use it against them later. . .and they will.

Who gives a damn if you have an interest in the film or not? Are you, like Father Jonathan, so utterly arrogant that you demand your interests be recognized as representative of every person in the country? You don't even know what the damned films were about, so WTF do you get off pretending to have an opinion about them beyond "you have no interest?" So don't GO. . .take responsibility for your own lack of interest, instead of trying to support some public opinion campaign which tries to dictate that certain movies NOT be made because you don't want to see them or know those stories exist, and, of course, if YOU don't want to see them, or your circle of friends, then therefore NO ONE wants to see them so they shouldn't be made.

Ya know, that's the biggest problem with "conservatives." You want to crow about free expression and "values", yet you don't want to make any sacrifices for them - you want everybody else in the country to make the sacrifices FOR you so that you won't stumble or make a little mistake. That is the whole manipulative premise behind crap like this from "Father Jonathan". . .the arrogance that only people like HIM can decide what is truly appropriate for people to see or understand.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

I believe the point was that Hollywood is out of touch with the public... which is evident in ticket sales. People go to see what interests them... which obviously wasn't those mentioned/honored.

"out of touch"?, these people deal in fantasy. I'm not defending what the Acadamy does, but from a critical viewpoint some movies are better than others along formal and/or stylistic lines. Sure there's a balance to acknowledge--Shakespeare knew how to make his plays 'work' for the average person--but that's not always doable.

Popularity is not always conclusive regarding quality. Just b/c Joe 6-pack likes a movie w/ a happy ending doesn't mean that movie is worth anything. Incidentally, that's the biggest problem facing hollywood movies is the fucking happy ending.

I haven't seen any of the movies honored this year.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

But it is true that The Passion being snubbed is more than enough evidence of Hollywood's agenda.

The Academy Awards are peer awards for excellence in film - which engenders a whole lot more than just mass audience appeal. Not everyone in the country saw The Passion - so does that mean they should never have a movie they are interested in seeing because every movie is "out of touch" if it doesn't appeal exclusively to the same exact audience?

All I said was there is a disconnect from Hollywood & the majority of the general public & that Hollwood has an agenda. You read into it however you please.

And you have no basis for that statement except box office receipts. The imaginary Hollywood agenda is nothing more than a rightwing rant because they don't have control over that entire industry. If you look at all the movies made last year, are you going to say that one tranny movie and one gay movie represents an entire "undermining society" agenda? Even if every single other movie made and distributed that year was full of heterosexual bliss..?

So some independent filmmakers bested the big corporations with their films this year - good for them. The last thing this country needs is a film industry completely dominated by repeated Faux mantras. You'd see that box office drop faster than the recent spate of cable cancellations from people who are fed up with propaganda disguised as news.

• Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith: $380 million gross (1st place for the year), 1 nomination
• Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: $288 million (2nd place for the year), 1 nomination
• The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe: $288 million (3rd place for the year), 3 nominations
• War of the Worlds: $234 million (4th place for the year), 3 nominations


That would be an Academy Awards to see, an auditorium packed with Special Effects nerds decked out in their best clothes, probably about 4 0r 5 chicks in the whole place.

"I'd like to thank my CPU and my graphics renderer and my......"

Originally Posted by maniclion

• Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith: $380 million gross (1st place for the year), 1 nomination
• Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: $288 million (2nd place for the year), 1 nomination
• The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe: $288 million (3rd place for the year), 3 nominations
• War of the Worlds: $234 million (4th place for the year), 3 nominations


That would be an Academy Awards to see, an auditorium packed with Special Effects nerds decked out in their best clothes, probably about 4 0r 5 chicks in the whole place.

"I'd like to thank my CPU and my graphics renderer and my......"

I nominate the Best Actor
You can really tell he's acting. All of his emotions in his face are over excerted letting the viewer know that it's not real and to not get caught up in the scene.

Originally Posted by Robert DiMaggio

despite the sales numbers Crash is a great movie.

I'm glad it won.