Blog Readers Attack American Human Association
The AHA says that Brokeback Mountain was abusive. “Wonder how the filmmakers got the elk to lose its footing and crumple to the ground ‘on cue’ after being shot?”
Go get ’em!!!
April 19, 2024
Awards
Susu on: The Letters From Iwo Jima review
Krillian on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Kristopher Tapley on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Kristopher Tapley on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Hallick on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Joe Parts on: Welcome To The Future
qbtqpidc on: Oscar Morning Coming Down
IOv3 on: 20 Weeks Extra: Could There Be One More Turn?
20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
20 Weeks Extra: Could There Be One More Turn?
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Dave, Dave, Dave.
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=gaycommentary27&date=20060227&query=brokeback+mountain
I don’t think Dave is mocking Brokeback…he’d rather make fun of his bloggers, aka his site traffic.
If a grizzly bear can take down Timothy Treadwell, then I think a couple of closeted homosexuals should have the right to gun down an elk or two.
It’s like, you know, the circle of life, girlfriend…
The real abuse in this film is actually on Jake. He took it pretty roughly with only spit. Yikes.
Hey Dave, does it hurt much if you do it like that?
[Insert joke here, just make sure you get consent first.]
In other news, the director of Paradise Now has said that he would gladly have become a suicide bomber. If he wins, hopefully he’ll relate this piece of news to the audience without first strapping on a bomb. Seriously, this guy sounds like a security risk. He also suggest that it’s racist to believe suicide bombing against Israelis is born of anti-Semitism. Hmmmm… hmmm.
Here’s the link. I put it in html but forgot how that doesn’t show up.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3223216,00.html
Jeez, lucky for him the balloting is over. If he wins, I anticipate both the most interesting acceptance speech in quite some time, as well as the need for a spectacular Jon Stewart reaction.
American “Humans” were attacked? Homophobic bastards.
The sheep always get the short end of the stick.
“Jeez, lucky for him the balloting is over.”
No, unlucky for him. Had he said this stuff a few weeks earlier he could have removed any doubt from the Academy and made his win a lock.
They could have revelled in the sympathy vote.
Well it wouldn’t be the Oscars without someone saying something slightly outrageous…he shoulda waited until he wins to say it though (well if he does)…that woulda sent the censors scrambling.
This is one graphic thread. I feel for poor Jake right now.
On a different note. It seems Ebert isn’t the only one predicting a Crash win this weekend. David Carr at the NY Times and the Oscar blog there is too. He feels the tide is turning for it and he doesn’t think people will actually vote for Brokeback when push comes to shove. I didn’t think I’d see this. Crash, to me, is a glorified tv movie.
God, I’m so tired of all these Crash articles. If they actually have some new, logical reasons, I’d like it but they seem to just copy and paste each other’s sentences.
After Brokeback’s win this Sunday, I just want them all to post some sort of statement like: “My jungle fever clouded my judgement from reality.”
And Dave should post this: “Brokeback won. I’m sorry for having hated it. I’m now waterbucket’s beeyotch!”
Cut these writers some slack.
They need to try and get pumped for this boring as hell event. They need something to kill the time.
We’ve all disagreed with best picture wins every now and then, but a Crash win would be the first time a picture I LOATHED took home the Oscar.
So my question to Hot Blog is… what best picture winner have you absolutely hated to see pull one over on the academy?
A kewpie doll for anyone who can give the most pointed reason why it was undeserving.
Kramer Vs. Kramer over Apocalypse Now in 1979.
Kramer is a good film but what has it’s effect been cinematically in 20+ years? It is not a film that has influenced anyone. It is rarely talked about and is generally kinda forgotten.
Apocalypse Now influenced a generation of war films, is emminently quoteable and profound.
Cinematically, it is genius and I rarely use that word. Cinema as art. It is also a film I use as a litmus test for timing. (ie. if Coppola can tell his story in under 2 1/2 hrs why the hell does Tarantino need longer for Jackie Brown?)
All this goes for the original version. Not the Redux which cheapened the whole deal.
Rocky won over:
Network
All The President’s Men
Taxi Driver
No matter how much you like Rocky, is it really in the league of those other films?
Rocky is the best film from that impressive list. May not be the best directed or written or whatever. But I’m sure over 50% of people would say it’s better than those 3 great films. Rocky is a landmark. It’s cultural now. I’ve seen it hundreds of times. Not to say those 3 aren’t great films but I won’t quibble with Rocky winning. I’d be happy with any of those.
for me personally the biggest disappointment was driving miss daisy winning over field of dreams. the academy struck out on that one.
Yeah when’s the last time you ever heard anyone mention how much they like Driving Miss Daisy?
morgan freeman even rolls his eyes when its mentioned.
1991 Show.
Best Picture. DANCES WITH WOLVES over GOODFELLAS. Kevin Costner over Martin Scorcese. That isn’t a misprint. It really happend kids.
He was considered a better director that year and made a better movie.
You find me anyone now who thinks this should stand up.
Anyone?
You want to talk about Scorsese getting the shaft?
How about Taxi Driver, for which he wasn’t even nominated? And to add insult to injury, of the nominees that year Ingmar Bergman, Sidney Lumet, and Lina Wertmuller lost to John Avildsen of, you guessed it, Rocky.
I almost didn’t believe you on that. I thought for sure Martin Scorcese was for TAXI DRIVER.
Then I checked it and you’re so right.
Look who was nominated. Someone named:
Pasqualino Settebellezze (1975) – Lina Wertm
What??? I love Driving Miss Daisy.
That movie made me cry everytime I saw it. Morgan Freeman should have won Best Actor for that. I especially like his chuckles and the way he says Miss Daisy’s name.
The only movie that I like from that year is Dead Poets Society, a movie that all high school seniors in the US have seen at least once in English class.
Nicol, we know you hate (or rather, pity) liberals and all, but the Academy is full of Jews, so I doubt that any amount of liberal guilt would outbalance their natural inclination to vote against somebody who would like to kill Jews.
Isn’t Liberal guilt a reason why they would vote for something like that? Spielberg is Jewish and he basically forgave the Palestinians for all their bombings and killings. Wouldn’t shock me if he won because of his subject material.
Worst decision? Shakespeare in Love over Thin Red and Private Ryan.
There seems to be a really good chance we could be adding to this discussion in a few years after we hear the name “Crash” on Sunday night.
Jeff MCM,
First off, I do not hate liberals. That’s just silly talk. I used to be one.
The problem is that modern New Left philosophy does not allow the ‘liberal’ thinker to see suicide bombings as ‘killing Jews’. Instead, with ‘oppression theory’ and ‘relativism’ as its main philosophy they see suicide bombers as rising up against the oppressor.
Don’t believe me; see Syrianna. Do you think it really deals with the complex issues of land, religion and ideology that really do engage the issue of suicide bombing? Now, do you think George will win anything on Sunday night?
Listen to the audio tape of the Denver geography teacher saying the WTC was a necessary military target.
Similarly do not think that all Jews think alike. There is much philosophical debate within the Jewish community. Differences between Orthodox and secular Jews, differences between Israeli and American born Jews.
That is why there was so much debate over Munich.
Also, right now it is very fashionable to be pro-Palestinian in left-wing/Hollywood circles. I certainly do not think all people who consider the Palestinian side to be anti-semitic (I liked Munich), but I do think much anti-semitism is clouded in being pro-Palestinian in hard left-wing circles.
Michael Moore has made comments that Israel is one of the three real points of axis of evil in the world. If that isn’t anti-semitic I do not know what is. And it hasn’t hurt his rep in Hollywood.
Many in Hollywood, not being moderate or centre left but very hard left, will probably read the director of Paradise Now’s comments as being not anti Jewish, but anti-oppression. They will buy his propaganda. Sadly, some (but not all) of these people will probably be coming from the secular Jewish philsophical tradition.
Now I have not seen the film so my comments are only with regards to his comments and how they could be interpreted given current context.
Sadly, I stand by my point. Had he made the comments he made a few weeks earlier, most would have had sympathy on him given how he expressed his views and it probably would have helped lock his vote.
Ironically enough, given what I have read about Paradise Now, I find Syrianna to be much more simplistic and hence insulting in how it portrays suicide bombers.
That is one problem with the hard left in Hollywood. They’re simplistic and easily swayed. No one understood Syrianna. I’d take a guess and say George Clooney had no idea what was really going on as long as the big, bad oil companies and that oppressive monster (The US of A) looked and were the bad guys. They’re the real evils ones out there. Not the Palestinians who are only looking to reclaim their land. And the terrible Israeli’s and those evil Americans stand in their way and are oppressors. So, they have to kill women and children and innocents. Because they can’t wipe out all the Jews. Good thing we have brave people like Hany Abu-Assad who tell us these things and promote suicide bombings as a righteous path. Where would we be without smart able bodied thinkers like them? He better be rewarded with an Oscar so everyone can give him a standing O for being so brave and he can blow himself up in fron of billions of people.
And they wonder why there movies don’t make any money?
TITANIC over L.A. CONFIDENTIAL.
ORDINARY PEOPLE over RAGING BULL.
ENGLISH PATIENT over FARGO.
OUT OF AFRICA over eveything else.
BTW, if Dave hates BROKEBACK so much, how come he sat through it six times? That’s more than I saw THE PRODUCERS stage and screen combined!
Oh and also…
I understand why people are still angered over the whole Goodfellas vs. Dances with Wolves thing but I have to say, Dances ages very well and is indeed a quality piece of cinema art.
It is a logical extension of the Western tradition from films like Hondo and The Searchers and Costner and the entire cast were fantastic.
I love Goodfellas…but Dances still sits very well with me.
The four hour version is one of the few epics that can justify its length.
It is impossible to hate something if you sit thru it six times. I hated KAZAAM. You won’t see me seeing it twice.
RAGING BULL being denied is probably the first one I think about. Proving these voters are unpredictable.
PRIZZI’S HONOR should have beaten OUT OF AFRICA. What is their obsession with Redford?
DANCES WITH WOLVES winning all those awards is bad for one thing.
It gave Kevin Costner the hubris to think he could make every movie 4 hours long and plotless. That movie spawned THE POSTMAN, WATERWOLRD, and WYATT EARP.
All in all, I do think Costner has some talent behind the camera. As OPEN RANGE showed. He wasn’t a one hit wonder.
But I think if he started smaller at first he would have been better off. But he has a fist full of Oscars so what do I know?
Gibson, Costner, Eastwood, Redford, Beatty…The Academy loves actors who can direct well. Bodes well for Clooney (though I don’t think he’ll win for directing this time).
Nicol, you apparently know a lot more about liberalism than I (primarily a liberal person) do, so I have no idea what ‘oppression theory’ is. You sound like somebody who needs to get out of the University setting already. However, I do agree with the idea that suicide bombings are how poor nations engage in war against rich nations, so maybe that’s the same thing.
I thought Syriana was overly simplistic as well, so we have that in common. And no, I do not expect Clooney to win any awards on Sunday night.
Nonetheless, I think you overstate how ‘hard left’ Hollywood is. In the 1970s Vanessa Redgrave was pretty much all on her own when she merely gave sympathy to the Palestinian cause…and I am unaware of a single resident of Brentwood or Beverly Hills who would truly agree with suicide bombing policies.
Meanwhile, Mark Ziegler: thanks for proving once again that you are unable to add anything to the conversation except ill-tempered, uninformed ranting.
Hollywood isn’t hard Left? Maybe it’s time you stepped out of that ivory tower. But I wouldn’t want you to actually add anything except liberal nonsense to a discussion. Anyone who doesn’t think Hollywood has far left values really doesn’t know the industry. It’s like you don’t pay attention. How can you sit there and actually deny it? It just confirms your naivety. It’s a town that is so far out of touch they think George Clooney is center-right.
It’s too bad Hany Abu-Assad didn’t say his rant before the voting ended. Would have put it to the test.
Clooney picked the wrong year to be a triple nominee. Pretty much any other year and he’d have taken home 2 out of 3. They do love actors turned directors. Helps when you have most of the Academy made up of actors.
I wouldn’t mind if he won for his movie or his direction. I’d have a problem with Syriana since I think the movie pure shite. I think he’s 5th in that race but I can see them “rewarding” him for his year in general since he’s not winning his other two categories.
Please give me the name of one ONE male star who has not taken out a gun and blown some bad dude away on screen???
Our whole country’s infatuation with guns is that we see them on TV and movies every single day. Is this really all apart of the big Hollywood Liberal agenda??
If you think Hollywood is hard left, you don’t know the hard left. I’m talking about unreconstructed hippies and people who don’t own televisions and bloggers who think Cheney runs the shadow government from a mountain somewhere.
Mark Z. is talking about limousine liberals. Any industry where a movie like Crash is being praised is in a realm of white-guilt-rich-liberal, not waiting-for-the-revolution-hard-left liberal.
Otherwise, good job repeating yourself.
I guess Michael Moore got booed at the Oscars for his liberal comments because he wasn’t hard left enough.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Hollywood is liberal. But I think that is secondary to them being a business, and their ideology doesn’t necessarily equate to the films they decide to make. How else could liberal Hollywood come out with a movie like Forrest Gump and then award it Best Picture?
Playing someone in a movie for work and a paycheck isn’t the same as what you believe. Especially when you can tell interviewers and others that you’re doing it show how bad cops, army personnel, rich people, white people, conservatives, etc are. It is called acting after all. If they do pick up a gun it’s to show how bad guns really are and how evil anyone is for picking one up.
And that’s giving actors credit for playing characters and going towards the material.
Hard left Hollywood? Hmmm. Moore, Clooney, Sarandon, Robbins, Penn, Garofalo, Baldwin, Danny Glover, Hawke, Spike Lee, Woody Harrelson, Babs Streisand, Franken, Sheen, Reiner, Mike Farrell, Alda, and that’s off the top of my head. They may be limo Libs as you say but they’re preaching to the choir there. That’s as hard Left as you can get.
Okay, so how about Schwarzenegger, Heston, Gibson, Willis, Michael Bay, Danny Aiello, Patricia Heaton, Ben Stein, Tom Selleck, and M. Night Shyamalan? The fact that you have to dig down as as far as Mike Farrell does more harm than good to your argument. I wouldn’t call any of these people “Hard Right” nor should you call any of your list “Hard Left”. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Your first paragraph there is hard to argue against because it’s so badly written that I’m not sure what you’re saying.
Did you really put Ethan Hawke in your list?
Palmtree,
You’re right. It’s not black and white. And first and foremost it is a business. Everything else is secondary to that. Hence, why BBM is a front runner right now. It has the pedigree and now it has the money. It makes it easy to vote for it if you’re on the fence because of that.
But I think the telecast is going to turn off many a people who want to see a good show and not tune in to hear Jon Stewart crack Bush jokes.
I thought the Oscars’ low ratings were going to be blamed on giving awards to movies ‘nobody wants to see’ and not Jon Stewart…or is it going to be both now?
Everyone loves a good Bush joke. Fact is he isn’t as articulate as Reagan and Clinton so he has some awkward moments. But if Stewart starts doing the jokes out of context as a kind of autopilot schtick, then that could get tiresome.
Stewart does a show everyday poking fun at politics in general and the President. That is his wheelhouse. He’s definately going there. I wish he wouldn’t and keep it to the movies but he’s the host. And that’s what hosts do. Stick to their strong suits.
Getting off Best Pictures and making a case for Best Actor Disappointments I’d say 1993. When Pacino won. I can say he was the worst out of the five nominees that year. Rea, Eastwood, Downey Jr (especially), and Washington (right behind him) were much better that year.
I don’t like the idea of rewarding someones past work but voters are human and that is how they operate.
Everyone realizes Hollyweird is Lefty.
But that doesn’t effect how I or really average people feel about movies.
I could care less what these stars say or what they do. Just make good movies and I’ll pay the 20 dineros to see your picture. Inflation is a bitch.
Pacino should have won three awards in the 70’s alone.
GODFATHER 1 AND 2
DOG DAY AFTERNOON
The notion that modern day Hollywood is purely driven by business and not ideology is a modern day myth that even the Wall Street Journal has decried.
If Hollywood were just about money we should have been able to look at the film landscape over the past year and seen a whole slew of Passion clones. Big budget genre religious epics greenlit just to make a profit. You didn’t.
After Bush won re-lection you would have seen a slew of pro-Iraq films showing the military in the best possible light. You didn’t.
Instead we have Syrianna with a paltry 40+ million gross and GN&GL with 20+.
We have another Che bio pic on the way. The MotorCycle Diaries’ 16 million gross was too hard to pass up.
And now, because execs especially want to appeal to the Passion crowd we are going to potentially see Brad Pitt playing a Catholic priest who gets anally raped in a Harem by giant alien manga peni before coming back to earth to be vilified by the evil Vatican. Lucas watch out!
I’ve made the argument before; I’ll say Hollywood isn’t hard left when…
…I can rent a modern day big budget epic by a major director about the horrors of communism (the new acclaimed book on Mao is a great start).
…I can see a modern film with a serious exploration of Catholic theology from a philosophical point of view that doesn’t degrade it.
…I can rent a film about the horrors and persecutions in Castro’s Cuba or Tianneman Square.
Where are the options of Crichton’s State of Fear, or Wolfe’s I Am Charlotte Simmons?
Hey, I’m not all Mister Grumpy Pants-I have spent more hours of my life watching cinema than most-I love movies. Which is why the ommissions are so damning.
The argument that ideological world view does not play into what is green lit is no longer tenable.
BUT…I also do not just blame liberals. Conservatives have to also bear part of the responsiblility. Asking George Clooney to make a pro America war on terror film is dumb. Asking Julia Roberts to finance a film on Christianity is beyond dumb.
No…they have to start doing it for themselves. They have to pick up a pen, pick up a camera, audition for roles, get into the industry and be vocal.
That’s one of the things I respect the gay community for. Sooner or later they made they’re own art and eventually people noticed. Now they are going to win Best Pic. Now they have access to the big dollars.
Others have to do the same and it is their responsibility. Laugh all you want at the guys from Liberty Film Festival or the guy who made Michael Moore Hates America, at least they are doers. I respect that.
Gibson and Anschutz can’t change it all on their own.
Those are some good points, Nicol.
Harvey Weinstein is reportedly interested in making a Mao biopic. But making films about Tianenmen Square are not exactly the way to ingratiate your business to China, which all the major studios are currently trying to do. It’s not pretty when your films get banned as they have been in the past.
I think the studios do consciously avoid religious topics to keep their products global (Christmas movies tend to do poorly in foreign). As an aside, I don’t think conservatism and religion are the same things in principle.
Yes, you can argue that not being Christian would lead Hollywoodites to make fewer Christian films, but in the very Jewish-run studios of the past you saw films like Ben Hur, King of Kings, The Robe when the Catholic Church and others held more sway over the film audience. And for every Passion, there is a Gospel of John, Omega Code, and Veggietales that don’t really get the same blockbuster response.
But I do think that with Passion, Emily Rose, and Narnia, we will see more films of higher quality made for the Christian niche…it would surprise me if the studios passed up that business opportunity.
“…a modern film with a serious exploration of Catholic theology from a philosophical point of view that doesn’t degrade it.”
Yeah, this is really going to pack them in the aisles. Plus, Catholics are in the minority out there. Also, really strongly religious people tend not to go into the arts as much as liberal/secular types. Just a fact.
If the Christian world thinks Emily Rose and Narnia are films of ‘higher quality’, they can have them.
Jeff, if you’ve seen Omega Code (which I did), then Narnia must feel like Citizen Kane. Higher quality is relative.
BTW, Nicol, GNGL and Syriana were both partially privately funded by Jeff Skoll, a co-founder of Ebay and a kind of liberal Anschutz. Additionally, GNGL had to be made with presales via Mark Cuban’s 2929 Entertainment. If you think Hollywood is eager to churn out these types of films, think again.
You’re right about Omega Code. Yeesh.
Nicol’s response to Palmtree’s above post would probably be ‘…but it still got made’.
Anyway, I thought of a good, critically-acclaimed movie about Catholics dealing with issues of loss, forgiveness, and redemption, with non-stereotyped characters. It was called Dead Man Walking and it was made by three of the biggest liberals in Hollywood.
Getting back to that earlier discussion of Oscar snubs . . .
Mahatma Gandhi never won the Nobel Peace Prize. And the list of Nobel literature laureates has its share of mediocrities. Most of the list, an unkind critic would say. And the list of unfathomable omissions is even longer. So it’s okay for Scorcese not to win an Oscar. He’ll be in illustrious company if he ever wins; and stay in illustrious company if he doesn’t.
Awards are fun to talk about because they’re convenient; they’re a kind of proxy and shorthand for important issues. But that’s all they are. They’re symbols. Sometimes a little iconoclasm is needed, lest we get carried away in our idolatry.
Oh, and Nicol D, what is your degree in? Obviously you went to film school, but I want to know what it actually says on your diploma. I’ll explain why once you answer.
Syriana has made $49mil+ and GN&GL has made $30mil+ btw. Oh, and The Motorcycle Diaries’ $16mil is exceptional for a foreign language movie. Its not too hard to expect a Soderbergh directed movie on the same man to make somewhat more.
On the original point of this thread, why is the Animal thingy group of America discussing it when the movie was filmed in Canada? My favourite part was this
Thanks to everyone who responded to my posts. Palmtree, Jeffmcm , Blackcloud, Kamikaze
“Yeah, this is really going to pack them in the aisles. Plus, Catholics are in the minority out there. ”
The Passion blows that argument out of the water. You can’t make the same assumptions anymore. By the way, so does Brokeback Mountain.
“If you think Hollywood is eager to churn out these types of films, think again.”
It’s ideology. A much more complex issue to convey. It is who are the protagonists, who are the villains, what stories are told, which ones are not.
“It was called Dead Man Walking and it was made by three of the biggest liberals in Hollywood.”
Dead Man Waling is a wonderful film. Of course they down play the charater’s Catholicism by having her attend Baptist revival meetings. Does the sister in the film oppose the death penalty because she understands Catholic philosophy or because Robbins wants her to be a liberal?
“Mahatma Gandhi never won the Nobel Peace Prize.”
And I put no stock in the Nobel Peace Prize either.
“Syriana has made $49mil+ and GN&GL has made $30mil+ btw. Oh, and The Motorcycle Diaries’ $16mil…”
These three films together barely hump over 100mill worldwide.
The Passion alone is three quarters of a billion. Throw in Narnia with a sprinkle of Emily Rose…you’ve got an industry that is not running its books properly and is negating a whole market.
Again, hate the movies I mentioned if you will (yes I will defend Narnia as a quality film), that’s not the point.
Jon Stewart last night also tried to make the argument on Larry King that Hollywood is neither red nor blue, just green. If that is true then they are the studpidiest business people this side of the inventors of the water proof tea bag.
The first rule of business is define your market and play to the biggest demographic of that market. Again, when the WSJ says you aren’t maybe you should listen. But the reason why this topic is so touchy to Hollywood is that it assumes a few things…
It assumes that they are not all that curious.
It assumes that they are not tolerant and diverse.
It assumes they are not the best business people.
In other words it assumes that they are not who they think they are. And that is unfathomable.
As for what is on my degree?
Okay we’ll make it a fair trade. I’ll type in exactly everything that is on my degrees for you in my next post if you type in exactly everything that is on your credit card.
I’ll be a gentleman and let you go first.
“Oh, and The Motorcycle Diaries’ $16mil is exceptional for a foreign language movie.”
Still doesn’t beat The Passion of the Christ’s 3/4’s of a billion for a foreign language film.
I’m just sayin’.
Nicol D, I only wanted to know what your major was. Don’t care where you went to school. Never mind.
The fact is they are a business but that doesn’t mean they know how to sell everything. Passion was a grassroots effort, not a multimillion dollar campaign. Just because beer is popular doesn’t mean that Coca Cola will start making beer, because that’s not their business and they have no idea how to market it. Yes, there’s a huge opportunity for studios now, but most will try not to stake their corporate image on it just like most wouldn’t want to for F9/11. For example, much of the studios run their finances through a merchandising department. I’d say they would be pretty uncomfortable coming out with Jesus action figures or that McDonald’s wouldn’t want to put that in their happy meals. It’s touchy for more reasons than you suggest.
I don’t think The Passion’s success can be attributed to it being a Catholic film. Christians of all types are into that stuff.
If your argument is that Hollywood is just throwing money away but not feeding demand, it makes me think of another parallel film industry raking in huge sums of cash by feeding an overwhelming audience demand. They tend to operate in the San Fernando Valley…
Anyway, I agree with you, Nicol, that there should be more spiritually-oriented films out there. Bresson and Dreyer are two of my favorite filmmakers. I just don’t care about rooting for any one sectarian group, which is where your interest seems to lie.
How can Narnia be considered a good spiritual movie when Aslan the Jesus-lion attacks Tilda Swinton’s character and eats her face?
I have always said there should be more films explaining the philosophy and religious beliefs of many religions with respect and tolerance.
Islam, Catholicism, Judaism , Evangelical etc.
If I focus on the Christian ones more often it is becasue they are obviously maligned the most.
My wife just flipped past the Academy Awards and Dolly Parton was singing a song comparing the plight of transexuals to that of Jesus being nailed to a cross. It’s times like that when I fully understand the anger the Muslim community had with respect to the Danish cartoons. Sheesh.
As for Narnia…do you know why Aslan attacks the witch from the C.S Lewis Evangelical perspective or were you just making a cheap shot?
There is an answer…but I won’t tell you. If you are truly interested…you’ll find out. And I am not Evangelical.
Best.
There’s an Evangelical reason for a character to speak of forgiveness and compassion in one scene and in the next scene, to brutally murder his enemy? And to film the scene in such a way to make it both massively satisfying to a mass audience, and bloodless for the kids?
No, I don’t think I am truly interested in the kind of theology that can span that chasm of cognitive dissonance.
I also have to politely disagree with you on your statement that the various Christian faiths are “obviously maligned the most”. Not in a world with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The sign of a truly enlightened individual is to entertain a thought without having to accept it.
I suspect you do not want to understand Evangelical philosophy because then it would be harder to put it into a box and categorize it.
Then you would have deal with it for what it is and not the stereotype that you want it to be.
We can’t all be as smart and clever as you are, Nicol.