| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/10 |
| 2006/3/6-8 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Recreation/Media] UID:42114 Activity:kinda low |
3/6 http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/what-did-i-tell-you Hollywood blogger says: a) "this year's dirty little Oscar secret was the anecdotal evidence pouring in to me about hetero members of the [Academy] being unwilling to screen Brokeback Mountain" b) I told you so: Crash might win because of homophobic Academy voters c) Crash and Brokeback "both good, if flawed, films" d) There was "hardly at all" any controversial political statements d) "The forces that hate Hollywood salivated for Brokeback to win Best Oscar", but oh well \_ As someone with connections in Hollywood (including members of the Academy) let me say that a) and b) seem very unlikely given the prevalence of gays in Hollywood. It didn't seem to stop them from voting for, say, "Monster". As you know, "Brokeback Mountain" has been well-received by Hollywood. I think this blog is full of crap. \_ blog entry: "I found horrifying each whispered admission to me from Academy members who usually act like social liberals that they were disgusted by even the possibility of glimpsing simulated gay sex." Okay, granted it's a blog, but it has a lot of history behind it and cred to lose. Who are you and how reliable would you say you are? I can understand if you don't think it's worth it. \_ I would say I'm pretty reliable given that my girlfriend works in Hollywood. Her boss won a freaking Oscar (producer) and is a member of the DGA. Her officemate was a screenwriter for "Walk The Line". I think this blog person is trying to stir up shit. If the Academy was that biased they would have never nominated it. Hollywood is full of gay people. Even though some of the members are older and more conservative I really doubt they are homophobic. Are you telling me they won't vote for Dreamworks movies, too, because of David Geffen? Or Digital Domain movies, because of the VP (a lesbian)? Titanic did pretty well! Come on! Next thing I'll hear is that they are biased against Jews! --dim \_ Props to you for ID'ing yourself. Turns out blog author is also columnist for L.A. Weekly: http://www.laweekly.com see bottom-right. Could be she's totally wrong, after all it's all "anecdotal". Natural hetero aversion to watching man-on-man romance shouldn't be enough to sway sophisticated academy types from voting for it if it truly deserved it. \_ The major complaint I've heard about BB from people in Hollywood is that it's boring. I think some people want to champion it because it's a gay film and the reality is that there are some people who might have said: "I am not voting for that because it's a gay film", meaning "Just because it's a gay film doesn't mean I like it" and not "I refuse to vote for it because I hate gays." \_ There's a difference between supporting the concept of gayness, and wanting to watch a movie fairly graphically (for Hollywood) depicting gay sex. But I don't really think that's why it didn't win; it didn't win because it was subtle, and Hollywood hates subtlety. -tom \_ It's not about 'wanting to watch... gay sex.' People don't want to watch serial killers and yet 'Silence of the Lambs' won. If it was about gays then why did Hoffman win for 'Capote'? I am not really sure what the 'Hollywood hates subtlety' line is getting at, BTW. Hollywood appreciates subtlety a lot more than the average theater-goer does. \_ Your analogy needs work. People are far more comfortable with depictions of violence, even extreme violence, than they are with sex - heterosexual, homosexual, or otherwise. That said, the sex scene in Brokeback was pretty damn tame. \_ It's not an analogy. It's an observation that you don't have to be comfortable with the subject matter (or want to watch it) and yet still praise a movie. There are some disturbing movies I'd never want to see again that I can still find merit in. It's not supposed to be 'most entertaining movie' or 'movie most people would like to see if given a chance' or 'movie best suited to repeat viewing'. It's supposed to be the best movie. Again, if there is a bias then why did Ang Lee win? That's pretty good evidence that there's no bias. \_ no, it's not. \_ Yes, it is. The movie won several awards, so obviously people in the Academy had no problem voting for it when they feel it deserved it. \_ You're begging the question. If we assume that Brokeback is at least as good as, say, Titanic (which it's much better than in reality), and Titanic won 11 Oscars and Brokeback won 3, there must be some bias going on. Personally, I think the bias is that the Academy has no taste, but it's entirely plausible that there's a bias against the gay theme. -tom \_ Tom, are you a closeted gay? \_ Are you asking for a date? -tom \_ This sounds too stupid to be tom. --dim |
| 7/10 |
|
| www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/what-did-i-tell-you Way back on January 17th, I decided to nominate the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for Best Bunch of Hypocrites. That's because I felt this year's dirty little Oscar secret was the anecdotal evidence pouring in to me about hetero members of the Academy of Motions Picture Arts and Sciences being unwilling to screen Brokeback Mountain. For a community that takes pride in progressive values, it seemed shameful to me that Hollywood's homophobia could be on a par with Pat Robertson's. So in the February 1st issue of LA Weekly, I warned that, despite the hype you saw in the press and on the Internet about Brokeback, with its eight nominations, being the supposed favorite to take home the Best Picture Oscar, Crash could end up winning. Hollywood showed tonight it isn't the liberal bastion it once was. That's pitiful if you're a progressive, and pleasing if you're a conservative. After my column came out, it was picked up by the Drudge Report. Hundreds of angry emailers accused me, and Hollywood, of trying to promote "the homosexual agenda" by somehow "forcing" them to see a movie they found sexually reprehensible. What those emailers failed to comprehend was that the Oscar voters shared their distaste for it. At the time, I explained that the real Best Picture issue wasn't which film was better. I found horrifying each whispered admission to me from Academy members who usually act like social liberals that they were disgusted by even the possibility of glimpsing simulated gay sex. The forces that hate Hollywood salivated for Brokeback to win Best Oscar. But that it wasn't the favorite was foreshadowed at the Screen Actor Guild awards, when Crash topped it for best picture and Philip Seymour Hoffman won over Heath Ledger. The excuse given was that Crash only won that award because the producers had sent the film to every SAG member, which is something of a rarity. It became part of America's lexicon, it generated a nightly joke or two on Leno and Letterman, it spawned innumerable parodies. I found Crash and Brokeback both good, if flawed, films. Oscar-worthy since they were about something, a prerequisite. Crash makes up in aesthetic bleakness what it lacks in subtlety -- Los Angeles is a city of minorities divided but colliding, duh! Brokeback gives us closet-case sheepherders tastefully presented so they redefine the notion of love. I sounded a note of extreme caution about Brokeback's Oscar chances because, in Hollywood, the cowboy has been an iconic figure in motion pictures through the ages. Many geriatric Academy members not only worked on oaters, but also worshipped Audie Murphy, Gene Autry, John Wayne and other saddle-sore celluloid heroes. And I noted that only an equally iconic figure like Clint Eastwood could redefine the genre in Unforgiven in a way that didn't turn off the old-timers. I was talking baby boomers and younger Academy members sketched out about seeing Brokeback. I knew there was a chance that, even without seeing the movie, Oscar voters could feel guilt-tripped or succumb to a herd mentality to vote for the "gay-cowboy" movie and strike a blow against Republican wedge politics and extremist religious hatemongering. But they didn't, and Brokeback lost for all the Right's reasons. So, red-staters licking their lips to give Hollywood a verbal ass-whooping will be chagrined tonight. I've been keeping a running tally on just how political were the 78th Academy Awards. GOP politicos hoping to use that old saw of "Boy hidey, those show-biz folk are just a homo-promotin', liberal-media-embracin', minority-lovin', devil-worshippin', pimp-hustlin', terrorist-protectin' bunch of pansies, commies and traitors" are going to have to find another way to discredit Hollywood's actor activists when they campaign come the midterm elections in November. Turns out Hollywood is as homophobic as Red State country. I was right about Rachel Weisz, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Reese Witherspoon, Ang Lee, and Crash. |
| www.laweekly.com Not one but three people I went to high school with were nominated for Oscars last night (Matt Dillon, Dan Futterman, and Bennett Miller) so I was kinda jazzed for the whole whoop-de-doo; The Problem With Oscar First of all, the Academy Awards started at 3, and that means drinking started at 3 and so last night was a very long night. I don't have a television, and I wasn't invited to the Oscars, an oversight on... Everybodyas got an opinion when it comes to Oscar fashion, and since Iam inthe Style Council, I can pretend mine matters. I watched it all onthe tube last night (no red carpet camping and definitely no traffic-jammed,... Sid Ganis, Real The very idea that AMPAS president Sid Ganis would use his brief TV face time to urge viewers to see movies in theaters and not just on DVDs at home was a laugh riot. Clueless AMPAS Board Of the 42-member Board of Governors for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, those Oscar party circuiters amply demonstrated just how clueless they were... Stinko Oscars This was the most incoherent, inchoate Oscar telecast in recent memory. Nothing flowed, everything jarred, cut ins and cut outs werent preceded by necessary segues. |