posted
I'm not sure I understood OSC's column this week, specifically the part about the Oscars catering to snobby, condescending pictures.
While I recognize this has been true in the past (does anyone remember About Schmidt or Brokeback Mountain?), I didn't think it was true this year.
Granted, the movies this year weren't all that good-- in my opinion-- but they weren't overly high-brow or pretentious either. In fact, the "snobbiest" movie of the year was probably Reservation Road (which I didn't see), and it didn't get any nominations that I recall.
I didn't get to the movies much in 2008, but I did manage to see some of the contenders: Dark Knight, Curious Case of Benjamin Button (based on the F. Scott Fitzgerald short story), Changeling, Vicki Christina Barcelona, and Frost/Nixon. All of these were decent, if not spectaculor.
I didn't see Slumdog Millionaire or The Wrestler. Seemed like rentals to me.
I guess I just didn't understand what OSC was referring to in his column.
Posts: 187 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lots of people remember Brokeback Mountain. It was a pretty groundbreaking movie with some incredible acting. Now, whether anyone remembers the equally "artsy" but far crappier movie that won Best Picture that year is another story.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember About Schmidt, and I loved it. Dad in his little fantasy world suddenly having to deal with reality - what's not to like?
Who hasn't taken an honest look at their lives and not liked what they saw? Then you go on a little more, and you realize, it's ok. It's not perfect, but it's my life and I like it.
I'd call that pretty happily pro-middle class, myself.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's sort of strange that I like OSC's work so much, and yet I disagree with almost everything he has to say about movies. Slumdog Millionaire was not pretentious at all. And it won the most. I don't know what he was complaining about. I actually preferred "Benjamin Button", which you might call pretentious, but I call introspective and thought-provoking. Rather than get offended by movies for what I think they're trying to say about me, I prefer to enjoy them for what they are saying about the artists who created them. I think this makes me a happier and less bitter person.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Craig Childs: In fact, the "snobbiest" movie of the year was probably Reservation Road (which I didn't see), and it didn't get any nominations that I recall.
I think The Reader could give it a run for the money, based on the hype (I didn't see either), and it was up in several categories. In fact, I saw at least a couple of critics this year lambasting the Oscars for being so fusty, based on its proclivity for preachy, boring movies like The Reader. Milk too, from what I've heard, is a movie that takes itself too seriously and is only moderately entertaining. More message than movie. Both were recognized with multiple important nominations and awards.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, trying to change my opinion of people who criticize movies without seeing them by posting criticisms by people who have seen the movie is not going to work. That is what I call missing the point.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point is I had ample information to determine 1) what the movie was like and 2) that I had no desire to see it. Dude.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough, but you did not have ample information with which to criticize it yourself. I think it's great to use reviews to decide whether or not to see a movie. But to then say, "yeah, I didn't go see that movie because it's pretentious and snobby and it talks down to you, and overall it's just terrible" is too much. You don't know that.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that for certain, but I can have a pretty good idea.
But I understand your point; that's why I caveated my opinion in the first place, so people could properly discount it as being derivative rather than primary.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't know what he was complaining about.
QFT.
OSC seems bound by some law to come out with a strongly negative or positive impression of any given movie based on an arbitrary set of parameters that apply only to that particular movie, and expire upon the completion of that one review, never to affect his thinking or judgment of any movie, ever again.
And what the hell does he expect anyway? The academy awards are not awarded by "regular Americans." Why should they reflect some ideal that he has in mind? Why should he know better what "regular" people like? That's a rather pompous notion in the first place- but it's one OSC clings to.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't know what he was complaining about.
QFT.
OSC seems bound by some law to come out with a strongly negative or positive impression of any given movie based on an arbitrary set of parameters that apply only to that particular movie, and expire upon the completion of that one review, never to affect his thinking or judgment of any movie, ever again.
And what the hell does he expect anyway? The academy awards are not awarded by "regular Americans." Why should they reflect some ideal that he has in mind? Why should he know better what "regular" people like? That's a rather pompous notion in the first place- but it's one OSC clings to.
I think it's pretty obvious what his complaints are about as Hugh Jackman in a humerous way echoed them in his opening monologue. "Why don't comic book movies ever get nominated, everybody goes to see them?"
Why don't comedies ever get nominated? But I was surprised that Revolutionary Road was snubbed, I felt like that was the sort of movie that usually gets nominated, in the same vein as American Beauty. I don't think the Oscars are completely devoid of soul and neither does OSC as he still holds his own Oscar parties. I also think the fact Slumdog Millionaire cleaned up instead of say Milk that the Academy is capable of making good choices.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GForce: It's sort of strange that I like OSC's work so much, and yet I disagree with almost everything he has to say about movies.
Ahaha. That's only the tip of the iceberg, dude.
Anyway, I wonder how OSC enjoyed what Sean Penn said in his speech. Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GForce: It's sort of strange that I like OSC's work so much, and yet I disagree with almost everything he has to say about movies.
Ahaha. That's only the tip of the iceberg, dude.
Anyway, I wonder how OSC enjoyed what Sean Penn said in his speech.
I imagine very little, since his speech was pretty predictable.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What have the Oscars become? Hollywood's answer to the Booker Prize -- given only to objets d'art that snobs pretend to like?
Going to most of these movies would be an unpleasant duty -- like having to clean up somebody else's vomit because they threw up on your carpet. Dark, ugly, pretentious, politically correct, and (above all) convinced that they're smarter than me: Why should an Oscar nomination be a reason for me to pay them for talking down to me?
Dear Mr. Card: Slumdog Millionaire cleaned up at the oscars and it pretty much renders this analysis ridiculous.
Please enjoy not watching Milk because it has Teh Gay in it. Thx.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Craig Childs: I guess I just didn't understand what OSC was referring to in his column.
This confusion can be alleviated if you keep in mind that OSC is now a full-on crackpot.
I had been hoping he would stop publishing "World Watch" after his mission to get Bush elected to a third term failed. Instead he ratcheted up the nonsense to Rush proportions in his last couple of articles. Now he's actually out and out calling the Obama Presidency a "coup." He's become incoherent.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Lots of people remember Brokeback Mountain. It was a pretty groundbreaking movie with some incredible acting. Now, whether anyone remembers the equally "artsy" but far crappier movie that won Best Picture that year is another story.
Wasn't it Crash? I thought it was pretty good. Not perfect, but definitely not crappy.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't know what he was complaining about.
QFT.
OSC seems bound by some law to come out with a strongly negative or positive impression of any given movie based on an arbitrary set of parameters that apply only to that particular movie, and expire upon the completion of that one review, never to affect his thinking or judgment of any movie, ever again.
And what the hell does he expect anyway? The academy awards are not awarded by "regular Americans." Why should they reflect some ideal that he has in mind? Why should he know better what "regular" people like? That's a rather pompous notion in the first place- but it's one OSC clings to.
True. Whatever a "regular" American is, I'm not sure if I am one. I like to go from watching Kung Fu Panda to Tai Chi Master and maybe Malcolm X tomorrow.
Which should have gotten an Oscar. If you REALLY want to complain about the Oscars it's how movies like that that are really incredibly good never get nominated because they are politically controversial. Dead Man walking comes to mind. That was a great movie. But they've given a few best pictures to movies that were a bit illogical.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: I wonder how you justify making the rather bizarre assertion that Reservation Road was the snobbiest film of the year without having seen it.
You are correct. I probably should not have passed judgement on the film without seeing it first.
From the reviews and synopsis I read, I assumed it was snobbish. This is because it appears to be yet another movie about American suburbanites who feels desperate/isolated/lonely/oppressed by societal norms, etc. This ground was covered quite terrifically in American Beauty, but since then a slew of movies have presented trite, somewhat condescending (in my opinion) variations on the same theme: The Hours, About Schmidt, even the tv show Desperate Housewives are based on this premise.
But this is just an assumption based on a review. I shouldn't criticize a movie until I see it first
Posts: 187 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Lots of people remember Brokeback Mountain. It was a pretty groundbreaking movie with some incredible acting. Now, whether anyone remembers the equally "artsy" but far crappier movie that won Best Picture that year is another story.
The acting may have been very good, but nothing about that movie was ground-breaking. If anything, movies and television shows about the trials and tribulations of homosexual characters are in vogue.
Now, perhaps Midnight Cowboy was ground-breaking in the 1960's, as the first movie to openly deal with male homosexuality. But not Brokeback Mountain.
Posts: 187 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I found the perfect way to watch an award show. I had to work, so I recorded it on my Tivo. I could fast foward through anything I didn't want to see. Brilliant!
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When's the last time you watched an awards show that you think they're only an hour long? Seems like the damn things run for at least 3 hours. And those three hours feel like 3 days.
Which is why I don't watch.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Lots of people remember Brokeback Mountain. It was a pretty groundbreaking movie with some incredible acting. Now, whether anyone remembers the equally "artsy" but far crappier movie that won Best Picture that year is another story.
The acting may have been very good, but nothing about that movie was ground-breaking. If anything, movies and television shows about the trials and tribulations of homosexual characters are in vogue.
I've heard this a few times, and I'm wondering why you think it's so true. I don't see a *lot* of gay related programming out there. There is a gay niche in reality TV, and there were two shows on Showtime which weren't very good, and were very shallow.
So while I agree that Brokeback Mountain was not a very good movie, and leaned heavily on the gimmick of homosexuality to be "shocking," (which it wasn't if you are ok with gay people), I don't see as there are a ton of movies even doing that these days. One of TV's biggest shows, Lost, has no gay characters, and hasn't had a mention of homosexuality in 5 years. You'll find that's true for a lot of shows. Though I'm not a big fan of "gay as gimmick" shows or characters, I don't see a lot of honest portrayal of gays in the media. I see a lot of stereotypes and reality programming drivel.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: ...and maybe Malcolm X tomorrow.
Which should have gotten an Oscar. If you REALLY want to complain about the Oscars it's how movies like that that are really incredibly good never get nominated because they are politically controversial.
I'm not sure if you were still talking about the same film at this point. But I also think Malcolm X needed an Academy Award to its name. Certainly more than just the one nomination for Denzel Washington for acting, which he definitely deserved.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see a lot of honest portrayal of gays in the media. I see a lot of stereotypes and reality programming drivel.
Could you cite an "honest portrayal" as a point of reference? Also what stereotypes are you finding overly prominent? Finally if you fail to see that movies dealing with homosexuality are in vogue, try looking at all the movies coming out of Europe. There are myriad titles dealing with homosexuality.
Samprimary:
quote:Please enjoy not watching Milk because it has Teh Gay in it. Thx.
You sound pretty foolish when you make statements like this. You are not a fool so don't say things like this.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Craig Childs: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tarrsk: [qb] I don't see a *lot* of gay related programming out there. There is a gay niche in reality TV, and there were two shows on Showtime which weren't very good, and were very shallow.
So while I agree that Brokeback Mountain was not a very good movie, and leaned heavily on the gimmick of homosexuality to be "shocking," (which it wasn't if you are ok with gay people), I don't see as there are a ton of movies even doing that these days. One of TV's biggest shows, Lost, has no gay characters, and hasn't had a mention of homosexuality in 5 years. You'll find that's true for a lot of shows. Though I'm not a big fan of "gay as gimmick" shows or characters, I don't see a lot of honest portrayal of gays in the media. I see a lot of stereotypes and reality programming drivel.
I'm not sure if your question is related to TV, movies, or both. A lot of your viewpoint depends on what you see as "honest portrayal". I mean, if Law & Order has an episode about a gay man committing a crime, is that honest portrayal or is that a stereotype? What if the gay man is a victim or a suspect in a crime?
I don't watch a lot of tv, to be honest, but completely off the top of my head I can think of several shows that centered around gay characters or at least featured major storylines about gay characters in recent years: Will & Grace, Brothers & Sisters, Desperate Housewives, Sex in the City, Sopranos, Friends.. I'm sure there are more, but that's about the extent of my tv watching over the last 10 years.
Other episodic shows like Law & Order routinely feature gay characters in non-stereotypical storylines.
Even Lost, which you mentioned above, had a guy/guy kiss between Tom (aka "Mr Friendly") and a young male lover (Season 4-"Remember Kevin Johnson"). This would have been unimaginable even 10 years ago, but it's so commonplace now that you apparently missed it completely (assuming you're a fan of the show).
Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with featuring gay characters or storylines in tv or movies. It's part of real life. It would be odd if there weren't any homosexuals in them. But gay characters in the movies and tv are definitely en vogue. You might make the argument they are over-represented. There may be a higher percentage of gay characters in film than there are gay people in society. (I don't know if this is true, but it would be an interesting study).
But sometimes movies and tv shows feel they need to "push" a certain moral viewpoint or promote certain attitudes about sex in general. These shows tend to be preachy, condescending, and snobby.
Ask yourself this: When was the last time you saw a tv show that featured a positive portrayal of a religous character who believed homosexuality was a grave moral sin? You don't see that. Religous characters are usually portrayed as zealots, bigots, hypocrites, or (at best) just hopelessly ignorant.
Posts: 187 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it feels like homosexuality is in vogue because for the first time in history their numbers in TV/Movies are even remotely close to the real life statistics. Whenever you see a gay character it'll stick out, but most shows still avoid the subject and the shows that include a gay character(s) still relegate those character(s) to a small background plot.
I think books might be closer to an accurate representation of sexuality because they're less limited by budgets and timeslots.
I would like to see a cohesive study done of the subject, though.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I think it feels like homosexuality is in vogue because for the first time in history their numbers in TV/Movies are even remotely close to the real life statistics.
I would like to see a cohesive study done of the subject, though.
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: This article on the child actors from Slumdog Millionaire is certainly depression-inducing.
I really don't get the complaints about how the child actors were treated. For a month of work they got paid three times the annual salary for an adult from the slums. They have had their education paid for them - which I imagine includes the lunch meal. They have a trust fund coming to them when they turn 18.
What would have been a better choice? Pay enough to get them out of the slums? That means paying enough to get the whole family out - which would only happen if the parents are capable of handling that much money. But it's much more likely that the parents would squander that money, or have to distribute it to the extended family and/or criminal groups.
There's no easy choices there, but the families have been given enough money to significantly ease life if they're careful with the money, and the children have a chance at an education that will lift them out of poverty.
posted
To clarify, I'm not depressed by how much or little they were paid; I'm depressed by slum life in general, by the fact that there's a good likelihood that not all of the children will live to reach 18 and take advantage of their trust funds and education, and by the implications of domestic abuse.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really don't get the complaints about how the child actors were treated. For a month of work they got paid three times the annual salary for an adult from the slums. They have had their education paid for them - which I imagine includes the lunch meal. They have a trust fund coming to them when they turn 18.
What would have been a better choice? Pay enough to get them out of the slums? That means paying enough to get the whole family out
The median family income in India is only around US$90 and these children are living well below the median. The amount it cost to fly these children to Hollywood for the Oscars alone was many times what it would cost to move their entire families out of the slums and into decent homes.
quote: - which would only happen if the parents are capable of handling that much money. But it's much more likely that the parents would squander that money, or have to distribute it to the extended family and/or criminal groups.
Its grossly prejudiced of you to presume that simply because these people are poor they are likely to squander any money they receive. I'm generally pleased to see child actors being paid in a trust fund they will receive when they reach the age of majority rather than to their parents, but quite frankly most 18 year olds are more prone to squander money than most parents of young children. In a case where child actors are living in abject poverty, paying their families enough up front to be able to afford a real home and basic medical care rather than a living in a hovel in a third world slum seems only reasonable, particularly when that amount is so trivial by western standards.
Taking children from an Indian Slum, sending them on a luxury trip to America, the Oscars and Disneyland and then dumping them back in the ghetto is pretty cruel, even if you are paying for them to go to a decent school so that they might some day grow up to lead a better life.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not prejudice, Rabbit,it's statistics. Unlike you, I've actually studied economic development at a very high academic level, and I follow most of the journals in the field. I also have a very strong interest in India as a developing country and have toured some of the Bombay slums myself with a translator. If you want others to respect your degree then kindly return the favor.
The case is that it's very, very difficult to raise the standard of living within a single generation in a developing country. Possible, yes, but given the education level of the parents, as well as the social structure of India, it's be quite likely that any large sum of money would run out pretty quickly. You'll note that very few, if any, people with in-depth knowledge of the situation of slum-dwellers in India have spoken out against the arrangements for the children. In fact, every single Indian I've spoken to about it thought it was a very well-designed setup.
As to your other point, I don't see why it's cruel to let children see a possible future for themselves, if they work hard in school and are somewhat lucky. My husband's family grew up at the very lowest end of middle class in India - not slum living, certainly, but it would be considered extreme poverty here in the US. All of his siblings have bounced up to the upper class level through hard work, schooling, and, of course, some luck. It's possible. But it would never have been possible for his father to do the same.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry Jhai, I didn't mean to dismiss your expertise in economics or India.
What is often forgotten is that one cannot draw any conclusions regarding individuals based on statistics that describe a large population. Doing so is one definition of prejudice.
I am very deeply involved in an NGO that provides educational opportunities for children in some of the world's poorest communities so I also have some familiarity with the great challenge of raising people out of poverty. Educational opportunities are critically important but in the most extreme poverty situations, it is not sufficient to simply pay the child's tuition to a decent school. Unless the child has a healthy living environment including minimally adequate shelter and nutrition, they are unlikely to be successful in school. In the most extreme poverty situation, children must often leave school because families often cannot survive if the children are not working.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Sorry Jhai, I didn't mean to dismiss your expertise in economics or India.
What is often forgotten is that one cannot draw any conclusions regarding individuals based on statistics that describe a large population. Doing so is one definition of prejudice.
I am very deeply involved in an NGO that provides educational opportunities for children in some of the world's poorest communities so I also have some familiarity with the great challenge of raising people out of poverty. Educational opportunities are critically important but in the most extreme poverty situations, it is not sufficient to simply pay the child's tuition to a decent school. Unless the child has a healthy living environment including minimally adequate shelter and nutrition, they are unlikely to be successful in school. In the most extreme poverty situation, children must often leave school because families often cannot survive if the children are not working.
I agree that you shouldn't apply statistics to individuals if you know any pertinent characteristics of the individual. You don't and neither do I - or, at least, we know nothing about the families that suggests that they're more likely than the norm to save the money than the average slum dweller. At least one (and perhaps all - I don't have time to look this up right now) family has already spent all the money that one of the children earned.
It's very common in India, especially among the absolute poor (those earning living on less than $1 per day) to spend a significant amount of their income on festivals/weddings. In some areas of the country the absolute poor spend 10-15% of their income on festivals - and that's not including the money that goes to alcohol and the like. This is part of the reason why I would expect a large windfall to be spent quickly by these families, where I wouldn't necessarily expect the same of poor in other parts of the world.
And the kids will be getting a good meal at school; like most schools serving the poor in developing countries, Indian schools almost always have a very hearty, if plain, lunch meal.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
