Al Pacino Wins Emmy Award for Movie on Euthanasia Advocate Jack Kevorkian

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

juliee

Guest
Al Pacino Wins Emmy Award for Movie on Euthanasia Advocate Jack Kevorkian

Hollywood, CA – In another example of the Hollywood elite glorifying those actors and films that promote anti-life values, Al Pacino won an Emmy Award for his portrayal of Jack Kevorkian in the HBO film, “You Don’t Know Jack.”

Pacino portrayed the assisted suicide crusader who was eventually jailed for killing a disabled man in a televised euthanasia.

LifeNews.com/bio3154.html
 
Yes. Actors are given awards for acting: for their performances, including for those characters and performances which exemplify values and positions not popular among Hollywood professionals, as well as for portrayals of more popular characters & concepts.
 
Yes. Actors are given awards for acting: for their performances, including for those characters and performances which exemplify values and positions not popular among Hollywood professionals, as well as for portrayals of more popular characters & concepts.
That was my response too, until I read the entire article. Then I deleted my response.

The controvery in the article is not that Pacino won, but that he went on to praise Kavorkian and his work in his acceptence speech. The title of the article doesn’t really due justice to what the article is really trying to point out. 🙂
 
I saw the Emmys last night and was just disgusted - though not really surprised - at the wins by the Kevorkian movie and Pacino. What really clinched it for me was seeing Kevorkian himself in the audience, smiling and taking a bow. He should still be in jail!

What a stark contrast to the wonderful, life-affirming “Temple Grandin”, which won a number of awards, thank heavens. My husband said that seeing Dr. Grandin herself on stage, utterly joyful and genuine, was the best part of the night.
 
Frankly, besides the host’s entertainment, I don’t see why anyone would sit through one of these kissy-*** fests. The fake smiles when someone else wins, the fake “I couldn’t have done this without so and so” baloney, the political and usually amoral acceptance diatribes.

As a buddy of mine once said, why on earth would he watch a show about entertainment people gushing over how great they all are? He watches the shows he likes and doesn’t give a hoot about how many awards an actor has one or has been nominated for whatever.

I vote with my remote. 😃

He went on to say (a little inside joke for veterinarians), that we don’t vote on who is going to win the “Best Canine Castration Award” for 2010. I thought about that a lot. What other profession has such a big, public hoo-hah celebrating how great they are? Sure, companies have “employee of the year” and so forth, but they don’t have a three-hour show to show us who sold the most widgets in 2010.

I tend to agree. While it may be of passing interest to see who “wins”, I’ll bet very few people have watched all the shows in any one particular catagory to judge for themselves which actor or series they think is best.

It’s not even approaching envy, but does anyone really care if they were to get an award or not for doing well in their job? They’re Actors. That’s their job. No different really than Joe Everyday who schleps his way to his 9-5 making widgets, except he gets paid a lot less for a whole lot more work.

I’ll get off my soapbox now…
 
They’re Actors. That’s their job. No different really than Joe Everyday who schleps his way to his 9-5 making widgets, except he gets paid a lot less for a whole lot more work.
This is the only thing in your post I take issue with. There’s a lot of mythology about acting. The biggest myth is that it is glamorous. No, the media attention, ceremonies, events and perks can be glamorous (in some cases they’re a nuisance), but what most people do not know is that acting is tremendously hard work. And I don’t just mean the aspect of character-acting. I’m talking about the everyday. It is a Very. Physical. Job. Unbelievably physical. It’s physically exhausting. I know because I had to do it when I worked in advertising. If a scene is complicated, setting-wise or timing-wise, it can take a long time to set up that take, and that in itself can be achingly tedious. And because the whole operation is expensive, directors loathe re-takes. That fact virtually forces actors to work extremely long days because bringing back the crew again the next day can break the film’s budget.

The very fatigue factor in acting – whether on location or for TV series – has strained many, many a Hollywood marriage and family life. Many couples trying to maintain their relationships decide to forego projects and turn down many offers (intermittently, or for an extended period) so that their marriages will not implode. It is not just the epic films that are tiring, but a single film or a single TV series can be just as tiring. You can never just relax on the job. Every movement, facial expression, posture, etc. has to for the most part conscious and vigilant. That requires lots of energy and creates lots of tension in the body.
 
This is the only thing in your post I take issue with. There’s a lot of mythology about acting. The biggest myth is that it is glamorous. No, the media attention, ceremonies, events and perks can be glamorous (in some cases they’re a nuisance), but what most people do not know is that acting is tremendously hard work. And I don’t just mean the aspect of character-acting. I’m talking about the everyday. It is a Very. Physical. Job. Unbelievably physical. It’s physically exhausting. I know because I had to do it when I worked in advertising. If a scene is complicated, setting-wise or timing-wise, it can take a long time to set up that take, and that in itself can be achingly tedious. And because the whole operation is expensive, directors loathe re-takes. That fact virtually forces actors to work extremely long days because bringing back the crew again the next day can break the film’s budget.

The very fatigue factor in acting – whether on location or for TV series – has strained many, many a Hollywood marriage and family life. Many couples trying to maintain their relationships decide to forego projects and turn down many offers (intermittently, or for an extended period) so that their marriages will not implode. It is not just the epic films that are tiring, but a single film or a single TV series can be just as tiring. You can never just relax on the job. Every movement, facial expression, posture, etc. has to for the most part conscious and vigilant. That requires lots of energy and creates lots of tension in the body.
Straying from the topic for a moment…

First off, let me clarify that my comments refer mainly to the more successful leading actors and actresses. I’m aware that the others get paid far less and don’t get the perks.

That being said, I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone who gets tired at a job where they make piles of money. Joe Average has exactly the same problems, having to move to find work, strain on the family, etc. for far, far less. And nobody gives them a trophy for being the best Walmart clerk of the year. Their actions are under scrutiny daily as well…from customers, many times grouchy, impatient customers and their supervisors, who’s job it is to keep such customers satisfied.

Bottom line for me is that I don’t buy that acting is SO much physically harder than Joe Average’s job on the assembly line, Sue Average’s aching feet at the end of her cashier’s shift, or evern Bob Aboveaverage’s job as a surgical tech, standing over a patient for 4 hours without being able to sit down (as actors can do between takes).

Acting takes talent, for sure, and having the talent to entertain is worth something in terms of money and compensation. But again, I don’t feel any sympathy for someone who can work for a couple of months and make more money than the rest of us can in several lifetimes.

Anyway, back to the topic. Such money and fame seem to make actors think that we are interested in what they have to say, mostly politically. Personally, I couldn’t care any less what some wealthy, relatively uneducated actor has to say about anything besides, perhaps, a movie that they are or were making. (I do have an interest in how movies are made…just love that TV show “Science of the Movies”).

So yeah, pretty much these shows are a waste of time for me, especially when we all know some actor is going to say something about gay rights, euthanasia, etc. I’d like once, just once, to see a major actor winning an award give credit to the Lord who is, after all, lending him or her their talent.
 
Again, Newbie, I respectully disagree that lead actors (stars) have it easier, physically – in terms of the daily grind – than other members of the cast. In fact, for Al Pacino I would argue that he has it tougher because he is no longer a spring chicken. Also, much more is demanded of the lead actors. Those of us with either professional or amateur actors in our families know what I mean.

Actors have to be On Alert when they’re working. They have to be ready to adapt in an instant to weather & technical glitches, to another actor’s miscue, and much more. You don’t hear about all these everyday headaches, because they’re not part of “news,” and usually not part of publicity unless an individual actor chooses to share that with the public (which sometimes they do).

Stars work at least just as hard as actors with lower billing. They do get, yes, more perks,
but OTOH more is expected of them, as the studio and/or the producer is literally banking on them to perform. If your objection is that a lead actor’s salary is much higher for his or her grueling work than, for example, the work of a fire ranger On Alert or an airline mechanic making sure that those bolts are secured so the plane doesn’t crash, then yes, I agree with you: it’s a star-driven culture. I am perhaps less bothered by that being true in the arts – where at least the message (not in the movie being discussed, other movies) often uplifts or changes lives, because art often does that. Art, including film, can be healing, transformative for the viewer (comedy, tragedy, and drama). I have way more difficulty morally justifying the obscene annual salaries for the following:

(1) sports celebrities
(2) CEO’s of failing companies
(3) CEO’s of companies which rip their employees off, engage in fraud (formerly Enron, currently others)

Just to end the O/T sidebar, I was not “feeling sorry” for Al Pacino (or any star). I’m just disputing that lead actors to do not earn their pay. Their pay is actually proportional, to some degree (not entirely) to expected gross receipts at the box office. Do not assume that once a star, always a star. Actors are mostly continually “looking for work.” I mean, they could “retire” on the income of a few major movies if they wanted to. But unless they do want to retire, they must keep looking for work if they want to keep getting hired. Otherwise, they will be considered obsolete from the standpoint of the public. With inflation and the COL, actor’s relatively high salaries don’t go nearly as far as they used to.
 
Hi all,
First, it does not surprise me that hollywood rewards this type of movie. They are attracted to stories they arrogantly deem to be folk-heroic and package them cleverly to maximise profits. (The same actor spoke at an Oscar Wilde seminar in Dublin some years back thus ticking his box with the gay lobbyists.)
Second, as an ex-professional actor (gave it up as I realised the ego is not everything) I can state that actors enjoy the limelight and the hard work that puts them under it. In order to survive and succeed in what is a notoriously fickle business, it is imperative to cultivate an enormous ego.
All actors, those who are mega-rich and those perched all the way down the steep financial scale are bound by the bohemian sensibility of the profession’s history. They hire themselves out, so to speak, and, sometimes, their loyalty to a certain message in a play or movie is secondary to their bank balance.
Those actors who are conscientiously discerning in their take-up of employment are invariably attracted to the aforementioned “folk-heroic” shtick because it appeals to their bohemian instinct as outsiders, rebels, eccentrics.
I feel that we, as Catholics, should always look upon hollywood as nothing more or less than it’s oft-trumpeted byline: showbusiness.
God Bless,
Colmcille.🙂
 
Good reply, colmcille. Cannot dispute your points, particularly about the ego. Nevertheless, there are some actors who have risen above this default drive and temptation. I have read and heard interviews with many actors who have depth and come across as rather genuine. And that can also co-exist with the persona (ego) that the public sees.

I’m not always convinced that it’s ego per se that motivates actors, or becomes the tide on which they are carried. More often it is the pressure to conform to a predictable set of political-social values which have been identified with the profession – not a found self, but a projected self, with the group defining one’s identity.

If I have a sympathy bone in this regard, it is that indeed, it is very difficult to discover and maintain a sense of honest selfhood in the acting profession – not just for reasons mentioned, but also because of the difficulty with boundaries when one has to enter into so many roles wholeheartedly, and also because of the often terrifying descent into experimental “selves” that the actor usually embraces along various points in a full career. Actors have often spoken about this on Inside the Actor’s Studio. Staying grounded can become a real problem which can challenge one’s sense of sanity. The public can laugh about it, but to me it’s no laughing matter that virtually all actors visit psychiatrists at one or many points in their careers.
 
Good reply, colmcille. Cannot dispute your points, particularly about the ego. Nevertheless, there are some actors who have risen above this default drive and temptation. I have read and heard interviews with many actors who have depth and come across as rather genuine. And that can also co-exist with the persona (ego) that the public sees.

I’m not always convinced that it’s ego per se that motivates actors, or becomes the tide on which they are carried. More often it is the pressure to conform to a predictable set of political-social values which have been identified with the profession – not a found self, but a projected self, with the group defining one’s identity.

If I have a sympathy bone in this regard, it is that indeed, it is very difficult to discover and maintain a sense of honest selfhood in the acting profession – not just for reasons mentioned, but also because of the difficulty with boundaries when one has to enter into so many roles wholeheartedly, and also because of the often terrifying descent into experimental “selves” that the actor usually embraces along various points in a full career. Actors have often spoken about this on Inside the Actor’s Studio. Staying grounded can become a real problem which can challenge one’s sense of sanity. The public can laugh about it, but to me it’s no laughing matter that virtually all actors visit psychiatrists at one or many points in their careers.
Very true, Elizabeth. You have wisely “fleshed out”, as it were, my overall argument. Although the “ego” was my exit stage left (!), you are right to point out that this alone is only a part of the jigsaw. I think that when looking at hollywood, we are seeing the acting profession in extremis.
As I come from a different culture, the entire hollywood “scene” is anathema to my sensibility.
Not that I am necessarilly trumpeting my own societal background as intrinsically more valuable. I think such arguments are pointless. (Indeed, I recall a documentary series in which several actors from Ireland tried to “make a go” at hollywood. One actor, at the end of the series, seemed to be quite proud of dismissing hollywood as though it were beneath his “true” artistic talent! Such an attitude is disgusting.)
I still maintain friendships within the acting profession and never judge them.
God Bless,
Colmcille.🙂
 
Straying from the topic for a moment…

First off, let me clarify that my comments refer mainly to the more successful leading actors and actresses. I’m aware that the others get paid far less and don’t get the perks.

That being said, I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone who gets tired at a job where they make piles of money. Joe Average has exactly the same problems, having to move to find work, strain on the family, etc. for far, far less. And nobody gives them a trophy for being the best Walmart clerk of the year. Their actions are under scrutiny daily as well…from customers, many times grouchy, impatient customers and their supervisors, who’s job it is to keep such customers satisfied.

Bottom line for me is that I don’t buy that acting is SO much physically harder than Joe Average’s job on the assembly line, Sue Average’s aching feet at the end of her cashier’s shift, or evern Bob Aboveaverage’s job as a surgical tech, standing over a patient for 4 hours without being able to sit down (as actors can do between takes).

Acting takes talent, for sure, and having the talent to entertain is worth something in terms of money and compensation. But again, I don’t feel any sympathy for someone who can work for a couple of months and make more money than the rest of us can in several lifetimes.

Anyway, back to the topic. Such money and fame seem to make actors think that we are interested in what they have to say, mostly politically. Personally, I couldn’t care any less what some wealthy, relatively uneducated actor has to say about anything besides, perhaps, a movie that they are or were making. (I do have an interest in how movies are made…just love that TV show “Science of the Movies”).

So yeah, pretty much these shows are a waste of time for me, especially when we all know some actor is going to say something about gay rights, euthanasia, etc. I’d like once, just once, to see a major actor winning an award give credit to the Lord who is, after all, lending him or her their talent.
The average actor does not make “piles of money.” Sure the stars do, but not the character actors, but players and extras. It would be wise not to disparage the entire industry over the idiocy of a minority.
 
That was my response too, until I read the entire article. Then I deleted my response.

The controvery in the article is not that Pacino won, but that he went on to praise Kavorkian and his work in his acceptence speech. The title of the article doesn’t really due justice to what the article is really trying to point out. 🙂
I have a totally different take on Pacino’s acceptance speech and the director’s speech. I felt they were trying to distance themselves from him as much as they could without being rude to everyone else in the audience.
 
The average actor does not make “piles of money.” Sure the stars do, but not the character actors, but players and extras. It would be wise not to disparage the entire industry over the idiocy of a minority.
Perhaps you missed my first sentence:

“First off, let me clarify that my comments refer mainly to the more successful leading actors and actresses.”

😉

colmcille1 hit the nail on the head, methinks, regarding this topic. 👍
 
I have a totally different take on Pacino’s acceptance speech and the director’s speech. I felt they were trying to distance themselves from him as much as they could without being rude to everyone else in the audience.
Really?

Interesting take (pun intended). 😃

Why do you think they’d want to distance themselves from JK after they’d just made a movie about him?
 
I think he deserves it. Have you seen the film? His best since Godfather Part III. It is a really good movie, mostly because of Pacino’s acting. I remember after seeing it I thought, “Wow, Pacino better win an award for this.”

I’m a film buff and love watching films, not just because it’s about x but because I want to see how it was made and look at the directing and editing as well as the different shots that were set up.

It’s a great film.

I’m happy for him. Pacino deserves it!
 
Really?

Interesting take (pun intended). 😃

Why do you think they’d want to distance themselves from JK after they’d just made a movie about him?
I think you are assuming that to make a good movie or to do a good acting job that you have to actually like the person you are portraying. The director called JK his “friend” but he went on to say he’d never want him as his physician.

Steven Spielberg made a great film about the concentration camps and Ralph Fiennes was brilliant as a nazi, but I don’t think either one of them actually liked the subject that they were working on as professionals.
 
I’m glad that these two posters above me weighed in with their insights. It helps put things in perspective for someone like myself who happened not to see the ceremonies but someone who is also very much a film buff and a huge fan of Pacino as an actor.

I’m completely capable of separating the acting job, and the character played, from the actor as a person, from his beliefs, etc. And whether those beliefs do or do not accord with my own. (Sometimes they do, sometimes not. Never colors whether the actor has done a fine job, whether the film was artistically presented rather than a series of cheap gimmicks or gratuitious sex/violence, etc.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top