Any thoughts on Oscars 2016?

[fin]

Didn’t watch, and after reading about DiCaprio’s ‘global warming’ plug, no thanks.

Here’s Father Sirico on Hollywood hypocrisy and the Spotlight movie:

breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/03/02/priest-hits-hypocritical-hollywood-supporting-child-rapist-polanski-celebrating-spotlight/

 

[Robyn_p]

I just could not see how a movie that essentially has made no money gets to be number one at the Oscars. Seems political.

Oscar awards usually don’t go to box office hits.

The Globe itself has been an anti-catholic paper for years. Few buy it and I am surprised it is still in business.These stories were coming out. They were already in my local newspaper not always on page one but they were in the local papers. The Globe just headlined them all for over six months day after day which was fine.

That’s something the movie addressed. The stories were out there, but not getting attention. The widespread nature of the abuse was not being exposed and so no reforms were being made. Which was evil.

Who listens to the Vatican newspaper? Often it has a liberal slant. I read a bunch of catholic sites and they seem to be concerned about the movie

I have seen a few prior movie on some of the priests involved. I am just not sure I want to see this film. I haven’t read catholic answers review yet. We;ll see.

National Catholic Register - which is owned by EWTN - gave it a good review.

The only thing that might be considered objectionable is there’s a line where they imply the abuse was caused by celibacy. But most of the movie shows how it was the wider culture - and not just the Church - that was complicit in the cover-up. It’s very heart-breaking, but not because of any anti-Catholicism. That said, people who already hate the Church certainly won’t have their assumptions challenged. But that’s the clergy’s fault here, not the movie’s.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I just could not see how a movie that essentially has made no money gets to be number one at the Oscars. Seems political.
(…)

The box office has no effect on nominees or winners which are voted on by the Academy. Many films have limited release and will only be shown in select theaters, but if film is eligible it can win. It’s unfortunate because there are a lot of good films that we don’t get to see on the big screen and, unless one is looking for them, gets a rec, or just stumbles upon one, there are even more most people never hear about.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Didn’t watch, and after reading about DiCaprio’s ‘global warming’ plug, no thanks.

Here’s Father Sirico on Hollywood hypocrisy and the Spotlight movie:

breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/03/02/priest-hits-hypocritical-hollywood-supporting-child-rapist-polanski-celebrating-spotlight/

I kept wondering why they didn’t cut him off. I thought they only had so much time to give their speech. he looked so self important!

 

[tomarin]

I didn’t watch the awards ceremony but I did watch some of the “pre-game show” and thought how hard it must be for the actors on the red carpet to make small-talk with the super-unappealing cast of ‘Good Morning America’ and their cloying fake-friendliness. That’s probably worth an Oscar right there.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I didn’t watch the awards ceremony but I did watch some of the “pre-game show” and thought how hard it must be for the actors on the red carpet to make small-talk with the super-unappealing cast of ‘Good Morning America’ and their cloying fake-friendliness. That’s probably worth an Oscar right there.

yep!

 

[gam197]

Oscar awards usually don’t go to box office hits.

That’s something the movie addressed. The stories were out there, but not getting attention. The widespread nature of the abuse was not being exposed and so no reforms were being made. Which was evil.

National Catholic Register - which is owned by EWTN - gave it a good review.

The only thing that might be considered objectionable is there’s a line where they imply the abuse was caused by celibacy. But most of the movie shows how it was the wider culture - and not just the Church - that was complicit in the cover-up. It’s very heart-breaking, but not because of any anti-Catholicism. That said, people who already hate the Church certainly won’t have their assumptions challenged. But that’s the clergy’s fault here, not the movie’s.

This movie is a loser if it was about box office (money). Few of heard of it or seen it. Which other number 1 Oscar movies have had this low a screening. Can you name them?.I just find it odd that this is the number 1 film of the year yet no one has heard of it.

I am glad to hear that the movie does take up the fact that the stories were being told already in the paper. Granted it was being done more locally by each area depending on which parishes the priests were in.

The diocese did cover this up. I think they were naive on how much damage they had done to these families. It was almost a utilitarian approach, damaged some families and pretend to be holy to preserve the whole of the church. How sad.

Most of these abusive priests came from one seminary - Saint John’s in Brighton.

I am also glad that it finally came out intensely because for so many families who trusted the church, their families and faith had been destroyed. That is the greatest tragedy.
**
Can you explain how the wider culture was complicit in the cover-up**?? Most had no real idea that this was even going on although there were this feeling in community that some boys had been subject to abuse in the church. New articles here and there on cases. If you mean that people in general just did not talk about child abuse by anyone during this time in history , that would make sense.

 

[7_Sorrows]

the answer I would like is why the cover up and why for so many years? why did the hierarchy of the Catholic church want to hide what aas being done to the most innocent? what was it they did not want to face?
we have announcements at every Mass now that any child under 10 that needs to use the restroom during Mass must be accompanied by an adult. Many of the incidents happened when children were alone with the priests. I can certainly understand the families discontinuing to stay in the Church when they were betrayed and lied to.
The Catholic Church has paid out a lot of money, but and asked forgiveness, but there hasn’t really been a lot of explanation about how this could have happened in the Church started by Jesus. Still a lot of secrets if you ask me.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

This movie is a loser if it was about box office (money). Few of heard of it or seen it. Which other number 1 Oscar movies have had this low a screening. Can you name them?.I just find it odd that this is the number 1 film of the year yet no one has heard of it.

(…)

Not everyone makes films to make money. There are many films that are have their biggest audience at a film festival before going to DVD. It’s an art form that sometimes makes loads of money.

A movie has to be released to be nominated for an Oscar, it doesn’t have to be be in wide release. Just because a film doesn’t have a wide audience doesn’t mean it’s bad, it might only appeal to certain audiences. Look at foreign language films; what is the last one your area cinema showed? Are they losers because most Americans don’t like reading subtitles? Of course not. Same thing with documentaries, it isn’t about the money, it’s about the storytelling, the art of storytelling with film as the medium.

 

[Robyn_p]

This movie is a loser if it was about box office (money). Few of heard of it or seen it. Which other number 1 Oscar movies have had this low a screening. Can you name them?.I just find it odd that this is the number 1 film of the year yet no one has heard of it.

I am glad to hear that the movie does take up the fact that the stories were being told already in the paper. Granted it was being done more locally by each area depending on which parishes the priests were in.

The diocese did cover this up. I think they were naive on how much damage they had done to these families. It was almost a utilitarian approach, damaged some families and pretend to be holy to preserve the whole of the church. How sad.

Most of these abusive priests came from one seminary - Saint John’s in Brighton.

I am also glad that it finally came out intensely because for so many families who trusted the church, their families and faith had been destroyed. That is the greatest tragedy.
**
Can you explain how the wider culture was complicit in the cover-up**?? Most had no real idea that this was even going on although there were this feeling in community that some boys had been subject to abuse in the church. New articles here and there on cases. If you mean that people in general just did not talk about child abuse by anyone during this time in history , that would make sense.

The movie shows how lawyers, law enforcement, family members and friends, and even the Globe itself all helped in the cover-up. In other words, it doesn’t just place the blame with the Church, though the Church did and does have the most responsibility. The culture at the time was very concerned with appearances, which is what led to the scandal. The film directs its criticism at this attitude.

It would have been nice if the movie acknowledged the huge reforms the Church has made since then to eliminate the abuse. It just ends with a list of locations where scandals took place. But at the same time, it wasn’t gleeful or gloating. When one of the journalists loses his faith, and says how he always thought he would eventually go back to Mass, but not anymore, the movie portrays this as a tragedy. It feels like something good was lost. Which is why I don’t think it really can be called anti-Catholic. It’s not friendly towards the Church, but it’s not hateful either.

 

[randomuser]

Not everyone makes films to make money. There are many films that are have their biggest audience at a film festival before going to DVD. It’s an art form that sometimes makes loads of money.

A movie has to be released to be nominated for an Oscar, it doesn’t have to be be in wide release. Just because a film doesn’t have a wide audience doesn’t mean it’s bad, it might only appeal to certain audiences. Look at foreign language films; what is the last one your area cinema showed? Are they losers because most Americans don’t like reading subtitles? Of course not. Same thing with documentaries, it isn’t about the money, it’s about the storytelling, the art of storytelling with film as the medium.

Documentaries are among the best movies being made right now - “Amy,” the documentary about Amy Winehouse, won Best Documentary Oscar. We’re in a Golden Age of Documentaries right now, with excellent movies like “Going Clear,” the Scientology-expose documentary which did qualify for an Oscar (because it did get a qualifying theatrical run before its broadcast on HBO) but didn’t make the shortlist of nominees, and the Tower Records documentary wasn’t nominated at all. Michael Moore’s first movie “Roger & Me” - about GM - was well ahead of its time, and for all the criticisms he gets, the current water crisis in Flint, Michigan was pretty much predicted by him.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Documentaries are among the best movies being made right now - “Amy,” the documentary about Amy Winehouse, won Best Documentary Oscar. We’re in a Golden Age of Documentaries right now, with excellent movies like “Going Clear,” the Scientology-expose documentary which did qualify for an Oscar (because it did get a qualifying theatrical run before its broadcast on HBO) but didn’t make the shortlist of nominees, and the Tower Records documentary wasn’t nominated at all. Michael Moore’s first movie “Roger & Me” - about GM - was well ahead of its time, and for all the criticisms he gets, the current water crisis in Flint, Michigan was pretty much predicted by him.

I saw Amy. It was very good. I would like to see a documentary about the whole Catholic Church abuse scandal. Spotlight was not a documtary. It was a movie with actors recreating events. Worth seeing though.

 

[gam197]

the answer I would like is why the cover up and why for so many years? why did the hierarchy of the Catholic church want to hide what aas being done to the most innocent? what was it they did not want to face?
we have announcements at every Mass now that any child under 10 that needs to use the restroom during Mass must be accompanied by an adult. Many of the incidents happened when children were alone with the priests. I can certainly understand the families discontinuing to stay in the Church when they were betrayed and lied to.
The Catholic Church has paid out a lot of money, but and asked forgiveness, but there hasn’t really been a lot of explanation about how this could have happened in the Church started by Jesus. Still a lot of secrets if you ask me.

These questions need to be asked but most of these people are now dead so there are few answers.

These cases took place in the 1950-1970’s. It was a period when people just did not talk about such things. They lived in a sheltered world where even the mention of sex to young children was not something that was addressed.

That all changed in the later 60’s but really even then the thought of molesting a child was not something people in general believe was going on anywhere.

I believe the Church had the same kind on naivety so when a parent went to the pastor, the pastor might report it but thought it was isolated. The hierarchy probably thought it was doing its best by sending some priests for therapy. Little was know about child molestation anywhere. ( Let’s face it the molesting priests did all they could to hide it.)

Since most was man on teen boy molestation, this might have been a factor in the cover-up.

 

[gam197]

The movie shows how lawyers, law enforcement, family members and friends, and even the Globe itself all helped in the cover-up. In other words, it doesn’t just place the blame with the Church, though the Church did and does have the most responsibility. The culture at the time was very concerned with appearances, which is what led to the scandal. The film directs its criticism at this attitude.

It would have been nice if the movie acknowledged the huge reforms the Church has made since then to eliminate the abuse. It just ends with a list of locations where scandals took place. But at the same time, it wasn’t gleeful or gloating. When one of the journalists loses his faith, and says how he always thought he would eventually go back to Mass, but not anymore, the movie portrays this as a tragedy. It feels like something good was lost. Which is why I don’t think it really can be called anti-Catholic. It’s not friendly towards the Church, but it’s not hateful either.

I can believe that some lawyers and some police officers covered it up again probably thinking it was isolated and that they were protecting the church. I remember when one police officer said he didn’t even remember the conversation because it was more or less a question mildly put to him whether it had to be reported.

I really doubt that family members covered it up. There were a number of dads in the Father Porter case that were ripping mad and went to the pastor who was a good pastor. They were so angry at the time but nothing was being done. I think the dads were more worldly and honest but few listened(like banging your head against the wall). That was the tragedy.

Also these children were singled out, often kids who had a single mother or family problems so the priest like any predator picked his prey carefully.

 

[Midwest88]

Right!
Charlize Theron plays a great, strong character (from what I’ve seen of the film) and both women and men want to see gutsy women on screen (and in real life too, of course!).

.

Speak for yourself. I just want interesting characters regardless if they’re female or male, “gusty” or whimsy.

I really liked Chris Rock’s opening comments about black actors not being offered the same opportunities – Stallone’s awkward Golden Globes speech is evidence of that – though I don’t think Stacy Dash (from “Clueless” and Fox News) did herself any favors with that Black History Month would-be joke.

No, Stallone’s awkward GG speech doesn’t prove such thing. There are more whites in acting that have an agent than any ethnic group in LA/NYC, therefore more roles will go to whites. I don’t think this due to any underlying systematic racism. And Michael B. Jordan was the lead. So your whole premise falls through.

It is interesting that the problems in regards to lack of opportunity given to Black actors etc. is happening in Hollywood, a place which is claimed to be so liberal.

Please stop it with this “lack of opportunity” BS with blacks. If you want to paint blacks as a victim then you also forgot Asians, Hispanics, Eastern European actors and Native Americans (lol Brando).

 

[Midwest88]

Not everyone makes films to make money. There are many films that are have their biggest audience at a film festival before going to DVD. It’s an art form that sometimes makes loads of money.

A movie has to be released to be nominated for an Oscar, it doesn’t have to be be in wide release. Just because a film doesn’t have a wide audience doesn’t mean it’s bad, it might only appeal to certain audiences. Look at foreign language films; what is the last one your area cinema showed? Are they losers because most Americans don’t like reading subtitles? Of course not. Same thing with documentaries, it isn’t about the money, it’s about the storytelling, the art of storytelling with film as the medium.

It all depends on where the cinema is located. There’s about four cinemas near my parents house. You travel a little east for about 10 minutes and it’s usually Hispanics and blacks. The movies shown cater to the demographic. You travel 20 minutes south and you enter a more white area, a little higher economic bracket, where limited releases are shown, but are only kept if ticket sales increase within the given two weeks. You travel 15 minutes west and you enter a similar community; mostly white and the screenings are somewhat similar to the aforementioned white community. The fourth caters to a middle class community where it’s a little of both the Hispanic, black and white crowd. The screenings are more kid friendly.

The Hispanic and black community screenings are basically night and day when compared to the white communities.

Now, if you travel 20 minutes within the city from parents house the limited releases increases once you enter the core of the city at various cinema houses.

The North Side of the city has more independent cinemas mainly housing indie stuff, though the indie kind that are shown at Venice, Cannes, Sundance etc. If you want more obscure stuff there’s one cinema house that does that as well, though the time schedule isn’t packed one after another, so if you want to catch a Ghibli movie in Japanese you have to get off work or skip class early.

If you travel further North you enter a university campus where a handful of indies are shown. Go figure because the area is mostly college students with the demographic leaning towards university educated a more liberal politics.

As for subtitles and Americans not liking them: I bet Americans see movies as a way to relax and to have fun. I don’t think it’s a negativity towards subtitles as it is a preference to what movies they like and whatever is marketed towards them. If Americans didn’t like subtitles then opera would be absolutely dead here in the US - and every time I went to the opera the place was usually packed, even the noise bleed sections.