'Brokeback' Author Peeved About Oscar Loss

[Petergee]

ezra1892:

Listen here backwards person, STOP trying to stop CHANGE. Umm, yeah it was an amazing film not because of the **** you just posted. It speaks for itself. It was great, far better than some of those weird Religious movies you people like like ‘Narnia’

Um, what change exactly is it which you think I’m trying to stop? Are you trying to say that the purpose of BBM was to promote the idea that sodomy is good? And what makes you think I like Narnia? In fact I posted a critical comment on Narnia here recently.

 

[auppie]

ezra1892:

Listen here backwards person, STOP trying to stop CHANGE. Umm, yeah it was an amazing film not because of the **** you just posted. It speaks for itself. It was great, far better than some of those weird Religious movies you people like like ‘Narnia’

Could you please explain what you mean about “…you people…”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Annie Proulx, whose 1997 short story inspired the film “Brokeback Mountain,” has penned a scattershot blast in a British newspaper unleashing her anger over the film’s best-picture Oscar loss.Proulx criticizes Oscar voters and the Academy Awards ceremony in the 1,094-word rant, which appeared in Saturday’s issue of The Guardian, a liberal paper boasting 1.2 million readers daily.

The best-picture Oscar went to “Crash,” which focuses on race relations in Los Angeles.

Whole Article:
movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=218583&GT1=7701

If someone takes my missal and keeps it - then I have lost it.​

If I want to get a missal, but fail to - I have not lost that missal, because I never had it in the first place. I will merely not have it. But I will still have what I already had.

This notion that people have lost what they never had to begin with, is IMO responsible for a great deal of loose thinking. Businesses have not lost one penny, when they fail to make millions more than they already had; yet failing to make more, is constantly treated as having lost what one had, whe one has merely been unable to increase what one had, or to increase it as much as one would like.

Surely half the definition of a prize is, that it is something one *might *win; but then again, might not win. IOW, a prize is something one does not have an absolute right to possess; it is something that is deserved by the winner, but not certain of being won that one can be certain one will win it; there is an element of uncertainty in the winning of it - until one actually possesses it.

So here. She’s lost nothing - she has merely failed to win something; & there is always another time. ##

 

[Hastrman]

The whole Academy Award process has been a total sham for about four years. The Lord of the Rings movies, which really aren’t very good, sweeping up; the total boycott of the Passion; nothing that isn’t just ‘drama’ ever getting a decent nomination like best picture–it all comes down to being a bunch of posers. And they haven’t nominated any movies anyone actually saw in two years.

Oh, wait, Johnny Depp got nominated Best Actor for the first Pirates, in which he was brilliant. So maybe not a total sham. But still 90% sham.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Listen here backwards person, STOP trying to stop CHANGE. Umm, yeah it was an amazing film not because of the **** you just posted. It speaks for itself. It was great, far better than some of those weird Religious movies you people like like ‘Narnia’

“You people”? What if I were to call blacks, hispanics, or gays “you people”? I guarentee I would get a tonguelashing by liberals and be labeled a bigot.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Liberalsaved]

The whole Academy Award process has been a total sham for about four years. The Lord of the Rings movies, which really aren’t very good, sweeping up; the total boycott of the Passion; nothing that isn’t just ‘drama’ ever getting a decent nomination like best picture–it all comes down to being a bunch of posers. And they haven’t nominated any movies anyone actually saw in two years.

Oh, wait, Johnny Depp got nominated Best Actor for the first Pirates, in which he was brilliant. So maybe not a total sham. But still 90% sham.

I deeply disagree about Lord of the Rings. A wonderful blast of daring at a time when most of what Hollywood offers is watered down and barely digestable. It was a such a bold undertaking it certainly deserved to walk away with those awards.

 

[Liberalsaved]

What a baby.

I saw BBM, and “gay themes” aside, I thought it was boring. Ang Lee is not a good director (“Hulk”, anyone?).

“Crash” wasn’t much better, but I liked it more than BBM. Whatever.

Just my opinion.

Hmmmm. Liked Hulk. A superhero movie that delt with psychological issues was exactly what I wanted. Hulk is not a character that was brought into existence just to smash things.

Loved Brokeback, and have to disagree. Ang Lee is a fantastic director who can make me care about the corniest of movies (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon).

Crash was also brilliant, and dared to take on racism head on in a country where blacks are still relegated to mostly sacharine, uninventive roles. Don’t know if it should have won but the competition was actually stiff last year.

 

[Liberalsaved]

What I see here is Catholics giving perfectly sane comments about the author’s crazy dummy-spit, not about the film itself. Talk about misrepresentation…

And your definition of a “better” and “groundbreaking” film appears to be “one that promotes misuse of sexuality and so causes people to object to it”. The fact that people find something offensive doesn’t mean that it must be good. Talk about puerile…

I didn’t like it because it was controversial. I liked it because it was well-done. I am sure, as I usually am, that I am wrong.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What a baby.

I saw BBM, and “gay themes” aside, I thought it was boring. Ang Lee is not a good director (“Hulk”, anyone?).

“Crash” wasn’t much better, but I liked it more than BBM. Whatever.

Just my opinion.

I rather liked “The Hulk” - I had no ideas as to the identity of the director. I’ve not seen the others.​

As for the moral aspect, ISTM that gays, blacks, Jews, Catholics, atheists and all sorts, whether one likes them or not, are equally entitled to have their activities feature in films. They are all equally part of life - assuming, that is, that one’s film is meant to be life-like, rather than a fantasy, say. Making films about [insert name of group] is not the same as expressing approval of that group. Is “Bonfire of the Vanities” “propaganda” for capitalism ? Hardly ##

 

[Peter_Wright]

This is your friendly neighborhood moderator. Please keep this thread on the up-and-up, or I will be required to divert your attention elsewhere. There have been rumblings about incivility here and we just will not have any of that nonsense. Thank you.

 

[hasikelee]

I saw Crash and really liked it. Perhaps not the story itself, but the way the plot was intricately connected is something I greatly admire in a movie or book.

 

[CathCentrist]

Yes, I like Crash as well as Brokeback Mountain. Both are well made and told stories of imperfect people/sinners. I dont need a movie about these themes to end in people coming to God and “seeing the light” in order to enjoy them. Though I do admit seeing a few made to end in that manner wouldnt be so bad either.

 

[Liberalsaved]

Yes, I like Crash as well as Brokeback Mountain. Both are well made and told stories of imperfect people/sinners. I dont need a movie about these themes to end in people coming to God and “seeing the light” in order to enjoy them. Though I do admit seeing a few made to end in that manner wouldnt be so bad either.

Have you seen “Saved!”?

 

[CathCentrist]

No, but I’ve heard of it. I dont mind satire poked at religion, but if its message is that all the sinners are the ones who are truly good and the religious are all intolerant, (which I heard but havent confirmed) I dont have much interest.

 

[Liberalsaved]

No, but I’ve heard of it. I dont mind satire poked at religion, but if its message is that all the sinners are the ones who are truly good and the religious are all intolerant, (which I heard but havent confirmed) I dont have much interest.

That’s easily the narrowest interpretation of the film I’ve heard. Not what I took from it at all.

 

[CathCentrist]

Like I said, I havent seen it yet, its just what I have read. Btw, what interpretation did you take away from it?

 

[Liberalsaved]

Like I said, I havent seen it yet, its just what I have read. Btw, what interpretation did you take away from it?

Mostly that what you call yourself matters less than the actions you take, and that anyone can change for the better with effort. It was a very hopeful message to me.

 

[CathCentrist]

But did it end with basically showing those who the Church consider to be sinners as being the more evolved and tolerant and kind and smarter than those who are actually members of their religion? Was there a mix? Was the entire “people can change at any time” aimed at those who claimed to follow Jesus teachings? If at least a mix I would watch it, but if not, it still seems like propaganda.

Bottom line if its nothing but those who claim to be religious being shown as intolerant and those who arent religious being the even tempered and shown as the enlightened ones all the way thru, I dont think I’d get much out of it except annoyed cuz that would be a propaganda piece.

 

[Liberalsaved]

But did it end with basically showing those who the Church consider to be sinners as being the more evolved and tolerant and kind and smarter than those who are actually members of their religion? Was there a mix? Was the entire “people can change at any time” aimed at those who claimed to follow Jesus teachings? If at least a mix I would watch it, but if not, it still seems like propaganda.

Bottom line if its nothing but those who claim to be religious being shown as intolerant and those who arent religious being the even tempered and shown as the enlightened ones all the way thru, I dont think I’d get much out of it except annoyed cuz that would be a propaganda piece.

I don’t want to spoil it, but it didn’t end that way, no. I thought all of the characters were flawed but likeable, and it did not reduce “sides” to simplicity like most movies do.

 

[CathCentrist]

I notice nobody else chiming in - Didnt anyone else watch this?