"Crash" Wins Academy Award for Best Picture

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tonks40
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here’s a little sketch I came up with to celebrate that second-rate filmmaker and no-talent actor George Clooney getting passed up for an award.
George Clooney (on phone w/Michael Moore): “I thought you told me you still had some influence on the voting.”
Michael Moore: "And I thought you were a good actor. Go figure."click.
And I must be the only Catholic here who actually liked Shakespeare in Love.
 
40.png
rocklobster:
Here’s a little sketch I came up with to celebrate that second-rate filmmaker and no-talent actor George Clooney getting passed up for an award.
George Clooney (on phone w/Michael Moore): “I thought you told me you still had some influence on the voting.”
Michael Moore: "And I thought you were a good actor. Go figure."click.
And I must be the only Catholic here who actually liked Shakespeare in Love.
I like Shaekspoeare in Love-but it was not as good a movie as Saving Private Ryan.
 
Unless, hmm…maybe Hollywood isn’t as militantly Leftist as I thought it was?
Well all of the anti Brokeback people did enough whining… 😃 😛
 
40.png
rocklobster:
And I must be the only Catholic here who actually liked Shakespeare in Love.
I actually like Shakespeare but it was no where near Saving Private Ryan. Even Dame Judi Denuch couldn’t believe she one the best supporting actress for being on film for 8 mintues as queen elizabeth…That year showed that movie studio can almost buy an oscar win…
 
40.png
Liberalsaved:
I saw four, and I highly reccommend Capote. Only one I thought had the same shot as BM, though I was obviously wrong.

And I am exalted that Hoffman won.
My voice teacher knows Phillip Hoffman’s (guy that played Capote) wife. I must see that film.
 
40.png
CelticSword:
Naaaaaaah!!! That would undermine my right-wing bias against Hollywood, and I can’t have that, now, can I? :D;)

“Crash” is the only one of this year’s nominees that I’ve seen so far, and it compares well overall with other nominees from previous years, so it probably holds its own against the nominees from this year, as well. Fortunately, a lot of the nominated movies are coming out on DVD over the next 2-3 months.

I guess a lot of right-wingers have the following view of how the Oscars are selected. I used to think this way, but as I get older I find it harder and harder to believe in conspiracies of any kind, unless only a very few people were involved:

*** How it should be:***

Academy member #1: “Hey, #2! Did you see Crash? How about Brokeback? Which way are you leaning for Best Picture? I thought Paul Haggis did a fantastic job intertwining all those stories, and I could really empathize with almost all of the characters. To tell you the truth, I thought Brokeback was good, but a little boring.”

Academy member #2: “I haven’t decided yet. I thought Crash was a terrific ensemble piece, but I don’t know necessarily if I found it more moving than Brokeback. Yeah, I guess the whole ‘gay cowboy’ thing made me a little queasy at first, but I can’t deny that Ang Lee made a very powerful movie. I’m leaning toward Brokeback.”

How we sometimes fear it is:

*** Academy member #1: “Listen, Crash is great, but it’s time for us to really stand up to President Bush and all that he represents. We have to get it through the heads of these backwards, inbred numbskulls in flyover country that homosexuality is not a bad thing! I mean, how many gay people in red states are going to be beaten to death tonight by Bush voters who are just too stupid to know any better? Our commitment to social justice obligates us to vote for Brokeback Mountain.”

Academy member #2: “You’ve gone nuts. Gay people are not being beaten to death by Jed and Jethro Republican, for crying out loud! The real threat is the threat to free speech posed by this administration. My agent is saying I can’t speak out against the administration’s criminal lack of protection of the spotted owl from Big Lumber, because it will offend half my audience. Who the heck cares what the audience thinks?? It’s all about the Oscar, right?! We must send a message for all the world to hear, that Hollywood will not be silenced! We must therefore vote for Good Night and Good Luck.”

Ridiculous, yes? 🙂

Maybe not entirely, though, in some quarters. Here’s someone who thinks that by voting for Crash, the Academy missed a chance to “strike a blow against Republican wedge politics and extremist religious hatemongering…Turns out Hollywood is as homophobic as Red State country.”
Well, they gave the Best pic to an anti-racist movie and best director to a movie about two gay men. There’s certainly a very very very small case for agenda, but you’d really have to stretch it.

This year bucked a far more important trend that even people Roger Ebert agree points to a very different kind of agenda; giving the Oscar to a movie that can still pull box office off of it. Almost every movie that wins best pic is either still released in theaters, or re-released in time for Oscar, as well as nearly every nominee. Look at this year; Crash bucked that trend to win, but all the other four films are still playing. It really is about money most years, and I have to fear that the best pic catagory wouldn’t have been dominated by indy films had there been anything “hollywood” worth pushing.
 
40.png
LaSalle:
It’s about quality eh?!

Well, I doubt you will think Crash is better than Brokeback.
I doubted I could think anything was in a league with Capote, so I’ll wait for when I see it to decide. Which ones are hitting DVD soon? I mean, of any major catagories? Constant Gardener is already out, right? Now, I’ll say; I have a feeling no matter what Crash acheives, CG should have had it’s spot, because that was a dang fine movie. But we’ll see.
 
40.png
SpiritIsWilling:
I don’t think that’s completely true. Granted, Hollywood is full of lies, but there are some good movies that are released. Kingdom of Heaven. Narnia. Lord of the Rings. The Last Samurai. Millions. Just to name a few.
Sorry, you lost me at Kingdom of Heaven. That was *the *worst movie ever made in the history of cinema. Historically inaccurate, terrible character development, no plot, anti-Christian, blah…
 
If I was a betting man, I would put my money on the fact that Hollywood did horrendous this past summer at the box office and sales have continually declined.
 
40.png
BillyT92679:
The left-wing domination of film is truly unfortunate. Film is really one of America’s greatest art forms, our truest and most American really.
And it was dominated for years by cowboy movies, murder mysteries, romantic dramas and "flag-wavers’ (can’t think of a better term, not trying to insult). Now we are in an era when controversial issues can be freely filmed. I think that if people like John Ford had the opportunity for freedom in film that we have today, he’d have taken it. After all The Searchers was, subject matter wise, one of the most revolutionary films of it’s day. He took on racism when most people probably still agreed with Wayne’s character.

I do think people tend to look back for some golden age of film, but two flaws exist with that:
  1. There was no golden age. There was as much crud as good stuff put out, and probably more. I mean, out of all the movies that got made, I’ll bet one in ten or twenty today hold up as a classic, and the rest we’ve just forgotten.
  2. Those filmmakers of the so-called golden age would be making films like the ones nominated if they were young filmmakers today. John Wayne was the exact opposite of his screen persona. I guarantee you if he had had the freedom in film making we have today he’d have used it, as would Ford and all the rest.
 
40.png
mike182d:
Sorry, you lost me at Kingdom of Heaven. That was *the *worst movie ever made in the history of cinema. Historically inaccurate, terrible character development, no plot, anti-Christian, blah…
It wasn’t anti-Christian. It was showing how the crusades were more about profit to the soldiers in them on either side than about reclaiming the Holy Land. Which, if you bother to read a history book, is absolutely true.
 
40.png
Liberalsaved:
It wasn’t anti-Christian. It was showing how the crusades were more about profit to the soldiers in them on either side than about reclaiming the Holy Land. Which, if you bother to read a history book, is absolutely true.
I have read *many *history books on the subject and this was a horribly inaccurate depiction of the Crusades and *especially *the Knights Templar. Furthermore, there were so *many *Crusades, spanning several hundred years, that you cannot lump them into one event. The first couple Crusades, including the incident spawning the 3rd Crusade that is depicted in Kingdom of Heaven, if I’m not mistaken, were not horrible, unjust atrocities by the Roman Catholic Church. It wasn’t until later - in particular the sack of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade - that most virtue was lost from these battles.

edit: Let me qualify that remark. There were *always *atrocities throughout the Crusades as there are *always *atrocities committed by human beings every waking moment. Rather, these atrocities were not the purpose of the Crusades nor were they endorsed or supported by those who began the Crusades.
 
40.png
Liberalsaved:
It wasn’t anti-Christian. It was showing how the crusades were more about profit to the soldiers in them on either side than about reclaiming the Holy Land. Which, if you bother to read a history book, is absolutely true.
I have studed the Crusades extensivey and what you say is absolutely not true. There was very little proift to be made by the soldiers involved in the crusades.To say that is as silly as claiming we went into Iraq for oil.

The main purpose of the crusades was to stop the advance of radical Islam into Europe. Reataking the Holy and was a by product of that.
 
40.png
estesbob:
I have studed the Crusades extensivey and what you say is absolutely not true. There was very little proift to be made by the soldiers involved in the crusades.To say that is as silly as claiming we went into Iraq for oil.

The main purpose of the crusades was to stop the advance of radical Islam into Europe. Reataking the Holy and was a by product of that.
They expected to be lavished as great kings and whatnot for winning. The popes are the ones who spun the holy war thing. The soldiers obviously didn’t get what they wanted; most got dead.
 
40.png
estesbob:
To say that is as silly as claiming we went into Iraq for oil.
Careful estesbob…I wouldn’t be surprised if they believed that 🙂
 
40.png
mike182d:
I have read *many *history books on the subject and this was a horribly inaccurate depiction of the Crusades and *especially *the Knights Templar. Furthermore, there were so *many *Crusades, spanning several hundred years, that you cannot lump them into one event. The first couple Crusades, including the incident spawning the 3rd Crusade that is depicted in Kingdom of Heaven, if I’m not mistaken, were not horrible, unjust atrocities by the Roman Catholic Church. It wasn’t until later - in particular the sack of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade - that most virtue was lost from these battles.

edit: Let me qualify that remark. There were *always *atrocities throughout the Crusades as there are *always *atrocities committed by human beings every waking moment. Rather, these atrocities were not the purpose of the Crusades nor were they endorsed or supported by those who began the Crusades.
  1. It was a big-budget action flick. So yes, liberties were taken. However, even if it did lump them all together, the fact remains that as in everything, most of the people at the bottom rung were entirely out of touch with the bosses. One of the Crusades didn’t even make it. I belevie they decided to raid their fellows in Constantinople instead. Heck, the most devoted crusade to the cause was the Unofficial “People’s Crusade”, and they were a rag-tag bunch of peasants who got slaughtered.
The popes of the day can be used to say “This was a holy war” as much as you want. But the fact is most soldiers were either just trying to make a living, or they were in it for the (hyperbole alert) personal glory of ripping the holy land from the hands of the savage infidels.
 
40.png
Liberalsaved:
They expected to be lavished as great kings and whatnot for winning.
Most of the people leading and fighting the Crusades *were already Kings, *were already wealthy, and were giving as much as they could to help the effort *without *the promise of profit.

The first Crusade should be your tip-off. The reason why they lost the Holy Land again was because after the 1st Crusade they all returned home. They had no interest in conquest or expansion unlike their Muslim aggressors. It was about freeing the Holy Land and once they thought they accomplished this, they left.
The popes are the ones who spun the holy war thing. The soldiers obviously didn’t get what they wanted; most got dead.
The term “holy war” is non-existant in Christianity until their encounter with Muslim aggression. This term was adopted by the West from their Muslim aggressors.
 
Liberalsaved said:
1. It was a big-budget action flick. So yes, liberties were taken. However, even if it did lump them all together, the fact remains that as in everything, most of the people at the bottom rung were entirely out of touch with the bosses. One of the Crusades didn’t even make it. I belevie they decided to raid their fellows in Constantinople instead.

Yes, I stated that that was the 4th Crusade and a sad day for the West. However, the sacking of Constantinople was not ordered by the Church, but it was after a series of complicated, and grave, misunderstanings by both parties.
Heck, the most devoted crusade to the cause was the Unofficial “People’s Crusade”, and they were a rag-tag bunch of peasants who got slaughtered.
Please provide documented proof of this. The most “devoted” Crusade was the first one which is why it was so amazingly succesful.
The popes of the day can be used to say “This was a holy war” as much as you want. But the fact is most soldiers were either just trying to make a living, or they were in it for the (hyperbole alert) personal glory of ripping the holy land from the hands of the savage infidels.
Ripping the Holy Land from who? The Holy Land was a Roman province and Christian land since the liberation of Christians in the Roman Empire. Islam did not rise until the mid-5th Century and *they *ripped it from the Christians. “Holy war” is an Islamic term that did not exist in the Christian language until after their exposure to their Muslim aggressors.
 
Gosh, I really wanted Walk teh Line to wine. I thin that I may have been the only one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top