I'm a man of my word. I boycotted the Oscars because the Oscars boycotted The Passion of the Christ. My take on the film that should have won this year's best picture award is here, my take on last year's nominees is here, and my take on this year's program is nowhere since I didn't watch. Million Dollar Baby won best picture, Clint Eastwood won best director, Jamie Foxx won best actor, Hillary Swank won best actress, Morgan Freeman won best supporting actor, and Cate Blanchett won best supporting actress. If you did watch, feel free to use the comments section to fill the rest of us in.

Sigh...I should have called Vegas and bet the farm on Million Dollar Baby. I knew that, as sure as the sun will set, Hollywood will select the movie that pushes whatever bulls*** agenda issue that's currently in favor. This year, it's euthanasia. If the "issue" movie doesn't win the big awards, its at least nominated for everything, be it abortion (cider house rules), anti-war (thin red line, private ryan), anti-death penalty (dead man walking, green mile) or gays and lesbians (way too numerous to mention, but The Hours and Being John Malkovich come to mind as big nominees). In any event, I'm currently in one of the strangest countries in the world (Tunisia), but I must confess that it's nice to be somewhere where the TV is not rife with the crap that Hollywood embraces and they could truly care less about the Oscars. I think I truly could care less about the Oscars as well. Though, in truth, I wish I had placed that bet.

I must admit I did not watch the Oscars. I would not waste time watching Hollywood glorify themsleves. Didn't the "Passion of the Christ" earn more revenue than any film last year? How does it not even get considered. I think this is just another example of how out of touch with main-stream America Hollywood is.

I told Homer J. Fong not to bet the ranch on "Million Dollar Baby." I really thought "The Aviator" had a chance because Scorsese had never won best director and the critics love him (and it was his best movie by far as well as the only "real Hollywood" movie nominated). But I forgot that in presenting Howard Hughes' story sympathetically, Scorsese had inadvertently showed a positive side to capitalism and free trade. As God is my witness, I will never underestimate the moronic, diseased ideology that permeates Hollywood again.

Forgive me Homer. You were right.

Dan,

Here's what you missed: 1) Hollywood celebrated assisted suicide. And 2) its greatest living director was once again goes oscar-less---perhaps for having wanted to make a film about Christ (however much it upset the traditionally religious in America), that makes his sacrafice significant of anything.

Jamie Foxx wins best actor award for “Ray”. Did a great job in it and played the part effortlessly. Next up for him: “Ray – the sequel”, “Ray – the threquel”. And I like Clint, but awards for Best Director twice? Shows that Hollywood dislikes directors unless they were once actors. Ultimately, who gives a bleep!

Dan,

It didn't take long for Chris Rock to start bashing our President:

"I'm not going to bash Bush...but imagine this... he did some sh*t that no one could have pulled off."

"He ran the country 70 billion dollars in debt, started a war, and didn't lose his job. Imagine you are a cashier at the GAP, and at the end of your shift, your register is 70 billion dollars short. Wouldn't you lose your job? How about if you start a war at Banana Republic because they are selling fire-breathing tank tops. After winning the war, you realize they hadn't sold them in them in the first place."

Good an*logy chris, except the GAP didn't kill hundreds of thousdands of KURDS, ignore dozens of UN resolutions, and kill its own people for financial gain.

Applause by the Hollywood liberal elite. Speak the truth....SPEAK IT!

Chris - at least they got Rock to stop cussin' for four hours.

A music reviewer on NPR did a series of commentaries on the various Oscar nominees for film score and then gave his pick as John Debney for "Passion." I suggest anyone interested do a search on NPR's site, Andy Trudeau is the name of the music critic.

Anyway, his commentary was basically excellent and when you listen to the excerpts of the various scores it is a no-brainer that Passion's is far superior to all the others. Yet . . . "Finding Neverland" won for score. I think a category like this and the Academy's rejection of the genius of Debney's score for the fluff and derivative score of FN is a perfect example of how the Oscars have nothing to do with recognizing artistic achievement in film anymore. It is easy to focus on the big snubs of Passion (actor categories, film, direction) but the extension of this prejudice into what, albeit integral artistically, are much more innocuous and free standing Oscar categories, then the jig is up.

If a show claims to be an awards show where artistic achievement is being recognized and yet the awards are routinely given based on consideration of politics, ideology, propaganda, fad of the week, etc., then the reason for the show to even exist has disappeared. Therefore, I see no reason to bother watching the Oscars and haven't for at least 5 years.

You see, the thing about Hollywood is that: If you ignore them...they REALLY WILL go away.

I suppose it's all mildly entertaining but really: who cares!

Had some paint drying that needed to be watched but I was tempted as Chris Rock IS a funny, irreverent b*stard.

Love the movies but all in all the O's are a drag.

Believe me, there are plenty of good reasons not to waste your time on such self-congratulatory nonsense as award shows. But isn't it a bit immature to "boycott" a show because a movie you liked didn't get nominated? Who cares?

About your comments on "Million Dollar Baby" -- if I was completely ignorant of Eastwood, I would leave this board thinking he was some liberal elitist. The fact is that he is a huge Republican. He seems like a genuinely good guy.

This chunk of conservatives (e.g. those who whine about endings to movies, those who complain about everything that isn't "family entertainment") is simply annoying. They rightly want the government to stay out of economic affairs, but hypocritically demand government interference with social ones.

To further illustrate my point: I was reading a newsbit on the Concerned Women for America website, and one comment they made was something to the effect of, "The First Amendment does not protect obscenity!" Actually, yes it does. This is not Iran, thank God. As others have said, you do not have a constitutional right to not be offended.

[end tirade]

(The "your" in "About your comments" is addressed to some of the viewers' comments above, not Flynn.)

Of course the constitution does not protect obscenity Ben, it protects political speech from interference by Congress. That is it. That is all it does. And yes this isn't Iran, what does that have to do with anything?

Also, Eastwood is a libertarian. This site is dotted with conservatives and conservatives freely criticize libertarians, so that explains that one.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The language is plain and simple. The government cannot abridge freedom of speech. Period.

"And yes this isn't Iran, what does that have to do with anything?"

This isn't a religious theocracy where "blasphemy" is illegal. We can say whatever we'd like. (Don't give me the "fire in a crowded theory" speech. I am well aware of that exception.)

Ben L.,

I you want to go on thinking that Thomas Jefferson who backed statues against "lewd talk" in public, was thinking of protecting your right to porn in his "Jeffersonian" democracy, don't let history get in your way.

In part, you didn't even look at what you quoted: the part you missed is that congress shall make no law. It is a different thing entirely to argue that that means there shall be no law. And at no time in this country, even back when they regularly banned obscenity, has it ever been Iran.

As skeptical as the founding fathers were about government, and centralized govenment, I doubt that even they would argue that they were putting a social plan together that would be followed in corners of the country, or somebody's going to come to your town and read you the constitution. This is a 20th century invention.

To expand basic civil rights to a right to abortion or to assist in suicide is saying that the individual has the right to decide for themselves when something is murder. Peter Singer thinks that we ought to be able to expose children up to a couple months old, I'm sure he does it's best to make it sound rational---and you probably even get a few people to buy into that. The only saving grace that we have going against that is a sort of busybodyism which does not want to live in such a society, and isn't quite ready (not yet at least) to consider it a "private" matter.

But to get the government SS off our back, we really should have such a right, because we are for a smaller government. And after all it does cost the government money to send police out to sites, we'd probably save money and could cut the budget, take less in taxes, and would avoid the burden of public housing for the infants were we to take them away from those parents. Budget cuts all around. And we must be living in utopia, after all the government is smaller.

One more thing, Ben. I find it quite odd that you are criticizing people here for raising sarcastic voices against Hollywood. So what if you don't like to hear people who want every movie to be family entertainment?

"This chunk of conservatives (e.g. those who whine about endings to movies, those who complain about everything that isn't "family entertainment") is simply annoying."

Well, let me qualify myself in that regard. I thought American Beauty was superb, and As Good as it Gets is one of my favorite movies. As well, as I should mention that I find Fight Club probably one of the most innovative and thematically thought-provoking films of recent years.

Come to think of it, another guy here, liked Silence of the Lambs quite a bit. So it's looking more and more like a strawman.

But even were there somebody to opine that Hollywood should only make movies that are the level of Bambi, they aren't necessarily proscribing against it, even if they are prescribing it. But even should be think the way you dislike, I take it he still gets his say. After all we are talking about free speech. Now wouldn't it be silly to say that I was intolerant of his speech if I took a contrary position? Of course it would.

And essentially, the case you cite is only hypocritcal if you hold to the creed that economics are equivalent to social issues, and argue that there is a creed of "less government interference" in all stages of life. And that kind of purism is something I would expect from a libertarian.

Economics has always been argued for a collective effect or good, all the way back to Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations. He sold it to the rulers of his time on the basis that capitalism was a better form of Mercantilism. Since then the invisible hand has been evoked provide the maximum benefit to the maximum amount of people. It's something that we agree to engage in because we all agree it works well.

We don't give the "invisible hand" free reign because it keeps on dropping money onto one person's pile, and doggone it you'd better not interfere with that hand because you're messing in another person's business. Society engages in markets for the good of society.

Hmmm...I guess that "conservatives...want happy endings..." business is directed at my comments. First of all, if Bambi is the metric, I'll take American Beauty. Second, I have kids so I naturally think about what kind of filth they'll be exposed to as a matter of course. Third, I have no problem with ANY movie being made. I think if you want to tell some story with themes I personally find objectionable (Cider House Rules, Million Dollar Baby, Some Crazy Goofy Cartoon I can't remember the name of, or Bambi), go ahead. What I can't stand is that there is clearly some "pushing" of values coming from Hollywood and from the media they partly control.

Go ahead and make a movie that extolls the glories of male to male sodomy. I just should not be force-fed "news" about how ground-breaking the movie is, and the implicit idea that anyone that thinks it's disgusting is a neanderthal. And I think I speak for a great many people in saying that is how much of Hollywood makes us feel.

"I you want to go on thinking that Thomas Jefferson who backed statues against "lewd talk" in public, was thinking of protecting your right to porn in his "Jeffersonian" democracy, don't let history get in your way."

It makes no difference to me what Jefferson's views on pornography were. He was probably too busy having affairs with his slave to discuss such "lewd" matters.

'Ol TJ is not a man I look to when examining moral issues.

"To expand basic civil rights to a right to abortion or to assist in suicide is saying that the individual has the right to decide for themselves when something is murder."

Where did this come from? I'm against abortion, and I think Peter Singer is a maniac. Assisted suicide is a different issue, because I think any adult should have the right to do to himself as he pleases. If he wants to moronically intake drugs, or waste his money g*mbling (why do I have to censor this word, by the way?), or even selfishly kill himself, he should be legally allowed to do so.

"I find it quite odd that you are criticizing people here for raising sarcastic voices against Hollywood."

It has nothing to do with "raising sarcastic voices against Hollywood." I loathe these know-nothing celebrities. When Selma Hayek glowingly described that Communist killer Che Guevara before introducing some lame music, it was sickening. All I meant to say is that these socially conservative groups like Dobson's Focus on the Family and the Concerned Women for America are as annoying and bad, to put it simply, as any socialist left-wing group trying to turn this country into Canada. I've had enough of both segments of the political world. I have no problem with profanity and I love capitalism: that's why I'm a libertarian.

I have to disagree with that last, Ben. Both philosophically and empirically, Focus' goals are more compatible with libertarianism than socialist engineers' goals.

Focus on the Family seeks their goals through legislation, as is their right as a citizens' advocacy group. They also recognize that life isn't just political; their primary ministry isn't in the courts but to mothers, fathers, and children; their primary message is living wholesomely, regardless of what else happens in society.

On the other hand, the statutes governing porn and public obscenity weren't changed by legislatures but struck down as unconstitutional by federal courts, at the behest of the meddlesome social tinkerers you blithely equate with Focus on the Family. It is only one of a myriad of changes they've imposed without consent of the governed.

We can just scroll up for the debate on the propriety of that; I agree with those who say that it isn't a federal matter, but it may well be a state and local matter, just as there are dry towns and counties, and states that permit ca-sinos while others ban them. It's both more rational and more fair to let the states decide this sort of thing via legislation: vote people in who'll make the law you prefer regarding porn, "windowless restaurants," riverboat gam-bling, etc. If all else fails, we always have the freedom to leave for a state whose laws better suit us.

In other words, Focus' efforts, if successful, would permit state laws defining and prohibiting pornography, not federally outlaw it. That still leaves the libertarian free to campaign against such laws or go where there aren't any. It's not a perfect match, but it isn't wholly inconsistent.

(As compared to Dan's site, which won't even let me type c-a-s-i-n-o! Fight the Power! Attica! Attica!)

Good points, Nightfly.

Ben, I believe I lumped you in with a number of libertarians that I've discussed things with. Forgive me. Sometimes I jump the gun on gaging where people are coming from.

"It makes no difference to me what Jefferson's views on pornography were....Ol TJ is not a man I look to when examining moral issues."

First off, I wasn't talking about Jefferson on moral matters. It was in reference to what limits Jefferson, often cited by libertarians, saw on free speech. We still had a constitution and Congress still made no law.

"Where did this come from? I'm against abortion, and I think Peter Singer is a maniac."

I didn't say that you backed Singer. I'm saying that if more people consider this a "private matter" via Singer's rationale, then staying out of this has the argument of less intrusion and smaller government. And the person who wants to advance their argument this way can accuse you of being inconsistent. I rather hoped that you would feel that way. The rhetoric is more effective if we agree. I was just trying to expand the argument in as many ways as I could util I could couch in terms of "smaller, less intrusive government". You'll excuse me if it seems that I was trying to pin that viewpoint on you.

If you hold the line on "government intrusion" in this case, I wouldn't take it as your being hypocritical. In politics we often have to deal with not only how we define things, but as well, how other parties will redefine your principles. One cannot be worried that one is going to call you a hypocrite simply because they expand principles further than you are willing to.

"Assisted suicide is a different issue, because I think any adult should have the right to do to himself as he pleases."

"Himself" (or "herself") is the issue A genuine suicide cannot be punished. So, people still have as much freedom as they have ever had. So I have no problem with the words as you put them. I disagree that others "should" have the right to assist them. I don't argue that people do not have the right, I just disagree that that there is any superior moral force that dictates that this should be the case.

I should think that the society is going overboard if the instant that it appears that you want to kill yourself, they lock you in a quiet room with a straightjacket so that you can be prevented at all costs from doing yourself in. But if you do want to indicate to everyone that you're life is no longer "worth" living, then you should put a little fight behind that belief. I don't want to live in a society where when somebody says "I'm seriously thinking about killing myself" the society's reply is "Oh...well, it's a free country." It may be just me, but this extreme version of freedom is just not worth the price in the value of a life that makes the choice.

Also, if we gray the lines at assisted suicide, we've added to the number of cases where you can be spotted by an eyewitness walking away from a corpse with a legit reason. Or we've increased the cases where somebody is the last to see somebody alive but has a plausible reason. If we argue "privacy" in such a case, then we should not be able to review these cases.

If everyone involved in something that they are willing to call "an assisted suicide" has to stand a murder trial, then we can come the closest to establishing a fact it was an assisted suicide and nothing else. I would accept a society which says, you'll be tried, but we can make allowances for what can be clearly shown to be mercy.

"It has nothing to do with 'raising sarcastic voices against Hollywood.'"

Yes, it does, because that's what enough of us were doing. But yet you talked about people having a right not to be offended. That Hollywood has a consistent agenda that they trumpet as "art" to cow everyone into silence is probably more offensive to me than the content of any one movie. But I more wish they "get real" than "shup up". (Probably the actual BJ in Brown Bunny goes way beyond what should be allowed in a movie, but even now people are arguing that it was a meaningful actual BJ, and leant to the story., the characters, whatever.)

"I believe I lumped you in with a number of libertarians that I've discussed things with. Forgive me."

No problem, glad we cleared some things up.

You had some very interesting arguments against assisted suicide, so I'm going to reconsider my position on that particular issue. I think that, perhaps, there should be allowances for it *only* in a closed and observed setting such as a hospital.

"you talked about people having a right not to be offended."

I think you misread me here. I said that people do *not* have the right not to be offended. (This is one of the reasons why speech codes on campuses are such nonsense).

"(Probably the actual BJ in Brown Bunny goes way beyond what should be allowed in a movie, but even now people are arguing that it was a meaningful actual BJ, and leant to the story., the characters, whatever.)"

Believe me, I share your skepticism of the ridiculous, pretentious, BS explanation for an inclusion like that. However, I strongly disagree with you when you use the words "beyond what should be allowed." Why shouldn't it be *allowed*? I have no desire to see such a scene, but I cannot think of a single legitimate reason why it should be legally impermissible for someone else to do so.

-ben

Ben, short(as I can be) and sweet:

"However, I strongly disagree with you when you use the words 'beyond what should be allowed.' Why shouldn't it be *allowed*?"

I think what I meant by that was either the the parent studio or distributer shouldn't have allowed it, but I think the first action against anybody would be some sort of boycott.

However, I could do with a lot less this mainstreaming of porn that we are seeing these days. The Gallo thing is part of the process to make what used to be porn into accessible media. The frequent porn jokes on sticoms another arm.

I expect that pretty soon, artists will be telling us that we cannot really know their characters until we see how they have sex or what acts they perform. And somebody will always be waiting in the wings to break new ground (because that's seems to be the rationale of art these days, staking one's own wrinkle-echoniche) and do what people haven't yet done.

There is a certain argument to that, and I will admit that, but what is the social cost to engage this side of the argument? But there is another side. It is porn that is becoming popular. That means that I put up with bad lighting, bad dialogue, bad delivery, paper-thin characters, no development and no plot just to see immerse myself the central attraction. The push to legitimize porn has a lot more to do with our red-faced acceptance at what porn is, than our appreciation of art.

We know what Joe Buck did, does Urban Cowboy become that much deeper of a movie if we see it. Will Travis Bickle, Johnny Boy Civello or Vito Corleone emerge with that much greater clarity if we see them in their Harry Reems moments? Haven't we known characters from the great performances in the past?

When the craft of painting was such to allow painters to represent every photographic detail---including the whiskers on a cow---artists decided that canvas had to do something else. The development of cameras made reproduction less important than expression. There is a certain simple-mindedness about copying objects down on paper. So we have an artistic argument for concealing detail that is no less "true", but also detail that has less pedestrian interest to it.

Those to whom porn appeals are willing to sit through trash to get to the "good stuff". On one hand, kitsch can be used for good effect for satire and ironic comment, but when the kitsch of your age has become mainstreaming of brainless porn as "delightfully bohemian" or whatever the critical public will swallow, I can only argue that you'll drive out people who want to see actual character studies by the amount of movies that compromise.

This is what is happening in Hollywood now. I am not a prude or for the most part a close-minded person. I think I can demonstrate that adequately well in what I'm willing to consider in this reply. But Hollywood is not interested in a dialogue, but a lecture. The result is that I get much less quality film-watching these days. Hollywood is interested in a more visceral and gut-level politicization in the guise of character studies. And polarization has driven out legit art in film, to an extent. The truth is that I enjoy fewer movies these days because the "artist" does not want to "tell me a story" and engage me honestly.

It's hard to watch Braveheart and avoid Mel's conclusion that what we call freedom once came with a much dearer price. I think that England is not so much the villain of the piece but more the agent of jeopardy. But that's another story.

Try boycotting TV period

www.911wasalie.com

Truth...Truth...now you know youre not supposed to be on that computer after the street lights are on. Now go on get back into bed with your sister and make your mother proud! Stop acting like a child, youre 33 years old for crying out loud. Always trying to pick a fight with someone over the computer. I know I didnt hold you or hug you enough when you were younger, but you know that mommy had customers of the seedy type those nights and you know customers come first!

The reason _The Passion of the Christ_ didn't receive any major nominations is simple: The movie stunk. It was one long snuff film. Two and a half hours of beatings does not a good movie make. It doesn't matter WHO the subject is. But I guess I can understand everyone's upset here. A movie that demonstrated Jesus' love and COMpassion would probably have made the cons posting here feel a little uncomfortable... Nah, probably not; that portrayal of Christ would just be liberal Hollywood, huh?