Academy Awards, By The Patriot

[FC]

Ah yes, the Academy Awards gala—that annual confab of Hollywonk glitterati promoting silly hair and partial wardrobes—has come and gone. In its wake, there is good news and bad news.

 

The good news first: Despite the ignorati, er, glitterati balloting for the best films of the year, the only votes that really mattered were those Americans cast at the box office.

 

In Hollywood's estimation, the "Best Picture" nominees were Brokeback Mountain (26th), Crash (49th), Munich (64th), Good Night, and Good Luck (89th) and Capote (100th), in order of each movie's box office gross—in other words, America's opinion of these pictures. In all, Hollywood's Fab Five grossed $235,643,912 and averaged $26.3 million in profits.

 

On the other hand, the top five picks according to the rest of America were Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, The Chronicles of Narnia (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe), War of the Worlds and King Kong. These films grossed $1.41 billion and averaged $125.4 million in profits.

 

In fact, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, a film based on one of Christian writer C.S. Lewis's Narnia books, grossed more than all five of the Academy's nominees combined.

 

Film critic Dr. Marc T. Newman notes, "Instead of fretting over the agenda of Academy Award-nominated films...we should pay closer attention to the vote that really counts. The election that gets the attention of studios is the one that occurs at the ticket booth. Eighty percent of this year's Best Picture nominees are rated R, but 90 percent of the top-20 grossing films were rated G, PG, or PG-13. Many of those films opened opportunities to talk about virtues, the darkness of sin, and the importance of family and sacrifice."

 

Indeed, when asked about top-grossing films versus nominated films, Academy spokesperson Ms. Leslie Unger responded, "What we do and how our awards are determined has absolutely nothing to do with how a film does in terms of box office."

 

 

 

 

"I'm proud to be out of touch." —George Clooney

 

Apparently, George Clooney was right on the money when he declared to his Academy colleagues, "We are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while. I think it is probably a good thing... I'm proud to be out of touch."

 

Fortunately, every once in a while, Hollywood and the rest of America concur on a film. Some major box office hits have been selected by the Academy for Best Picture. Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, based on the series by C.S. Lewis's Christian colleague, J.R.R. Tolkien, was a major hit in 2003 and swept the awards, winning all 11 of the categories for which it was nominated.

 

Of course, that is not to suggest that all box office hits are great movies (Titanic) or that all low grossing films are not (The Patriot). Clearly, timing and marketing are major factors in a film's success.

 

Unfortunately, in a year like the one just passed, in which a major film promotes Hollywood's favorite cause celebre, gender disorientation, a large cadre of Academy members invariably tout that film above all others. This year it was Brokeback Mountain, which, much to the shock and dismay of Hollywood's cultural fascists, lost out to the film Crash.

 

Heterosexual promiscuity and marital infidelity are passè.

 

So, why Brokeback Mountain? For Hollywood's fashionable elite, promoting heterosexual promiscuity and marital infidelity is passè—those subjects are already prevalent in theater and TV entertainment. Instead, for the past decade, the glitterati have been advocating for the normalization of gender disorientation pathology—the promotion of homosexual relationships as equivalent to those ordained by the laws of nature (not to mention every religion of the world).

 

Amazingly, Brokeback did not win Best Picture. Joe Solmonese, president of the so-called "Human Rights Campaign," the nation's largest homosexual-advocacy group, said, "I was certainly disappointed, but I would not trade that Oscar for all the positive conversations [about homosexuality] this movie spurred." (Surely no pun intended.) Jennifer Morris, co-director of the San Francisco International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgendered Film Festival, concurred, "That's the best thing about these films... This really was a groundbreaking year."

 

Entertainment is the most effective means of ideological indoctrinating.

 

On that note, here is the bad news: entertainment is the subtlest and most effective means of ideological indoctrinating. It creates a psychological opening through which cultural messages bypass the intellectual filters that arrest most input for critical analysis. Because the context for these messages is "entertainment," they get a free pass into the mind's cultural context, where they compete, at a subconscious level, with established ethical and moral standards.

 

Those at greatest risk for this form of indoctrination are adults, whose behavior is strongly characterized by their emotions (you know who you are), and all children.

 

If emotive adults are not constantly vigilant about screening ethical and moral messages from TV, theater, music, books, magazines, infotainment programs, etc.—and deliberate about evaluating that communication—they risk having these messages not only encroach upon, but, over time, actually displace the source code for wholesome values.

 

Adults notwithstanding, this point cannot be emphasized strongly enough: Children, who do not have the sturdy character foundation that only time and good parenting can provide, are at very high risk of indoctrination through entertainment media. The only means of avoiding such indoctrination in children and highly emotive adults is to avoid exposure to entertainment media with harmful messages.

 

Of course, for emotive adults and older children, the purposeful vetting of challenging entertainment messages with the deliberate objective of intellectualizing them—in effect, shuttering the emotional window into the subconscious—is a useful means of strengthening one's filter on such messages.

 

Many entertainment consumers don't filter critically what they see, hear and read.

 

At the Academy podium last Sunday, one of the glitterlings professed, "Art is not a mirror to hold up to society, but a hammer with which to shape it." Unfortunately, far too many entertainment consumers lack the ability to filter critically what they see, hear and read. For them, no hammer is necessary.

 

(Editor's Note: Speaking of the podium, for your consideration, we commend for your reading an essay from our colleague Dennis Prager, entitled "The Academy Award speech we should have heard")

 

Quote of the week...

"The Clooney generation in Hollywood is not writing and directing movies about life as if they've experienced it, with all its mysteries and complexity and variety. In an odd way they haven't experienced life; they've experienced media. Their films seem more an elaboration and meditation on media than an elaboration and meditation on life." —Peggy Noonan

 

 

On cross-examination...

"What really enrages the Hollywood left is the realization that, more than any other group in our society, evangelical Christians—who now constitute the largest voting bloc—stand in the way of its political agenda: abortion on demand, a contraceptive culture, erotic indoctrination masquerading as sex education, universal day care, the complete societal acceptance of homosexuality and hate-crimes legislation that criminalizes religious speech. By attacking Christians, Hollywood is advancing its agenda... Over the past 40 years, Hollywood has been primarily responsible for the rapid degeneration of our culture. Modern cinema is filled with violence, sadism, sex at its most animalistic, crudeness, nihilism and despair. If Hollywood wants to treat Christianity as the antithesis of all it holds dear, Christians should feel complimented." —Don Feder

 

Open query...

"While most of what is offered as children's programming at the movies and on television is wholesome in its innocence, it is also true that even here, even in the programming produced for the youngest of the young, there are cultural land mines everywhere... First there's the violence... There is the ever-present 'potty humor.'... Euphemisms for obscene language are also prevalent... And there's sexual content, too... All of which begs—screams—the question: Why? There is no market demand for this. It is clearly out of bounds, offensive and dangerous. It shatters the innocence of childhood deliberately. And yet there are people out there writing these scripts. There are people—not companies, people—producing this garbage. And there are people distributing it with the goal to reach, and influence, as many millions of little boys and girls as possible." —Brent Bozell

 

 

[fritz]

Glad that I missed that fiasco.

 

I just happen to believe that there are more important, (hell anything's more important than that) things going on for me to read, view, or pay for.

 

Hollywood is, well, Hollywood.

 

And they continue to reap (or is rape the better word) tremendous profits from such "works of art".

 

fritz

[flaco]

A few short comments, Tony-

 

After your last "Patriot" post--that trashed Abe Lincoln--I'll suggest that were this a print publication, it would be fit only for wrapping the garbage in.

 

As to the Academy Awards, I don't have a television, so... missed them.

 

And I rarely make it to films.

 

I will say that for film makers (at least to some degree) this is a jury of their peers.

 

Those who judge these things are actually creating films.

 

Award winners are films they liked.

 

This is sort of like being judged by the members of the American Custom Gunmakers Guild if you're a gunmaker.

 

As to the much-maligned Brokeback Mountain, I read the original story in "The New Yorker" when it first appeared years ago.

 

It's a good story.

 

And Annie Proulx is a tough old All-American who knows her way around the outdoors and no doubt more than a match for anyone who posts here.

 

In addition, Larry McMurtry, who wrote the screen adaptation, is one of our best contemporary authors.

 

(Did I see posts here trashing "Lonesome Dove"? Oh well.)

 

Overall my suggestion is that in this case "The Patriot" just didn't like the winners, and--like Karl Rove and the now-indicted Scooter Libby--used any available argument to discredit them.

 

Like Rove and Libby feloniously released the name of CIA agent Valerie Plume?

 

Would you argue that financial success equates to artistic success?

 

It seems to me that rifle building--the slow, painstaking, spare-no-detail, spare-no-effort kind of rifle building--rarely equates to financial success.

 

flaco

 

N.B. Don't get me wrong, Tony.

 

I'm grateful for this site. Your creation.

 

I'd rather just lurk. Like "Uncle" whoever.

[Horsefly]

The History Channel once had a program about the history of Hollywood,and it stated that in the very early years of movie making,they were having trouble making a profit,ticket sales just weren't coming in,so they came up with the idea of the Academy Awards so they could take the money loosing films,and give it an award to be advertized all over the country on billboards and posters like the old circus posters,and draw people in,thus making a profit.All the directors and actors that were unknown had the opportunity to have there name be attached to an award winning film,building there future in the business.That's why so many crummy movies win,and you set for a couple hrs. watching people you never heard of get awards for the silliest crap.Jerry

[Horsefly]

One more thing,I met Larry McMurtry at his book store in Archer City,and my honest and dissapointed opinion of him is,he can kiss my all American redneck ass.What an arrogant jackass.I was raised that queerness is a disease,so I can no intertainment in it.Maybe I was raised wrong,but matters not to me.Flaco,I'm getting closer all the time to being TV free,I admire that and can't wait to get there.I get so much more out of working on guns than I ever will watching a TV,thanks to you guys and this gunboard.The movie "The Patriot" is one of my all time favorites.Jerry

[FC]

Well, that's how us hicks think in the middle of the country. About honest Abe- the truth is the truth, and that wasn't the first publication recently to discuss the wisdom of Lincoln. He was a great, but failing man, just like all of us.

Brokeback- if and when you have kids you might understand why I hate the film. I don't worry about me, but I do worry a lot about what media and culture does to the minds of my girls. I'll fight it.

Uncle is Ty, and I told him I'd leave that back door open to him. Back doors are for family, after all.

[Guest karl]

As far as gays...if anyone cannot tell the different between a man and a woman, they have a problem and need medical help.

 

Yes, the movies are a tool for shaping public opinion and have been since "Battleship Potamkin" sp

That is why I dont watch a lot of movies or tv.

 

Karl

[Guest Uncle Bunkhouse]

America........the great melting pot, where else but America could a Chinese guy make a movie about queer sheep herders and get an award.......

[fritz]

TV versus the movies----Well, people pay a lot of money to go to the movies (and help subsidize the lunacy coming out of Hollywood), whereas TV is quite a bit cheaper.

 

I'm cheap, so I don't pay those overpriced admission fees at the movies (and help subsidize the lunacy coming out of Hollywood), I watch my TV.

 

Hell, did you realize that you can now get over 200 channels on those things?

 

fritz

[manureman]

Ya know I have the majority of those 200 channels and there still ain't a helluva lot fit to watch to my way of thinkin'.If it wasn't for the wife I'm not sure I'd own a tv.As far as the Patriot and the Academy goes I think they are about made for one another, both of em' are full of their selves to the point of makin' my ass hurt.While I have no use what so ever for the Academy and their worthless awards,I wish the Patriot wasn't so long winded cause I agree with them on alot of issues but that bunch is just like my mother in-law they can go on the longest and say the least,but I reckon that's politics.As far as Larry Mcmurtry goes,I can't say he wouldn't be where he is today if Lonesome Dove would have been about a bunch of damned queers, but I can guarandamntee you I'd not of bought the book or watched the show.I say piss on Hollywood. Jim

[Jimro]

I remember having some time to kill in the college library and reading the first part of that short story in the "New Yorker" too, I never finished it. It seemed like pornography, not a love story.

 

This was over a decade ago, I was 16 and remember asking how the heck that got published. Later on I learned about "liberalism" can call pornography "art". I guess maybe I was too young to really appreciate two hicks using each other for sexual gratification. Heck, I hope I never get old enough to appreciate it.

 

Jimro

[littlecanoe]

Edited

 

Sorry. Posted in response to Flaco, not a flame, but decided to move it to the following in Fightin' Words as it is more appropriate under that thread.

 

http://www.sporterizing.com/index.php?showtopic=2001