response 26 of 40:

Mar 16 19:42 UTC 2006

I have found the practice of trying to determine one film is better than
another during a particular calendar period to be flawed.  "Art" is either
good, bad, mediocre, outstanding, etc. regardless of whatever art happens to
be created at or about the same time.  They have turned an industry into an
arbitrary competition.  If some people enjoy it, fine.  Just don't try to take
it too seriously.

response 28 of 40:

Mar 18 20:53 UTC 2006

I didnt find anything wrong with Proux's rant.  She is right about most 
of the academy voters being rich older folks living in mansions in L.A. 
who rarely ever go to the movies.  That has been stated many times in 
the press.  In fact many of the people who vote on these things haven't 
seen all (or sometimes any) of the nominated performances.  "Crash" had 
an advantage, as Proux points out, because it was out commercially on 
DVD before the Awards.  

The Awards, as Proux implies, are often a political process that has 
nothing to do with the merits of the performances and films.  Russell 
Crowe deserved to win best actor for "A Beautiful Mind" and was the 
favorite a couple of years back, but then at the British equivalent of 
the Oscars, he got into a row with the producer of the show who cut 
short his acceptance speech and fists went flying.  Suddenly the word 
went out around the elite in L.A. that Crowe was a bully and don't vote 
for him.  Columnists wrote "Crowe is a bully, don't vote for him"  As a 
result Crowe lost a race he should have won and would have won, clearly 
for off-screen behaviuor that had nothing to do with his performance.

I might differ with Proux's remarks about Seymour Hoffman's performance 
being possibly "less difficult" than Ledger's, because he was playing a 
real person and had videotapes and such of the actual person to go by.  
When people have a firm image of a person in their mind, I'd think it 
would be more difficult to get people to accept your performance of 
that person.  I think he had a harder job than Ledger did.

But otherwise, her rants about the awards being over commercialized and 
I think her comments were otherwise spot on.  I don't see it as her 
having sour grapes at all.  In fact I think Proux would have made much 
of the same comments had Brokeback Mountain won.

response 30 of 40:

Mar 18 23:55 UTC 2006

re #29 why? most of her comments had nothing to do with Brokeback 
Mountain not winning, and was just an indictment of the process and the 
show itself.  I don't see any base motives here on her part.  Clearly 
she had these views about the Oscars before that movie was even 
nominated, and still has those views now.  A lot of people do.  The 
Oscars aren't for everybody.  You don't really think she'd have written 
a piece heaping praise on the Oscars if the movie had won do you?  

I really think the criticism of her remarks again shows how people get 
lambasted in this day and age just for being outspoken.  The mihute 
your are outspoken about anything now, you are assumed to have the 
basest motives and are bashed into the ground.  Everyone thinks they 
are mind-readers nowadays.

McNally instead of assuming her motives, why don't you and everyone 
else just address the merits of her arguments, which are themselves 
quiet viable.  

response 32 of 40:

Mar 19 02:07 UTC 2006

re0: tempest in a teapot.


/swoons onto couch like starina

response 34 of 40:

Mar 19 03:15 UTC 2006

I thought this item was about fucking md's daughter.

response 36 of 40:

Mar 19 04:54 UTC 2006

Hey Richard, sorry you don't like my style of posting. If you can't read 
minds, then just learn to read. To say "once again" I post "an item not 
making any point about the subject of the item" is a bit disingenuous 
considering how I've recently addressed "the subject of an item" recently 
with klingon, slynne, bap and klg. I don't like sloppy thinking, and if I 
see it, I mention it. The way I mention it may be construed as a "cheap 
shot." Doesn't bother me. If you want, feel free to criticize the "style" 
of my posts. Perhaps my use of quotes is too "bdh-esque."

response 38 of 40:

Mar 20 17:27 UTC 2006

 re #37:  Thanks for pinpointing it.  By itself that would be enough
 to change the tone of the piece from "Pulitzer-prize winning novelist
 offers criticism of celebrity culture" to "ungracious loser complains
 about outcome."

response 40 of 40:

May 3 02:59 UTC 2006

responses 8 to 25 are excellent !