The Oscars...a sign of the times
First, I don't go to movies. I wouldn't waste my money. Anyone who would pay from $15.00 or $20.00 to sit in a noisy movie theater with a $10.00 box of popcorn (containing 30 cents worth of popping corn) to see a movie that will be on TV in three months has holes in his head. (Similarly, anyone who would spend $50.00 to $100.00 to see a sporting event has an even bigger hole in his head.) There's something wrong with the American people that they would idolize someone who, if they really knew them, wouldn't let them swamp out their toilets. If you are dying for someone to idolize, try Jesus Christ. The last time I looked, He was the only one worthy of that type of adoration.
I have no interest in the Academy Awards. I couldn't care less who gets an Oscar, or for what reason they received the award. In fact, other than seeing their names in liberal political ads as they pay lip service homage to the communist ideologies that Hollywood still cherishes as they bash American values and defend the enemies of the United States in times of war I wouldn't know who they were. I also learn who they are when liberal reporters proudly interject their names in newspaper articles about the anti-American causes they finance with the money they earn from the movies you attend. I learn their names when I see them campaigning against conservative, family values candidates for public office. I learn their names when I see them on TV talk shows defending homosexuality as not only a basic human right, but also as a viable alternative to heterosexuality. I learn their names when they defend the right of self-centered women with the moral fiber of a cockroach who believe they have a right to kill their unborn children because their fertile eggs bumped into some random sperm from Mommy's lover, and the life created by a moment's sexual pleasure intruded on her "right to privacy." I learn the names of America's movie idols when I see their money sponsoring hundreds of anti-American websites. And, I learn their names when I see them on talk shows denouncing Christianity as a religion of hate because God condemns homosexuality, abortion, perverseness in any form, and He warns the unbeliever that the only way to salvation is through the atoning blood of Christ Jesus. That, of course, makes Him a racist God to the nonbeliever; and brands those who theologically disagree with the elitistswho define politically correctnessas racists as well. Yet, Islama religion that mandates the slaughter of innocent men, women and children who are Jews and Christiansis an acceptable religion for them.
Other than that, I would probably never know the names of today's "stars" and "movie idols" or from what garbage can they crawled before they showed up in designer dresses and outlandish tuxedos for their photo ops on the "red carpet," flanked by adorning fans trying to catch a glimpse of those idols who would soon be feted for the movies they make. I have to admit that most of the Tinseltown liberals clean up nicelybut only on the outside. On the inside, the two dimensional Tinseltown icons still look like the garbage cans they crawled from.
Every year the television networks create one or two more new award shows. Pretty soon we'll have at least one award show each month, 12 months of the year. How much is enough? The Emmys, the Grammys, The Tonys, the Golden Globes, the Foreign Press Awards, the Sundance Awards, the People's Choice Awards and the Oscars. I think we leapfrogged "enough" and went directly to "too many."
Every year the ratings on all of them drop as fewer and fewer Americans tune in. While award shows are the basest form of reality programing, and while reality TV shows are generally hot, award shows are not. People are almost as tired of the "award goes to" rhetoric as they are the Bush-bashing, antiwar, anti-Christian, anti-white middle class hate speech that is now standard fare for most of the presenters and recipients. It's too bad that the TV networks didn't get the word that the Democrats got on Nov. 2, 2004 they're out of step with America.
When you look at the movies, the actors and actresses and directors who receive nominations for the baldheaded gold award, peer selection reeks of politics-as-usual in Tinseltown. It is at this time of the year that those who don't kowtow to the Hollywood elite learn that their films, regardless how goodor profitable will not be recognized. One such film this year was Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. (No, I didn't see this film, either. I can't read a movie and watch it at the same time. Nor can I imagine Mel Gibson listening to whomever suggested his making the movie in Aramaic was a good idea. I wonder how many Aramaics saw the movie? It's likely that decision wiped out about half of those who'd have otherwise paid to see it. Could it be that Gibson did it so he could evangelize the Samaritans? Do you think anyone told him that there aren't any livings Samaritans today?) The Passion of the Christ, which earned $763 million in box office receipts was without a doubt the most important film of the year. It was nominated for three minor Oscarscinematography, make-up, and best musical scorebut it didn't win even one gold bald guy for Gibson. (In point of fact, none of the five movies nominated for Best PictureThe Aviator; Finding Neverland (were they looking for Michael Jackson's place?); Million Dollar Baby; Ray and Sidewaysearned more than $100 million in box office receipts. And, the fact that one of them is now officially labeled as the Best Picture of the year won't help its box office appeal since its no longer enjoying box office sales. It might help with video and DvD sales and rentals. And, it might help the producers of the film get a few bucks more when they sell it to HBO). And, of course, it increases the asking price for a "Best" actor or actress or director even though half of the "Best" actors and actresses fade into moviedom oblivion because winning an Oscar has nothing to do with box office appeal, and all Oscar does for those actors and actresses is price them out of the job market.
When questions about The Passion's lack of notice by the Academy of Motion Pictures were raised, the liberals argued that the film was just too gory and contained too much violence to be nominated. (I wonder if the liberals thought Christ's "walk" to Golgotha from the West Gate of Jerusalem where He was crucified was simply a casual Friday afternoon storybook stroll?) Others speculated that it was not nominated because The Passion was an anti-Semitic movie. It was not. Others argued it was "too Catholic" and would offend not only the Jews, and the Muslims, but Christians as well. I guess that's why hundreds of Americans watched the movie and accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. And, why one man was so convicted by the movie that he left the movie theatre, went to a police station and confessed to a murder he had committed years earlier.
Many liberalsMichael Moore includedwere angered because his Bush-smear docudrama (you can't call it a documentary because fiction does not qualify for that genre) Fahrenheit 911 was not nominated as Best Picture. In point of fact, it wasn't nominated for anything even though Moore spent a fortune in trade advertising trying to get the film nominated. His Bowling for Columbine, another docudrama purporting to be a factual documentary on the need for gun control actually won an Oscar. Farenheit 911 was simply a political campaign collage artfully wrapped up in a celluloid package so it could be shown in movie theatres.
There wasn't a dry eye in the house during the Oscar presentations this year. But that wasn't because the Oscars were an emotional experience. To put it bluntly (according to the media people forced to endure it), it was simply boring. Most of those attending yawned their way through the evening. And, since yawning lubricates the eyes, there were a lot of wet eyes. Ask ABC, who collected the advertising revenue, and Oscar was a good night. Ask the TV viewing audience that had to fight to keep from falling asleep before the Oscars were all given out, and they'll likely tell you they long for the days when Johnny Carson or Bob Hope hosted the Oscars. In fact, most of the viewers my age remember the days when the movies that won the Oscars were actually winners. Today, even the winners are losers.
I can remember a time, years ago, when I actually did go to the movies. That was back in the days when movies actually had plots and the storylinenot computer-generated violence or nuditykept your eyes riveted on the silver screen. Back "then," if you asked someone what Oscar-nominated movie least deserved an Oscar, you'd be hardpressed to get an answer. Today, its easy. Pick any movie that's nominated and you'll have selected one of five movies that year that didn't deserve an Oscar. Remember Chicago? Was that last year, or the year before? It certainly didn't deserve an Oscar. To put it bluntly, it didn't even deserve a nomination. Chicago was a glitzy movie with a ditzy script and a second-rate cast. The movie that should have won in 2003 was Lord of the Rings. (And, no, I never saw either flick, either.) Think back when movies were real entertainment. The first movie that should have won an Oscar (in 1928) for Best Picture was The Jazz Singer, starring Al Jolson. It didn't win that year. It was too "glitzy." It was also the nation's first "talkie." The movie that won was Wings. It was a silent film. Do you remember it? Of course not. There was nothing memorial about it. Wings won only because Paramount and other silent film producers lobbied the Motion Picture Academy to exclude The Jazz Singer from consideration because, they said, it was unfair to make silent films compete with talkies. Yet, the studios continued to make silent films until movie audiences boycotted them. But, no silent movie won Best Picture after 1928. They could not compete with sound. Today it appears that a good story can't compete with special effects.
Remember Captains Courageous starring Spencer Tracy? It was the best movie of 1937. Good film. Good storyline. A memorial flick that was viewed for well over 50 years. Only it didn't win Best Picture in 1937. The Motion Picture Academy made a political choice in 1937 and voted The Life of Emile Zola as the best picture. In 1938, there were two top hits. Boys Town and Jezebel. If you were a teenager in 1938, you probably saw both of them. Only, neither of them were voted the Best Picture that year. That honor went to You Can't Take It With You, and the odds are better than average that you can't remember that flick, either.
Nineteen thirty-nine was probably the best year for movies in America. About that time, all of the studios realized if you wanted to make money in movies, you had to give the audience a move script they could cry over; or one with a lot of action. That year produced seven Best Picture nominees, but only one winner. (Back in the days before political correctness, a movie studio knew if they didn't win an Oscar, they lost.) The selections included Good-bye, Mr. Chips; Mr. Smith Goes To Washington; Of Mice and Men; The Wizard of Oz; Wuthering Heights, Stagecoach and Gone With the Wind. All of these were memorial films; and all of them still grace our TV screens today. While they were all Oscar winners that year, which one was least likely to win? And, which one won the Oscar for Best Movie that year?
If you aren't doing anything else, take a trip down memory lane and think about some of the most memorial movies you've seen. Chances are, they were the losers that year. Most of the real good movies are. Don't get me wrong. A lot of the best movies got the Best Picture Oscar. Among them are Mutiny on the Bounty1934, Casablanca1942; The Lost Weekend1944, Gentleman's Agreement1946 and All The King's Men1948. And, no one had to take off their clothes.
If you were watching musicals in 1952, the most memorial flick that year was Singing In The Rain, starring Gene Kelly. I saw that movie and remember it to this day. Why? I watched it in a drive-in movie theatre...in the rain. The most popular song that year was Singing in the Rain, but it lost Best Musical Score to With A Song In My Heart. There was a sting associated with that loss since that was the only nomination Singing In The Rain received that year. The movie that won Best Picture that year was The Greatest Show On Earth. As far as the audiences were concerned, the best flick that year was a toss-up between High Noon and The Quiet Man, starring John Wayne.
The Academy members denied Clint Eastwood a best actor Oscar but gave it to him for directing Million Dollar Baby. The Martin Scorsese fans were crying because when Hollywood insider Robert Redford won Best Director for his 1980 dud, Ordinary People, Scorsese lost his bid for a remarkable directing job on Raging Bull. Politics. This year, the Aviator was a so-so movie with a so-so still wet-behind-the-ears actor, Leonardo DiCaprio, in the starring roleplaying a much older, more experienced, Howard Hughes. Not even a super director can fix that one. And, for the benefit of Scorsese, some of the best directors in America never won an Oscar. That includes Ingmar Bergman, Charlie Chaplin, Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, and Orson Wells. Apparently none of those men learned how to kiss to deep red butts of the elitists in Hollywood who are impatiently awaiting a new Bolshevik Revolution, or the rebirth of the glorious former Soviet Union that Vladimir Putin is feverishly trying to recreate in the name of "more" democracy in Russia. By the way, if you were expecting a list of who ran and who won an Oscar this year, then you read this article for nothing. If you want that information, you're going to have to find a newspaper article written by someone who cared enough to watch the Oscars and jot down the winners. Oh, and just in case you didn't knowin 1939, Gone With The Wind was voted Best Picture. Once again, you have my two cents worth.