Shunning Oscar

Another Perspective Shunning Oscar By Shawn Macomber Published 1/28/2005 12:05:20 AM It's the Red State/Blue State rumble that never happened. Supporters of both The Passion of the Christ and Fahrenheit 9/11 are both crying foul at their respective films lack of acknowledgment by Academy voters. Apparently, People's Choice awards for both films (Best Drama and Best Picture, respectively) were not enough to sate appetites for recognition. Meanwhile, on the other side of the spectrum, Andrew Sullivan decided to weigh in with his personal "kudos" to the Academy "for ignoring the execrable Fahrenheit 9/11 and the pornographic Passion." I'm sure members of the Academy are eminently relieved. That and $12.00 will get you one of Sullivan's books.

A better question for fans of both movies -- and, indeed, for every film critic who throws a tizzy this time every year as well -- might be, "Who cares what the Academy voters think?" It is all completely arbitrary and subjective. They are, after all, just human beings with opinions like everyone else. There is no reason to believe their opinion is any better than anyone else's. More to the point, there's significant evidence to the contrary.

Is this not, after all, the same Academy that bestowed a Best Picture award five years ago on the intellectually stunted faux epic, Gladiator, never mind the Best Actor nod Russell Crowe got for the same film? What was that award based on? Great hair? Looks good in a metal skirt? This is the same Academy that gave Halle Berry Best Actress for saying, "My man loved him some Jack Daniel's" before tearing all her clothes off and rolling around on the floor naked with Billy Bob Thornton? (Okay, there was something more than rolling going on there, but this is a family publication.) Does anyone believe there really wasn't a better film made in 1997 than the "Let's turn a tragedy into a sappy love story" Titanic.

Of course, occasionally the Academy honors a worthwhile performance or film. How could they not? But when an award does happen to cross paths with my tastes -- say, Frances McDormand in Fargo or Marisa Tomei for My Cousin Vinny -- I understand that it is totally coincidental.

There were more than 250 films in wide release or semi-wide release in 2004. Five were nominated for Best Picture. Those aren't good odds for anyone. Personally, my favorite films of the year were the Dawn of the Dead remake (another resurrection flick), The Life Aquatic, and Collateral. Some Kind of Monster was certainly Best Documentary of the year. None of these films was nominated.

I must also add that I don't believe any of the 2004 nominees -- The Aviator, Finding Neverland, Million Dollar Baby, Ray, or Sideways -- is particularly unworthy of nomination. (If anything, I hope Million Dollar Baby leads a few folks to the late F.X. Toole's brilliant short story collection, Rope Burns, from which the film is drawn.)

AS MUCH AS I APPRECIATE the grassroots efforts to get Mel Gibson's and Michael Moore's films nominated -- including a petition by TAS contributor Pat Hynes that gathered over 25,000 signatures in favor of The Passion -- the fact is that the real value of these two vastly different films is not diminished any by the lack of serious Academy recognition. The subversive nature of what they have carried into the marketplace has already upset a lot of apple carts and damaged the conventional wisdom in Hollywood irrevocably. Demanding approval from the Academy Awards only serves to perpetuate the myth that there is something worthwhile, and even necessary, about its acknowledgment, which is what Ayn Rand might have called mysticism of the first order. It seems to me, in fact, more appropriate to celebrate the lack of a nomination.

There is the danger of overreach as well. In an interview with Beliefnet, the head of the Christian Film and Television Commission, Ted Baehr, suggested the Academy Awards was "speeding its own demise by continually ignoring the well-informed opinion of the movie-going public." This is just silly. First, let's not give the "movie going public" too much credit. If you have a problem with Hollywood, you have a serious problem with "the movie going public" because it is the one paying Hollywood's bills.

Further, politicizing The Passion or attempting to turn those associated with it into conservative heroes is likely to make future religious films less, not more, likely. No one in Hollywood wants to go through what Gibson went through, and no one there wants an audience made up entirely of religious conservatives, either. Look at what happened at the People's Choice Awards after parties, when both Moore and Gibson attempted to close ranks and play down their differences. Michael Moore called The Passion, "a powerful piece of filmmaking" and gushed that he had seen it twice. For his part, Mel Gibson seemed eager to distance himself from Bush and the Red Staters.

"I feel a strange kinship with Michael," Gibson said. "They're trying to pit us against each other in the press, but it's a hologram. They really have got nothing to do with one another. It's just some kind of device, some left-right. He makes some salient points. There was some very expert, elliptical editing going on. However, what the hell are we doing in Iraq? No one can explain to me in a reasonable manner that I can accept why we're there, why we went there, and why we're still there."

This should hardly be a surprise to anyone. Gibson, after all, seriously considered financing Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. So be careful of what you wish for. I'm fairly certain most of those who want The Passion recognized are social conservatives who might not be thrilled to see Mel Gibson give an acceptance speech more anti-Bush than Moore's last year. Do you think Gibson wants to spend the next 20 years talking about The Passion? Or do you think he wants to have career opportunities outside of the church set again?

THE TRUTH IS, NEXT YEAR there won't be any Passion, but there will still be an Academy. Movie fans will still nonsensically fall all over themselves over which five films it chooses to nominate. What was lasting and interesting about The Passion was that it brought many, many people out who hadn't been to the movies in many years. It was an exceptional moment in film history, as was Fahrenheit 9/11's super wide release was for documentary filmmaking.

But, frankly, it was just a moment. Neither side should sully it by dreaming about it becoming the status quo. If they were to make ten sequels to The Passion most of these people would not come out again for many years. Does anyone really believe the excitement around this movie -- churches buying out theaters, people wailing in the aisles -- can be replicated again anytime soon? Many Catholics came out in 1973 to face the devil and see a heroic portrayal of priests in The Exorcist. It was a cultural phenomenon that was not replicated four years later when Exorcist II: The Heretic was released. The same goes for Fahrenheit 9/11. Michael Moore can never hope for such antipathy against a single person to ever come together with vast disposable income and a bitter election season again, not in his lifetime anyway. He can aim for Bowling for Columbine heights again, obviously, but this era is finished.

Here's, as John Kerry might say, the real deal: Each year all of us have the power to determine what Hollywood does the next year. They are, after all, thankfully, in it for the money. If you want to see a certain genre rise, make sure to get to the theater on opening night and bring a friend. That's called voting with your dollars and it works. Dislike the Academy Awards if you like, but obsessing over what the Academy chooses to nominate only feeds its reputation as the arbiter of film standards.

More than half a billion dollars in worldwide gross speaks volumes more than a gold statue.

Shawn Macomber is a reporter for The American Spectator. He runs the website Return of the Primitive.

Nice perspective. I love movies, but I wish the 'professionals' involved with making flicks would just 'shut up and act.' No one is coming to me to ask my opinion about foreign policy and I am not seeking out media to announce my opinions. Also, in my profession when we give out awards, we do not have a media spectacular to show off. The Academy Awards are more about money at the box office than actual 'art' in my humble opinion.

I was never keen on 'The Passion' getting an Oscar nomination. Mel Gibson made one outstanding movie. But giving secular accolades to a movie about The Lamb of God cheapens Him, IMHO.

What I'm watching for is how they treat the movie 'Ray' starring Jamie Foxx. From start to finish, that movie was awesome. They could have kept the speech from Julian Bond at the end out of it, though.

I'm shunning the Oscars not because of politics, but from lack of interest. I completely disagree with the writer's views on Halle Berry (who was very good in the role--who cares about one out of context line he quotes?) and Gladiator, which is an action-drama, sure, but it's a solid one, with memorable dialogue; ditto for Crowe--the writer seems to think the part is bad, so his acting was, too.

My only interest this year is in James Newton Howard winning Best Score for The Village--one of the most beautiful scores in years. Debney's The Passion score was a shameless ripoff of Last Temptation of Christ and Gladiator.

" .... However, what the hell are we doing in Iraq? No one can explain to me in a reasonable manner that I can accept why we're there, why we went there, and why we're still there."
--Mel Gibson

Mel is talented, but he is obviously not very bright.

So9

I can think of several extremely good reasons for us to be in Iraq, but I'm not sure that Bush has been forceful enough in making known why he thinks we are there. In fact, I'm not personally positive of exactly what his reasoning was (is).

That and $12.00 will get you one of Sullivan's books.

This is cheaper for the same purpose...

Very disappointing information on Mel Gibson.

"However, what the hell are we doing in Iraq? No one can explain to me in a reasonable manner that I can accept why we're there, why we went there, and why we're still there."

I don't think it's a matter of understanding.

An explanation of what we are doing in Iraq starts with an assertion of various facts. If those facts are accepted, then the explanation is clear. Generally, people who oppose our actions in Iraq do so because they reject the truth of one or more of those facts.

"I can think of several extremely good reasons for us to be in Iraq, but I'm not sure that Bush has been forceful enough in making known why he thinks we are there. In fact, I'm not personally positive of exactly what his reasoning was (is)."

I have been saying since well before the *first* Gulf War that militant Islam is on the attack again, and that we should take the fight to them before it is too late--specifically, by doing just about what we have done and are doing in Iraq.

I don't know whether or not Bush did what he did because he also thinks Islam is marching on Christendom again, but if so, I very much doubt that the public response to such a statement would be uniformly positive.

I think Bush took us into Iraq because, after 9/11, he felt that America's cities, and the people that live in them, would forever be at risk as long as there were countries that tolerated or supported the existence of radical Islamists.

He's enough of a visionary to start cleaning up the Middle East to remove that threat, and Saddam seemed like an obvious place to start.

That's where I think he's coming from, but he hasn't made much of a point of saying so. At least not directly.

"I very much doubt that the public response to such a statement would be uniformly positive."

I agree that if he's thinking what you and I attribute to him, that going to war on that basis would definitely create all kinds of outrage in certain quarters. Probably enough to prevent it.

"I think Bush took us into Iraq because, after 9/11, he felt that America's cities, and the people that live in them, would forever be at risk as long as there were countries that tolerated or supported the existence of radical Islamists."

That's not too far from what I think, but it would be disappointing to think he didn't know that before September 11, 2001.

"He's enough of a visionary to start cleaning up the Middle East...but he hasn't made much of a point of saying so. At least not directly."

Maybe that's because the word "start" implies that we will be doing somthing about other mooselimb countries after we get Iraq fairly well stabilized.

My opinion is that we went to Iraq rather than the terrorists that Saddam supported coming to us again. Is that cynical? Hell yes, but I'd rather the fight be over there then in the streets of America.....I never want to live through another 9-11 again in my lifetime.....I don't think I could suffer that much heartache again and I'd rather the fight be overseas then in my homeland. God bless America; God bless George W. Bush!

I have a feeling that 9/11 was the wake up call for him. He may have intellectually understood the danger, as most of us did, but 9/11 is what really brought it home.

"My opinion is that we went to Iraq rather than the terrorists that Saddam supported coming to us again. Is that cynical?"

I don't think it's cynical. If you have a wasp's nest in the back yard, you don't just swat the ones that get into the house, you get rid of the nest.

"God bless America; God bless George W. Bush!"

Amen.

"I have a feeling that 9/11 was the wake up call for him. He may have intellectually understood the danger, as most of us did, but 9/11 is what really brought it home."

Anybody can be clever after the fact, but...

Before that black day I read the Tom Clancy novel in which the crazed Japanese guy flies an airliner into the capitol building. I just can't forget the way some people smirked when I said that could actually happen, and that I thought the odds were high that it would be tried.

I live in Yokohama, and found out about the attacks when I checked Drudge one last time before turning in. My first though was, "Has somebody hacked Drudge?" My second was, "S**t, the b*st*rds actually went and did it."

Clancy saw that danger. After he pointed it out, even I saw it.

There seems to be a widespread tendency to poo-poo even reasonable dangers as Chicken-Little hysteria.

And is wish that Hollywood would just make entertaining movies. They don't always have to have some hidden agenda in them. That is why i don't go to movies anymore. There is always some subliminal message being submitted that i just don't want to get from Hollywood.

No one is coming to you for your opinions... but you hide behind the anonymity of a message board and spout them off anyways? Hey, at least the Hollywood actors and bigwigs are out there with their real names, real faces, and real identities.

I don't agree with Charlton Heston... but he's taking a stand on his own name.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.