Skip to comments.Why I'm skipping the Oscars this year
Posted on 01/13/2006 7:54:16 AM PST by Millicent_Hornswaggle
Every year since I was old enough to stay up late, I've watched the Academy Awards. This year, however, I have absolutely zero desire to watch the Oscars. In recent years, lack of quality from Hollywood has turned the Academy Awards into a special-interest-group get-together. If you're crazy, gay, have a disability or are a member of a minority race, you'll likely be nominated for an Oscar; if your film tackles a "deep social issue" (normally an issue dear to the hearts of Hollywood's liberal glitterati), you'll have an excellent shot at grabbing a gold statuette.
The combination of declining product quality and rising Hollywood disdain for mainstream America has opened the door to the agenda-film crowd. It began with the 1994 Oscars. "Schindler's List," "The Fugitive" and "In the Name of the Father" all received Best Picture nominations; other excellent films of 1993 included "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?" "Searching for Bobby Fischer," "Shadowlands," "Fearless" and "In the Line of Fire."
Still, Hollywood had to take a shot at mainstream America, and they found their vehicle in "Philadelphia," throwing their honorary liberal activism award to Tom Hanks for his weak performance as a dying AIDS-stricken gay lawyer in "Philadelphia." Unbelievably, Hanks' cheesy hospital-bed routine beat out Liam Neeson in "Schindler's List" and Daniel Day Lewis in "In the Name of the Father." "Philadelphia" is, clinically speaking, a maudlin, ham-handed attempt at social commentary.
The remaining 1990s were filled with weak movies and weak performances. On average, high-school audio-visual clubs make better movies than Hollywood put together in the late 1990s.
Then, our illustrious decade: With great films scarce and politically mainstream Academy voters even scarcer, 2000 featured the victory of repulsive anti-suburbia and pro-homosexuality hit piece "American Beauty." Of course, it beat out a film lionizing an abortionist ("The Cider House Rules") and another attacking the tobacco industry ("The Insider"). Most disturbingly, the Academy handed Hilary Swank a Best Actress Oscar for playing a transgendered biological girl murdered by a bunch of hicks. And 2002 was the year of the African-American honorary Oscars, when Denzel Washington took home Best Actor for his decent if overrated performance in "Training Day" and Halle Berry took home Best Actress for her highly touted simulated orgasms in "Monster's Ball." In 2003, homosexual agenda films like "The Hours," "Frida" and "Far From Heaven" grabbed the largest share of nominations. In 2004, Hollywood couldn't hold off "Lord of the Rings" any longer, but Charlize Theron, playing an ugly lesbian serial killer in "Monster," won Best Actress. And last year, the Best Picture was forgettable pro-euthanasia film "Million Dollar Baby."
And then there's this year. "Brokeback Mountain," the stomach-churning story of two 1963 cowboys who get cozy while bunking down in Wyoming and then carry on their affair over the course of decades, is likely to grab Best Picture honors. The critics love it, mostly because critics love anything that pushes homosexuality as normal behavior. The New York Times raves about it, mostly because the Times has always wanted to carry a ridiculous story proclaiming that "there has always lurked a suspicion that the fastidious Eastern dude of Owen Wister's 'The Virginian' harbored stronger than proper feelings for his rough Western compadres, and that the Red River crowd may have gotten up to more than yarning by the campfire whenever Joanne Dru was not around." Maybe that's what Pinch Sulzberger thinks about when he watches John Wayne on screen, but the Times should be more careful when speaking for the rest of us. By the way, don't believe the "hit movie" hype -- this supposed blockbuster has netted a grand total of $8 million. "Hostel," last week's No. 1 movie, a cheap horror film, has already netted almost $15 million.
Best Actor honors are likely to go to Philip Seymour Hoffman for his performance in "Capote" -- this would mark the first time that an actor in a gay role has actually deserved his Oscar. Best Actress will probably fall to Reese Witherspoon in "Walk the Line," but supporters of Felicity Huffman's transgendered father/mother in "TransAmerica" could push her over the top.
Aside from pimping for GLAAD, the Oscars will provide a platform for other leftist talking points. "Good Night, and Good Luck," George Clooney's blatant attempt to bash the Bush administration through the mouth of Edward R. Murrow, and "Munich," Steven Spielberg's attempt to equate Arab terrorism with Israeli self-defense, will likely garner nominations. And to top it off, Comedy Central partisan hack Jon Stewart (who is less and less funny each day) hosts this self-congratulatory leftist feting.
I won't be watching. Neither will most Americans.
I haven't watched since the invention of cable and we got more than one channel.
That is SO right. I would say that another nadir was the year that "American Beauty" was lauded.
What's an "Oscar"?
They still do the Oscars? Hmmmm.....
I have gone to the theatre once in the last 4 or 5 years. And it has nothing to do with ridiculous box office ticket prices. Let's face it, most of today's movies stink. I got talked into seeing "The Lord of War" with Nick Cage. Not wanting to be rude, I sat through it without uttering a single word.
Thank goodness for DVD's of the older (and far better stuff). I find myself going back to the 40's and 50's stuff. Simple special effects, movies with a story line and an actual plot and, in my opinion, much better acting.
Like everything the liberals touch, the movie industry is experiencing the midas touch in reverse; everything turns to dung.
Sorry, I looked for it.
I skip the Oscar's every year. I skip all of the garbage that they throw into movie theaters also.
I can proudly say that I haven't stepped foot in a movie theater in more than 10 years!!
I can barely stand the IFC on cable.
Is this abomination in wide release yet? It'll be interesting to see if the general public believes the hype.
The "critics" are crazy, gay, have a disability or are a members of a minority race.
...so WTF's expected of their "nominations"?
Critics don't vote for the Oscars.
The Oscars only provide insight into what Hollywood thinks. Since I already know what Hollywood thinks, and I don't care all that much about what Hollywood thinks, I have no reason to watch.
What's the Oscars? Seriously, I haven't watch the Oscars for at least the past 20 years.
It used to be "must see TV" in my house growing up, but the outlandish movies finally got to us.
I stopped watching about the time they all started wearing red ribbons. That just sort of pushed home how they were trying to indocrinate us.
Last year, however, was my first year of not watching the Tonys. I used to love all the broadway show excerpts, but last year the "gayness" was just way over the top.
"Like everything the liberals touch, the movie industry is experiencing the midas touch in reverse; everything turns to dung."
These people ACTUALLY think, in a perverse way that, they are doing good things. However, self-destruction via implosion is occurring to the Hoolywood crowd.
I haven't watched the Oscars in at least 20 years because,frankly,I don't care to be bored to death.
Have not watched since Marlon Brando brought Little Feather whats-her-name onto the dias.
The Oscar is probably not Gay looking enough to reflect today's Hollywood.
Oscar? Isn't he that grouchy green guy who lives in a trash can?
Last month for the first time in 10 years,
I entered a movie house; wanted to see
HPGOF with the Greatkids! Loved it.
But that may have been because there were
only 3 other people in the theater besides
us! 10 years ago I took their parent to
see 101 DALMATIANS, which I did NOT enjoy!
What are the OSCARS?
Are they a new version of the music group, the Cars?
And, who knew that Hollyweird gave itself awards??
He is absolutely correct. It isn't about how good a picture is, it's about how good it is at progressing someone's agenda.
Oh yes they do.
...you just keep telling yourself that.
A lot of the time, Oscars are given as "compensations". Denzel Washington gave a good performance in the routine Training Day, and was rewarded seemingly in compensation for not getting it for his searing perfromances as Malcolm X and Hurricane Carter. Nicole Kidman had proved herself to be more than "Mrs. Tom Cruise" after giving superb performances in To Die For, and The Others, and an excellent one in Moulin Rouge, yet she got the award for The Hours, which was an ensemble film. I think Julianne Moore gave the best performance out of the three in that film.
One more time; THEY ARE NOT COWBOYS! THEY ARE SHEEP HERDERS!
This point may not seem important to Hollywood, but it's fighting words to cowboys...
Huh? It's an industry award. People who make movies giving the award to other people who make movies. There are no critics in the Academy hence none who vote for the Oscars.
I have to say that I couldn't believe Hanks beat out either of those either. I saw all 3 films and I would have put the performances of either Lewis or Neeson over Hanks.
Oscars = Gay Superbowl.
I won't be watching, but then I never have.
Good time to watch the extended editions of the Lord of the Rings trilogy on the home theater instead...
That was a non-Hollywood indie.
I much prefer this Oscar to the one in Hollywood:
Quit watching the Academy Awards 20 years ago and counting.
Actually, I have the green furry one in the can on the mantle. It's what we call my husband, so I guess you could say that's his award!
No, the VH1 Fashion Awards are the Gay Superbowl :-)
If there's a phonier, more self aggrandizing "industry" on earth than Hollyweird et al, I'd like to hear of it.
"There are no critics in the Academy hence none who vote for the Oscars."
Yea, you bet'cha.
No Socialists or Communists in the Democrat Party, USA.
No chicken-hawks in the BSA.
It [really] was just about sex.
Republicans are homophobes, racists & bigots.
Have you heard, there's a "Vast righwing conspiracy" (honest). :o)
Democrats fight for the "little guy" (and everything else moral & decent).
"Bush lied. People died".
Well you get the idea, huh.
...can you spell naive? ;^)
Long before then, even: Stuart Whitman received a nom for playing a sympathetic child molester in The Mark...in 1961.
Uuum OK. Which branch are the critics in then? The Actor's Branch? The Director's Branch? The Cinematographer's Branch? Critics have their own awards. You don't know what you're talking about.
Brokeback Mountain was a borefest to me personally. However, to criticize it for portraying 2 homosexuals in the West when there have been 75,000 movies made of heterosexuals in the West seems stupid.
Face it, there are homosexuals. If one out of every 75,000 Westerns shows a homosexual relationship you can't complain we are being inundated with this stuff.
There is certainly a higher percentage of Gay accepted themes in film today than ever before. I think it's mostly because it couldn't exist until relatively recently. The overwhelming films made by Hollywood still portray hetero relationships rather than home relationships.
If you want to see a good movie for the most part you are better off seeing foreign films or documentaries.
For my money I thing that Grizzly Man was the best film of 2005 (In some places it is credited as 2004 so it doesn't qualify for the Oscar).
Laurence Olivier received a nom for a playing a sympathetic murderer in Hamlet.
You're right that most Americans aren't going to be watching the Academy Awards this year.
For the same reasons you describe, too.
I wondered why Grizzly Man wasn't getting that Best Documentary nom, thanks for that info. Herzog deserves some sort of Oscar, even if it's just a career award. He's the most daring director alive.
1990: Politically correct Dances with Wolves Beat out Goodfellas