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 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.
HA!!
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 :-)
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.