But, this morning, I heard Harvey Weinstein talking about the Best Actor Award and how George Clooney probably only missed "by 2 votes because he's such an incredible philanthropist....he was there for 9/11, he's helped in Haiti...."
Weinstein certainly has his finger on the pulse of Hollywood's Academy voters and knows many of them, obviously....is that what he hears? Is it an award given for talent or for being charitable?
Don't you think that's a little weird? Or does it fit the new America which seems less interested in performance and more in being a good guy?
z
15 comments:
I was more interested in the announcement of The Artist winning when it was called an homage to American silent cinema.
Why wouldn't a French film be an homage to French silent cinema?
Weinstein is one of a few that care to work the Oscars. He generally gets what he wants hyped.
Meanwhile, the director of A Separation got in a pretty good plug for Iran.
Z, talent schmalent. The only real qualification for an Oscar is being a far left loon.
Even Hollywood seemed apathetic about the Oscars. I watched because train wrecks are hard to ignore.
Z - You are on to something here.
For too long the Academy has been dealing in politics.
Sure sometimes they get it right - but often they give the awards out for the wrong reasons.
I hate that - and wish they would just do what they are supposed to.
what good plug should Iran have, Ducky?
I suppose The Artist was called an homage to silent cinema because silent cinema started here.
Chuck: exactly the point
Elbro, they're murdersome anyway, but particularly murdersome when one hasn't seen any of the films. I hadn't this year.
No loss.
I have a friend with even a better true story about a horse in war than the film. If that was nominated?!!
Melies was American,z?
... not to mention the Lumiere brothers.
I thought there would be a big to do on Breitbart about the Iranian acceptance speech which went on about the long history of Persian culture.
Hollywood for years has given awards not necessarily based on merit.
I agree with Chuck. It's all about what's politically correct, and the approval of cinematic snobs, and far left loons.
Ducky, silent films belong where they ended. In the early thirties. Paying homage to them is ridiculous. They don't deserve homage. They were representative of their time. That's it! It doesn't make them deserving of anything.
Persian culture's fine...who cares?
Nobody hates Iranians..it's their gov't we need to be greatly leery about.
As for Silent Pictures and any French involved.....fine, if you think the preponderance of silent pictures were French and they brought them to the height of their existence. I surely don't think so.
Pris, I don't know....they were a force and they were what it took to get us the great film situation we've got going now.
I just think it would have been goofy to pay homage to FRENCH silent film....
and Ducky, while the French were doing it, so were the Germans and Scandinavians; I've seen a few of the German ones.
Did they get anybody like Clara Bow or Buster Keaton or Mary Pickford? the whole WORLD loved Mary Pickford, not some French actress who made 2 silents.
But the Americans took them to the heights so, yes, why not pay homage?
Did any of the winners thank the movie goer?
France? Iran?
I guess the oikophobes in Hollywood are getting a little tired of the prolefeed they themselves produce.
Their versificators are stuck.
Evidently Sarah Palin looks alot like Emmanuel Goldstein... which might explain the stickage.
Both sides have their propaganda tools.
Post a Comment