posted on March 24, 2003 12:07:09 PM new
No one said wacky actors and Hollywood artistes' can not express their opinions.
It is an issue when they use their celebrity and wealth to imply that they know what they're talking about.
Free speech also does not mean that your opinion is not subject to scruntiny. There is no good reason to believe that an actor's opinion is better informed than the Sec. of Defence or the President's. Many of these would-be experts think that the First Amendment guarantees that there is no personal social or economic costs in using their public star status to publicly voice their opinions. They are fair game, just like anybody else is when they enter the public square to voice their position.
It is also the case that many of these star opinions are disingenous. Many of these actors are using their public stature and the war to poke Bush at every turn.
posted on March 24, 2003 12:08:22 PM new
I think Michael Moore was out of line to say what he did when the awards was broadcasted to our servicemembers worldwide and when we have troops in harms way.
As for the award to "criminals" or alleged criminals, there are many talented people are are criminals or alleged criminals. The guy who wrote one hit wonder, "Everyone's Gone to the Moon," Michael Jackson and many others.
Also it was brought out in the post awards that the rape victim has said the judge treated Polaski wrong. Apparently the judge didn't uphold his deal with Polaski so he fled the country. Sounds like there is more to the situation than one may think.
posted on March 24, 2003 07:35:19 PM new
I once took a professional selling class in college. The instructor was a local real estate salesman. This person also held a position is the local school board. He made it clear to the class that if want to enjoy a good living as a salesperson, and you wanted to run for office, then you would have to watch what you say in the political arena.
His point was, there are times you would like to say what's on your mind. However, if you are in the public eye, then it's sometimes best not to.
posted on March 24, 2003 08:15:28 PM new
"Also it was brought out in the post awards that the rape victim has said the judge treated Polaski wrong. Apparently the judge didn't uphold his deal with Polaski so he fled the country. Sounds like there is more to the situation than one may think."
The judge didn't have a deal. The prosecuter said he would advocate no jail time. The wise judge ruled that someone who drugged and raped a minor must do prison time regardless of what the prosecutor thought. The judge also saw it as unjust to not give prison time to someone just because of their wealth and status.
If a blue color guy or a hobo drugged and raped a 13 year old, he would still be in jail.
Prison is where Polanski belongs regardless of his line of work. Preferably with a very lonely and indiscriminate cellmate.
I would not pay a dime to watch a Polanski film, nor watch it for free.
The Pianist can be the greatest piece of work ever put on film, and I still will not watch it.
Patronizing and being an appoligist for a child raper and felon who jumped bail speaks loud and clear of one's morality. Giving money to that squirmy little piece of trash is what empowers him to rape other little girls.
Perhaps a European father that has access to a firearm will bring swift and sure justice to that child molester.
posted on March 24, 2003 08:23:23 PM new
REAMOND posted on March 24, 2003 11:53:23 AM
By the way, Polanski's work is crap. He is the darling of a perverted caste of Hollywood creeps. They mooned and fawned over the movie 'Tess', and it was an unmitigated waste of film and time. Chinatown is a mediocre film at best.
REAMOND posted on March 24, 2003 08:15:28 PM
I would not pay a dime to watch a Polanski film, nor watch it for free.
______________________________
posted on March 24, 2003 08:52:08 PM new
Hmmm....problem .... Tess was released in 1979 and Polanski fled in 1978. So either you were on the set, REAMOND, or ... well... my "half brain" can't think of an alternate explanation that makes sense.
And in point of fact, the judge never "ruled" nor said how he was going to rule. Polanski was not sentenced in absentia; court proceedings were suspended.
Polanski may be a miserable human being; that would scarcely make him unique among directors. But he did a magnificent job directing "The Pianist." That is what the Academy members apparently judged him on, and if you want to question their logic, it would be best to do so by explaining to us how the other four films that were nominated represented superior jobs of directing. Having seen three of the other four nominated films, I agreed with their decision. Maybe if I'd seen "Gangs of New York" as well, I would have changed my mind.
[ edited by msincognito on Mar 24, 2003 08:54 PM ]
posted on March 24, 2003 09:33:36 PM new
When I saw Tess in 1979, it was only a few months after he fled and before I was even aware of his crimes. Being 9 months off after 25 years is quite acceptable. But once I learned of his actions, I never patronized any of his work.
How good the new film is is irrelevant. Patronizing a child raper and fleeing felon is relevant.
There are probably better directors in jail for rape that never got the opportunity to direct a movie.
As with many of the decisions made by Hollywood for these awards, they had little to do with talent and a lot to do with a political statement.
As example, Moore's "documentary" had so many staged scenes and falsehoods in it, it should not have even been in the documentary category. But it won the category.
Whether one is a great artist, exceptional surgeon, or just generally brilliant, it does not give equity for commiting crimes.
Knowingly patronizing this ghoulish pervert is a sickness in and of itself.
posted on March 25, 2003 09:18:11 AM new
So only the morally virtuous can win Academy Awards. I guess that means ... best director will have to rotate every year between Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks and Ron Howard. (Scorsese's out .. .there was that whole Last Temptation thing.)
Meanwhile, only Kathie Lee Gifford and Jane Seymour will be eligible for best actress. Whoops - there was that whole sweatshop thing. Kathie Lee's out. I guess that leaves ... hmmm... the Olsen twins and that woman who plays Ray Romano's wife on TV.
Best Actor. Whoa. A tough one. Harrison Ford dumped his wife for a toothpick. He's out. Michael Douglas dumped his wife for a bombshell. Better taste, but still out. Aah yes. Denzel Washington, who generally refuses to even kiss another actress on-screen because it would be disrespectful to his wife. Every single year for the rest of his life. I can handle that.
And best director. Well, I don't know what we'll do if Steven, Tom and Ron all take the same year off.
Can you get me the name of the guy who directed all of those tear-jerking AT&T commercials? Please tell me he's not gay.
[ edited by msincognito on Mar 25, 2003 10:02 AM ]
posted on March 25, 2003 10:11:51 AM new
Well if you equate divorce and consenting adult sexual activity with raping a child I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Kinda par for the course for your moral compass.
