I'd like to thank the Academy...

[olde_fashioned]

This is slightly later than I'd wanted it to be, but a busy schedule can sometimes have that effect. ;-)

My perspectives on why we should all thank the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for their recent accolades to movies such as The Reader, and Milk. (Please withhold judgement until you've read what I have to say...) ;-P

Disclaimer: I get unfriended by people every time I post something religious, controversial, or political. If you're not familiar with my values and opinions by now, or if what I'm about to post is offensive to you, then that's fine, but please don't leave me a huffy comment about how disgusting I am, because then remember my profile was there before you friended me. ;-)


I watched the Oscars a few weeks back, mostly for the fashion, but also because I wanted to see how many awards The Dark Knight (my favourite mainstream movie out of the past several years) would win. It's a good thing I didn't hold my breath, too, since it was effectively snubbed; not only in the nominations (seriously, no Best Picture? Not even Best Director??!) but in the actual ceremony.

Call me biased if you like, but if rooting for a movie that lauds staunch adherence to a strict moral code in the face of unspeakable evil, rather than glorifying perverted moral depravities makes me biased, then so be it.

If biopics starring Hollywood leftists as homosexual activists and films depicting middle-aged Nazi women seducing teenaged boys are the types of movies that the Academy wants to honour, then perhaps it is anther a compliment rather than an insult to be slighted by them.

So I'd like to thank the Academy for reminding us all once again of their fixedly leftist agenda and thinly veiled assaults on traditional values and morality.

Perhaps this is also why the Oscar ratings have steadily declined in past years? I think it's safe to say that more tickets to see The Dark Knight were sold than television sets were tuned into the Oscars...so Hollywood, are you listening? Maybe the American public is tired of smut, tired of disgusting displays of sexuality in the name of "liberation" and "freedom of speech" or even "art." Maybe everyone doesn't want to see naked 15 year old boys sitting in bathtubs with 35 year old women, or watch perverted men make out with other men, or women kiss other women! Maybe it's just refreshing for a change to see a hero make unselfish choices, take a stand for justice at an extreme cost to himself, and defend the helpless innocent.

Or maybe it's just me.

Comments

[watching-ships.livejournal.com]

It's not just you, my dear.

:)

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

:-)

[artekka.livejournal.com]

I thought it was funny that even liberal media was cracking jokes about how if you had a homosexual main character you were a shoo-in for an Oscar.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Hah! Well, it's so true, unfortunately. IMO that's one of the reasons they gave it to Heath Ledger. Not that he didn't utterly deserve it.

[makinhistory.livejournal.com]

Amen, hun.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Thanks. ;-D

Ooh, is that Wyatt Earp? Nevermind, I just figured out that it's Joshua Chamberlain. ;-P And I was just watching Gods & Generals last night, too!

[epea-pteroenta.livejournal.com]

Should just add a disclaimer here that I didn't watch the Oscars and I don't know who won them, and I haven't watched any of the films you mention. Therefore my opinion probably deserves to be totally discredited. :P

I couldn't care less about the Oscars. I don't have a great opinion about the morality of the films that either win or lose, but I rarely enjoy the films that win the awards. They seem to win (from my stand point of complete apathy and ignorance) based on what a small group of people seem to consider "quality" which may well be very different to what constitutes, in my opinion, an enjoyable film. I personally watch films that are entertaining. I don't find pretentious explorations of socially hot topics entertaining.

[artekka.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Plus, the critics are people who have seen so many movies that their ideas of them get warped. They don't want to see the movie ideas that have succeeded a hundred times; they want to see something new b/c they're bored. I've often found the perspective of critics to be rather skewed.

[swimmerear.livejournal.com]

fixedly leftist agenda Amusing. But its just another award event, personally I don't take them so seriously.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Amusing, but true.

I don't like it when anything perverted is lauded, period.

[battlingbeauty.livejournal.com]

I didn't watch them but I agree that it's sad what we glorify in the media...

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Yup. It most certainly is.

[madame-faust.livejournal.com]

The politics of the Oscars are slightly ridiculous, it's true. Personally, I'm horrified that Penelope Cruz won Best Supporting Actress for Vicki Christina Barcelona when Viola Davis really stole the screen from Meryl Streep in Doubt, at least in my opinion.

On the other hand, there are always surprises. I don't think anyone was surprised that Slumdog Millionaire swept, but it really is refreshing to see a solid, different kind of movie (yet still with that classic love story theme) get the recognition that it deserves.

But on the subject of fashion, I have to say, I'm still utterly in love with Marisa Tomei's gown (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FW86_jO7k_A/SaKa4sy01kI/AAAAAAAA4EU/p5I1vKyb1do/s1600-h/MarisaTomei_AtelierVersace.jpg). That is a dramatic statement if ever I saw one.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Isn't that the movie she kisses Scarlet Johannson in?

Doubt is something I need to research, because I'm somewhat interested in it. I don't want to "take the plunge" and end up subjecting myself to horrific visual displays, though...O.o

Oh, dear, I don't suppose you'd like what Randolph Duke said about that dress......I didn't care for it myself, and was rather under-whelmed by the fashions this year. My favourite was Amy Adams' red number, sans necklace. ;-)

[chloeandrudy.livejournal.com]

I had no desire to see the ones that won; Milk, The Reader, etc. I only go to movies that I'm interested in, and those were The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Dark Knight. So the Academy Awards have no bearing on what I watch, and just because they won, it's not making me want to go see them.
I did watch it for the Red Carpet fashion show :) , and I loved watching Hugh Jackman, who was the one who made the homosexual quip. He is one very talented guy.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

We did rent The Changeling, and boy, was that every an emotional movie. I'm not a fan of Angelina Jolie's in any way shape or form, but she did a heckuva job as Christine Collins.

What did you think of The Dark Knight? I don't think we've talked about that, have we?

Hugh Jackman did a great job as host, I thought! Very smooth and professional, with none of the petty little digs that other hosts have made. I did think the show itself was a bit like Oscar had called in sick and Tony had showed up instead, but that's not his fault. ;-)

[aaania80.livejournal.com]

from European perspective - Oscars are all about money and PR.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

You've just about hit the nail on the head, too. ;-)

[tsuu.livejournal.com]

I think it's important to remember that art, and movies being a form of art, is not just about telling the good wholesome stories. I've not seen The Reader yet, but from what I know I think it's an important story to be told and it's makers, actors and actresses deserve recognition for their courage in telling such a controversial story. Nobody is applauding the fact that middle-aged women have sex with young boys. In my opinion that's just as worthy as The Dark Knight (which I loved too) because we need black to make the white stand out all the more clearly.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't classify TDK as a "good wholesome story." There's nothing objectionable in that there's no sex, excessive violence, nudity, etc., but it's not a sweet lovey-dovey story, and I don't mean to imply that those sorts of movies are the only ones worth watching.

The Reader being an important story to tell (from what I understand, it's from a novel, but presumably a true story?) is beside the point. Yes, children being abused by adults is something that needs to be brought to light and exposed, but this movie instead of shaming what it's supposed to condemn, has become the sin in glorifying and reveling in illicit sexuality. The filmmakers are exploiting the teenage actor in the film by exposing his naked body to the entire world, and I would say the same for Kate Winslet, but I'm beginning to think she enjoys showing off her breasts to the rest of the population.

Sometimes I think there is a fine line between "showing" wrong in film, in order to expose it, and glorifying it. The Reader crossed that line, IMO.

[princessjune.livejournal.com]

to quote watching_ships

It's not just you, I'm sick and tired of the type of movies you mentioned. When will this all end?

Not only that, have you heard of Graham Ovenden? He's a British Photographer and supposed artist who took nude photographs of pre-pubescent girls and the Tate Musuem of supposed art keeps those photographs up because they say that the nude photographs of innocent girls are art.

It's basically child pornography.

[madame-faust.livejournal.com]

The use of child nudes in art photography has been around since the 19th century, and nude children have featured in fine art for centuries previous. There is a fine line between what is designed to intrigue and what is designed to titillate I believe that Graham Ovenden's artwork is the former. He does have a particular fascination with depicting the Lolita image, but that is one that transcends literature, art and music, so one can hardly fault him for exploring it in his chosen medium.

[grain-de-beaute.livejournal.com]

You are very courageous to speak your mind so openly and genuinely. It's really rare these days:)

I certainly understand and approve your point. I think I lost all interest in the Oscars when they chose to reward a movie like "Brokeback Mountain" when "Walk the Line", the story of one of the most admirable men only got the crumbs.

As someone said previously, the Academy needs to find shocking movies to get the attention. Beauty, respectability, sweetness and values do not sell. Some people will find this extremely modern and open minded and will be very proud of their time. People like you and me will only be ashamed of what our world does for money....

[swimmerear.livejournal.com]

the Academy needs to find shocking movies to get the attention. Beauty, respectability, sweetness and values do not sell -Yes, so true =/

Have you seen the 1997 film, La Vita è bella/The Life is Beautiful? I personally found it adorable.

[drpaleophd.livejournal.com]

Gloriously excellent post. Reminds me of Plugged-In's article here:

http://www.pluggedinonline.com/read/read/a0004517.cfm

...except yours was better.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Ahhh...you flatter me! Thank you sweetie. *hugs* But I think theirs was better. :-/

[fairly.livejournal.com]

Hi. You don't know me, but I've been following your blog for about two years, mainly for the graphics. I've seen your previous anti-gay posts, but I haven't commented on them until now.

Whilst I agree that many films are favoured for their shock value, I don't think that the presence of homosexuality in a film makes it inherently wrong.

I don't see why you have a problem with consenting adults who happen to be attracted to the same sex. I don't think it's a choice, but even if it were, it doesn't affect you. You may be disgusted by two men kissing, or wanting to get married, but that doesn't mean that you have to go out with another woman if you don't want to. Your wanting to impose your religious beliefs on gay and lesbian people is similar to someone telling you that you can't go to your church or worship the way you want. Most gay people would not tell you that you cannot marry the man of your choice, or that you cannot be a Christian, or that you cannot exist in this world as you are. You, though, have made several posts telling them that they have no right to exist as they are, and that they are perverted and sick. Many people would find your views disgusting. I'm one of them. Nevertheless, I recognise your right to hold those beliefs, and I would never belong to a movement that asked to ban your religion, or deprive you of those rights. This is where you and I differ.

There's a difference between disagreement and wanting people not to exist, enjoy equal rights under the law, or be represented in film or television. Not everyone is a white, heterosexual Christian. It is unfair to expect that everyone must be identical to you in your beliefs.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

First off, it's not that *I* have a problem with homosexuality, it's that God has a problem with it. It's very clearly stated in the Bible that homosexuality, just like adultery between heterosexual couples, premarital sex, or other forms of sexual immorality are considered sinful. I have not invented my own standards, I'm following and expressing the views that the Bible teaches.

Most gay people would not tell you that you cannot marry the man of your choice, or that you cannot be a Christian, or that you cannot exist in this world as you are.

Hmmm, and yet they seem to repeatedly try and tell anyone who believes that homosexuality that they are "homophobes" or are committing "hate crimes" for speaking out about their views, they want to redefine the definition of marriage, push homosexual propaganda in schools, and tell pastors that preaching against homosexuality from the pulpit is a violation of their "rights."

There's a difference between disagreement and wanting people not to exist, enjoy equal rights under the law, or be represented in film or television. Not everyone is a white, heterosexual Christian. It is unfair to expect that everyone must be identical to you in your beliefs.

Now it is you who is being unfair. So now in addition to being disgusting, I'm a racist and a bigot? For the record, I have friends of many different skin colors, cultures, and religions, I don't believe in "races" as we are all descendants of Adam and children of God, and I don't believe in leaving insulting, barbed comments on entries made by people of opposing viewpoints. What I do believe in, however, is standing up for my values. As Christians we're commanded to hate the sin, but love the sinner.

[pearly-gold.livejournal.com]

I'm a film student, and not only for that do I feel I understand the academy a little better than most people. I'm also into films that are not so mainstream.
Firstly, these people, as most people in the deeper business, see these things as no different to a novel or music. The best way to describe their actions towards the mainstream movies like 'The Dark Knight' is like... Well, imagine putting a Comic Book beside an Indian Novel about the slums and situations of life in India. Or a Comic Book besides a novel about a wartime situation, or a situation in politics.
I feel no confusion towards your views on other things like Milk, I know you're religious and therefore I have no opinion on it. But what I do object to, which is what the whole world will support, is the fact The Dark Knight was an oscar worthy film. I'm actually disgusted that Heath got that award. He would never have been nominated if it wasn't for all that hype. Without the media telling us TDK was a great film, everyone would have gone to see it and then moved on from it like any other blockbuster. Heath is playing a comic book villian, that has been around for years. These versions of the Batman saga may be more serious, phychological, etc. But they are still Batman... Sci-fi and Fantasty. They don't promote a strong message (whether you agree with it or not) and they don't mark a moment in cinematic history.
The role of the Joker was made up by the screenplay writers, the costume designers, the director... Heath gave it a funny voice and... did his job. He acted the part.
Flashback to Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow all those years ago.
That character was a script and a costume. Though it was Johnny who added all the interesting lines, the swaying and and the attitude. That character was supposed to have been far more serious, far plainer before him. He created it.
And did he win best actor that year? No, he lost it to Bill Murray in Lost in Translation (which is an oscar worthy film, not so sure about the role)...
The academy switches between saying its for lifetime achievement and just the role itself. Not that I mind so much about the awkwards, Johnny is a good, well-rounded actor anyway, and I understand that they didnt want to give an oscar to a pirate in a childs film. But they should have thought the same when giving it to a comic book villian. That was the part of the show for the public. You're lucky for that.
The Oscars are never public choice awards, they are for serious, thought-provoking films, whether they be good or bad. You may dislike films like Milk and The Reader, but you surely have more educated things to say about their effect than the Dark Knight, which serves a role of light entertainment.

I'm glad Slumdog won a lot, though. It was a very wonderful film, but very uplifting at the same time (at the end, at least)... I have little interest in India and their cinema, but I still found the whole thing to be great. That derserved everything it got.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

I can understand that you have an "insider's view" into what the artsy amongst us are trying to accomplish with film, but I don't think that automatically means a film student or filmmaker's opinion is more valid than a member of the general public when it comes to an overall assessment.

While everyone knows that Batman comes from a comic book, I don't think that we should automatically disregard it because of that. Are we comparing genres and source material, deciding one is better than the other, or are we comparing films and their subject matter? If you dismiss TDK as a mere "comic book film", then you've already come with your judgment pre-decided without giving it a fair trial.

But what I do object to [...] is the fact The Dark Knight was an oscar worthy film.

Have you even seen TDK? I could write an essay on the moral complexities depicted in it. I had thought it would be overkill, and that no one would be interested in reading it because they're so obvious, but now I'm wondering...

I'm actually disgusted that Heath got that award.

You know, I'm not a Heath fan and never have been, and I was disgusted with his participation in Brokeback Mountain, but even I wouldn't say that his win was "disgusting." You might not have liked the movie, but there is no denying that he redefined the idea of villainy in film and his performance as the Joker is going to be the standard people use as comparison for many years to come.

Without the media telling us TDK was a great film

The media, at least where I live, has been praising The Reader, Milk, and Revolutionary Road to the skies for months, and I saw more ads for those three than I did for The Dark Knight, with the exception of posters at bus stops. Thank God there weren't any giant pictures of Kate Winslet in a bathtub!!

These versions of the Batman saga may be more serious, phychological, etc. But they are still Batman... Sci-fi and Fantasty.

Let me ask you, did you resent the Lord of the Rings movies walking away with so many Oscars a few years back? And it's not the "Batman" elements that are so wonderful, because if you entirely eliminated the Batman mythos from TDK and it was just a vigilante movie, I would still feel the same way about it.

They don't promote a strong message (whether you agree with it or not) and they don't mark a moment in cinematic history.

There I will politely but vehemently insist you are mistaken. Again, you make me wonder if you've even seen the film, or if you have, then perhaps the theater you went to left out a portion of the film when they set up the projector. What is your definition of a strong message? If standing up for what is right, carrying out justice, ending corruption, defending the helpless and innocent, adhering to a higher moral standard, giving up your own life/needs/wants/desires/loves/fortune for the sake of others is not a strong message, then I don't know what is.

Flashback to Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow all those years ago. That character was a script and a costume.

Eyeliner. You forgot the eyeliner and dreadlocks. ;-P

The PotC trilogy could hardly be called "serious" movies by any stretch of the imagination, and it's a bit unfair to compare them. Firstly, people don't have barnacles growing out of their faces, and they don't have hair made out of tentacles. Yes, PotC is fantasy, and yes, TDK is also fantasy because it creates an alternate universe, but it's a parallel universe that closely mirrors our own, the biggest stretch of the viewer's imagination being that a man could survive the severe burns that Two Face endured.

The academy switches between saying its for lifetime achievement and just the role itself.

Considering that Heath died shortly after completing TDK, and that the Joker was his last role, would it not be fair to say his award was a form of a lifetime achievement?

The Oscars are never public choice awards, they are for serious, thought-provoking films, whether they be good or bad.

And they usually end up overlooking the good, and awarding the bad.

[fiofiorina.livejournal.com]

Don't worry, it's not just you. But I never gave much on the Academy Awards anyway, either a film appeals to me or it doesn't. And many nice films as "Odette Toulemonde" (I think you would like that one) who are so positive about life are not even considered.

In my opinion the rating or the developed taste in movie critics rather goes the same way as classical opera: If it isn't bloody & dirty, with lots of sex & crime, it's not considered artful enough.
But the real box office are still the ones with lovely costumes, good singers (not big names), and nice and oldfashioned scenarios.
Naturally they're ripped apart by the critics...
e.g. Opera Zurich had Salome (Strauss) some years back. Instead of taking of one veil after another she torn limbs of plastic-baby dolls. According to the director to draw attention to the fact that he considers Salome's been abused by Herod.
People walked OUT. of the ongoing opera. No considering waiting for the break. I did, and the whole performance was boo'ed out.
Still, critics roamed about the success story of that version.
I was just disgusted.

It's not you and I don't understand the pre-warning about values (I mean - you and I, we do have absolutely opposite "values", or we name them differently. Still, I agree with everything you wrote)

It's about taste, breaking rules of good behaviour and being flattered by critics (either movie, or opera, or theatre). Everything what appeals to the public audience isn't "Art" anymore. It's "selling".
Sad. But that's the way it is.

Edit: I forgot to add - to the topic of TDK (I've seen it, but it's not my favourite film). Maybe it's to uncomfortable to think and consider the values presented.
With "The Reader" one automatically comes into the "All Nazi are bad, we today-people are sooo good".
Batman one could always ignore as being "just a comic-book character".
But TDK is a bit on the same line as "habla con ella" for me. It took me years until I saw it a second time, it was hard to digest the message used. Maybe I come to like it, But I can't possibly tell.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

I don't personally care what the Academy thinks, but I dislike it when morally bankrupt films are praised to the skies. Does that make sense? ;-)

Oi, vey, that sounds like a horrid opera....definitely something I would have walked out of!! (I too would have most likely done it in the middle, as life is too short to waste time enduring garbage)

It's not you and I don't understand the pre-warning about values (I mean - you and I, we do have absolutely opposite "values", or we name them differently. Still, I agree with everything you wrote)

I meant, that I get randomly friended by people who I haven't had conversations with, and then whenever I post something political or religious, those same people unfriend me and rant about how terrible my beliefs are. The point was, that if they'd taken the time to read my profile, or even the older entries on my blog, they would have seen what kind of person I am, and the whole friending/unfriending thing could have been avoided.

Edit: I forgot to add - to the topic of TDK (I've seen it, but it's not my favourite film). Maybe it's to uncomfortable to think and consider the values presented. With "The Reader" one automatically comes into the "All Nazi are bad, we today-people are sooo good". Batman one could always ignore as being "just a comic-book character". But TDK is a bit on the same line as "habla con ella" for me. It took me years until I saw it a second time, it was hard to digest the message used. Maybe I come to like it, But I can't possibly tell.

You're right about The Reader, I think almost everyone universally can dismiss the Nazis as being "evil" so we automatically know everything they do is wrong. TDK is definitely something that requires multiple viewings, but it's different, because it forces the viewer to see both the side of evil and the side of good. There is no middle ground; you can't be "good" while doing terrible things. One of the themes in the first movie, Batman Begins, is "it's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you."

[visionsbeyond.livejournal.com]

Firstly I must say thankyou for putting out this post ! I don`t want to comment on any of the anti-gay remarks because I don`t feel I should pass judgement there but BRAVO for putting down the TDK points and defending the movie so well olde!
Okay the Best Picture snub I can live with but the fact that they forgot to nominate Chris Nolan left me feeling very disappointed!
The beauty of this film lied in the fact that it went so much more deeper than just your average comic book film . It was a film which covered a topic so relevant in today`s day and age. The movie`s symbolism was amazing! eg: Batman - hope , Joker - terrorism and anarchy , Harvey Dent - Those few who are really determined to change the world but are ultimately pulled back by a corrupt system .
Loved the references and analogies but I guess all the 'intelligent' Academy members saw it merely as a comic book 'superhero' film . Sad.
It disturbed me that a film as controvertial as 'The Reader' was entered. The concept is just a little too much for a BP Oscar nod. Moreover even the critics never showed any great love either and then it suddenly goes and picks up the big noms ???? - shocking!
I`ve come to terms with the fact that they will never come out of their safe shell to nominate good films.
Anyway TDK made its money and won all the acclaim . It seemed like even part of Slumdog`s success was a little overshadowed by the TDK snub eventually because of which the Reader took a alot of the bashing.
Either way you think Chris Nolan would exchange all that cash he`s made for an Oscar nom which he wouldn`t have won anyway? I doubt it! lol !
At the end of the day , the season`s over and done with. TDK is a wonderful film waaay ahead of its genre, got all the love from the fans who waited for it and most importantly - got Heath Ledger the much deserved regonition! Thankyou Chris Nolan for an amazing movie experience! Great and Best film of
2008!

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

And I must say thank you for your sweet reply! :-) You've pretty much summed up most of what it took me 15+ comments to say, lol.

[dragonclouds.livejournal.com]

The Oscars tend to go to the movies that are the most 'controversial' because they're talked about the most and are in the minds of those who vote for them. I was really pleased that Slumdog won this year - it's a film that celebrates innocence and redemption and it's so utterly not pretentious. It's almost anti-Academy in its simplicity. If you've not seen it, I definitely recommend it - there's a bit of bad language and there are some dark themes, but it's so worth it.

As for The Dark Knight - I've not seen it because I tend to steer clear of hyped up movies, but in the last forty years or so, Oscars have rarely gone to the films that are the biggest box office smashes (the only ones I can think of right now are Titanic and Lord of the Rings!). But I think that's partly because they don't need to do all the Oscar publicity - they don't need to put full page ads in newspapers urging Academy members to vote for them! They've already received their awards in the form of cinema tickets and huge amounts of money.



Also, I came over to your journal to ask if you'd like to be friends. We have quite a lot in common and I really admire how you stand up for what you believe in (even if I don't always agree with you politically, although I certainly do on the religious side!). I would love to be your friend, so... there you go!

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

The Oscars tend to go to the movies that are the most 'controversial' because they're talked about the most and are in the minds of those who vote for them.

TDK was certainly the most talked about and in the minds of a lot of people (some even said it should have been nominated for Best Picture as a ploy to get more viewers to watch the broadcast) but it's just not worth trying to understand these people, I swear.

Bollywood movies really aren't my thing, but if Slumdog checks out content-wise, I wouldn't be opposed to giving it a try.

Now it's my turn to recommend something. ;-) I would really suggest you rent Batman Begins and then see TDK, unless you absolutely hate crime dramas or movies about corruption and heroes and that sort of thing. I promise, it's waaaay better than Spiderman, lol! ;-P

Gosh, I'm insanely flattered! I don't usually end up making friends while posting things like this, but I would be delighted! :-D *goes and adds you*

[rebeccarand987.livejournal.com]

Hi there! I don't necessarily agree with your views but I certainly know that you're not alone. One thing I would like to say, though, is that you have sincerely misunderstood the Reader. I understand why, I mean you haven't seen it and you're very religion-oriented, but you should judge a movie before you've seen it and you shouldn't make up random facts about movies if you haven't seen it.
For example, you said somewhere in the comments that child abuse is something that should be mentioned. I agree with that, but except for the fact that the Holocause is mentioned there is no child abuse whatsoever. Michael decides to go to Hanna's place, he doesn't push her away at all and she doesn't force him. Yeah sure his naked body wasn't exactly the loveliest sight, but that's completely missing the point. Hanna had an unignorable effect on his life, something that forever affected him. That is an important point. This movie does have morals, too. Other than the romance, the most important part of the book and the movie is Hanna being tried for war crimes. Even if it doesn't surprise anyone that she did it (it kind of said it in all plots and covers...) it's still shocking because she wasn't a detestable character throughout the book, like the Nazis were. Even I, who has distant family who has gone through the Holocaust, was surprised at how...sympathetic I felt towards Hanna while reading the book, and then seeing the film. That's one of the main points of the story, that's also one of the reasons it was nominated at awards - it makes you think, about really controversial issues, like the Holocaust and war crimes and whether criminals are truly guilty.

I also don't agree, however, with people who say that TDK was a mindless movie - I personally didn't like it that much, and I do think that if Heath Ledger hadn't died because of the pills he had to take because of the movie he wouldn't have won, but either way the movie is full of morals and issues like that.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

I never could understand when people say you can't judge a movie for the content, so long as the objectionable content is indeed in the film. If there is nudity (and a sexual relationship) between a middle-aged woman and a teenaged boy, and if I object to such things, how is it that I am making up random facts? (and for the record, I didn't make up the random facts about the nudity and the bathtub -- I saw the clips.)

I agree with that, but except for the fact that the Holocause is mentioned there is no child abuse whatsoever.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Michael decides to go to Hanna's place, he doesn't push her away at all and she doesn't force him.

In America, that is still statutory rape.

Yeah sure his naked body wasn't exactly the loveliest sight, but that's completely missing the point. Hanna had an unignorable effect on his life, something that forever affected him. That is an important point.

I think you are trying to make an entirely different point than I am. ;-) My point, is that the movie has become the monster it is trying to "defeat" by showing the nudity. If it had been handled tastefully, and carefully filmed around rather than dwelt on and clearly displayed, then perhaps I would feel differently.

This movie does have morals, too. Other than the romance, the most important part of the book and the movie is Hanna being tried for war crimes.

A movie that shows naked women and naked under-aged children is not moral, IMO.

she wasn't a detestable character throughout the book, like the Nazis were. Even I, who has distant family who has gone through the Holocaust, was surprised at how...sympathetic I felt towards Hanna while reading the book, and then seeing the film.

You've just illustrated another one of the reasons I strongly object to "detestable" characters being depicted sympathetically in film. Are we to think that a woman who behaves towards a young boy in ways that Hanna does can be "not that bad" or sympathetic? What unseen damage are we doing when someone as vile and disgusting as wars crimes and child abuse aren't viewed as forces of evil, but something to be pitied?

[kf-creations.livejournal.com]

I have to say - I give all the red carpet events a miss.....I watch what I want to watch, what appeals to my values too, and what is recommended by others as good to see (others that know me well I might add)

When I see films win these awards that are more art than content I just think, well, that is the way it is. Almost like the art world it's self.....but that is a different matter...........

I love that you want the entertainment aspect missy....after all, isn't that what it is about? :-)

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

I think art should have a message, but we don't need to be beat over the head with it, and if you're film is a "message" film, then you don't need to make your acceptance speech a political statement. IMO, anyway...

[yeshua-myprince.livejournal.com]

Great post! :) I know I'm late, but I enjoyed reading all the comments and discussion you inspired. I completely agree with all you wrote. Even though I haven't seen the Dark Knight and am not much a fan of superhero movies, you made very good points, and defended your position very well. :)
btw...have you seen Robin Hood bbc yet? My family and I are currently addicted. It is very good, and Mr. Thornon is amazingly bad as a baddie. *lol*
Have a wonderful day!
Blessings,
~Anna

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Thank you! And I don't mind if you're late; I appreciate all the positive feedback on these sorts of things that I can get. ;-)

TDK almost isn't a superhero movie -- if you don't hate crime dramas and that sort of thing, I think you might like it.

Yes and no...we Netflixed the first season but only watched the one disc because no one really liked it...we're not that big on tongue-in-cheek things, I'm afraid. :-/

[anodiel.livejournal.com]

I watched the Oscars, but I didn't pay that close attention. It was moreless background noise. I did see that Heath Ledger won the Oscar he much deserved. But I do think you have a very good and valid point. And published critics have basically said the same thing about why the ratings have plunged. I think it's just further confirmation that not only Hollywood leftists but a majority of leftists in general are out of touch with what America really wants.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

I wonder if Hollywood will ever get the clue? Low ratings = people don't like. Hmm.....