DISQUS

playwert · 8 months ago

To angrybroomstick- what is there to admire about a man who executed thousands of people?

Also, why does it matter why the Acadamy makes one person the winner, and another the loser. In the end, it comes down to a selection group of people, who's favourite preformance was Penn's. Simple as. Why must everything these days have a shadowly subtext?

_Christopher_M · 8 months ago

it's more about the overall film...which was by all rights is a masterpiece no matter what the subjective view is ...Downfall was a brilliant piece of film and may not have glorified Hitler...yet it was a piece of film focused on a perspective...Che for many people was a great man I think it was meant to be in that view...I think every revolutionary in the world's history has blood on their hands...making him out to be any worse is a little ignorant...

_Christopher_M · 8 months ago

it's more about the overall film...which was by all rights a masterpiece no matter what the subjective view is ...Downfall was a brilliant piece of film and may not have glorified Hitler...yet it was a piece of film focused on a perspective...Che for many people was a great man I think it was meant to be in that view...I think every revolutionary in the world's history has blood on their hands...making him out to be any worse is a little ignorant...

_Christopher_M · 8 months ago

it's more about the overall film...which was by all rights a masterpiece no matter what the subjective view is ...Downfall was a brilliant piece of film and may not have glorified Hitler...yet it was a piece of film focused on a perspective...Che for many people was a great man I think it was meant to be in that view...

LandonPalmer · 8 months ago

Totally agree Chris. 'Che' portrayed Ernesto Guevara as neither a heartless murderer nor an idealized revolutionary, but objectively chronicled a man of many contradictions. I don't think it's any secret why a film like that wouldn't be honored at the Oscars though (but, then again, 'Reds' was pretty highly celebrated a few decades ago).

LandonPalmer · 8 months ago

Are you getting nostalgic for some vague era before subtext existed?

_Christopher_M · 8 months ago

I've gotten over the fact that films I love won't always get the recognition but it was obvious that Rourke should have won best actor...we can only hope he keeps finding interesting roles and behaving...I always thought the idea that he was being resurrected as kind of an insult...since he was a major player in Sin City which opened at number one...also with great performances in Once Upon A Time in Mexico and Man on Fire...even his part in Spun overshadowed the whole movie....as long as he keeps making movies I'll keep watching them with or without the Oscar... the award really means nothing if you take a look at how many winners have gone into obscurity over the years...you're performances and body of work should speak for itself not how many awards you have on the mantle

The Kizer Sosay · 8 months ago

I rarely post comments for boards or articles but this was completely necessary

I felt so angry after watching this years awards and primarily due to the fact that Penn walked away with an award that clearly wasn't his to accept. Rourke's performance was a once in a lifetime role, while penn will sure to put out another "full-retard" performance most likely in the next year.

He made mention to rourke as his brother, and yet it felt so cheap because if he truly knew rourke and realized not only what this nomination meant to rourke he would have walked off stage and given him the award that was rightfully his

the awards gave it to penn because they knew he would say exactly what they wanted him to say so that it didn't feel contrived or rig but those of us who are more knowledgeable to the "hollywood agenda" knew their motive from the get-go

to see dustin lance black win was interesting, due to the fact it was his very first script so while some may argue that as well, making dreams come true such as discovering a possibly talented and unknown writer should be what the awards are all about

your article was well written and you sir deserve a congratulations

AndyIII · 8 months ago

Another great read.

The thing that sticks with me is this statement...'the Oscars don't matter in the least'. You're right, they don't. But this is several pages ruminating on certain details of them...as countless articles have done in the last week across the net and in print. So, to a lot of people, they do. But they're a constant source of annoyance almost every single year.

I am trying incredibly hard to stop caring about them, but I just can't stop. The more I'm able to cut meaningless rankings, gossip, worship, and awards out of my life, the happier I am. I don't care about the Grammys, AMAs, VMAs, The Super Bowl, what Angelina Jolie is eating right now, The World Series, American Idol 'winners', The Tonys, NASCAR champions...none of it. But when the Oscars come around, the cycle repeats itself every year. Snubs, stupid nominations, even worse wins. I just don't get it.

D Train · 8 months ago

Great article. Spot on observation.

ANGRYBROOMSTICK · 8 months ago

wow, great post. I agree that Dustin Lance Black's speech was beautiful but overshadowed by Penn's speech. there have been many discussions on other forums about how the Oscars don't always give out awards to best (or progressive) films, but rather give away to "safe" movies like Crash and Ordinary People. yet years later, these movies aren't as memorable, while radical films like RAGING BULL and BROKEBACK are still discussed today.

Rourke should have won and you're right, he was the radical underdog, I haven't even thought of him as a RADICAL underdog, though. I'm disappointed CHE didn't land any nominations, too. Many people dislike Che and disagree with communism (although I admire the man himself), maybe nominating CHE would have been considered radical, too.

I'm still glad Penn won, though. the Oscar win will give more attention to the legacy of Harvey Milk.

flameyheadgear · 8 months ago

I agree the Academy does play it a little too safe, most of the time. Any of the movies nominated alongside 'Crash', for example, were probably more deserving, really. The real reward IS in going down in cinematic history as the creator of something truly unforgettable and being discussed at great length in film and writing classes decades after a film's release. As a writer, that's what I'd want. I watch the awards, but I don't give a shit about them, and honestly, I think this year was my last.

John Strickland · 8 months ago

The Oscars is less of an awards show than it is a television program. The awards, the winners, the nominations, the presenters, the hosts, everything about it is done to get higher ratings, and to appease the advertising sponsors of the program. If Mickey Rourke used the "what to eat, what to drink, who to fuck..." line at the Oscars, people would have thrown a conniption, and that's a shame, because I think that's the reason he isn't an Oscar winner, and just a nominee. People like to think Sean Penn is a loose cannon, but he's a Sunday school teacher compared to Rourke when it comes to acceptance speeches.

Cole_Abaius · 8 months ago

Can we all stop pretending that The Academy is a cabal of five guys who carefully craft a stage-worthy, ratings-grabbing broadcast? It's a giant group of people who are both interconnected and independent of each other who choose nominees and winners.

In a way, it's a democracy of experts - people that make their living from the industry and understand it better than most (in a certain sense). It's not a conspiracy, and it would be impossible to get that number of people in line to snub Rourke because he might say a naughty word on camera. Not to mention that him saying something ridiculous would actually be a ratings and PR win for the show.

LandonPalmer · 8 months ago

I don't think it's unsafe to approach the Academy as a unified collective (opinion) of sorts. They are, after all, a highly exclusive organization composed of a specific elite, unified by industry and (for the most part) isolated in one city. Thus, its possible that they have a limited idea of what a good film/performance is or should be. It certainly doesn't help that many Academy members know many of the nominees personally. And lastly, while I believe that a technical filmmaker (an editor or cinematographer) may be able to assess their respective categories with more knowledge and expertise, I believe the bulk of critical film appreciation is highly subjective, therefore legitimizing the opinions of those both inside and outside the industry...seriously, under what criteria can one judge best directing?

AndyIII · 8 months ago

Here here...you're totally right. People act like three days before the telecast, cloaked members of The Illuminati, Warren Buffet, and the ghost of Colonel Sanders get together to decide what would piss off people the most during the show.

There is no conspiring to 'screw' anyone...everything can be explained through the demographics and the prevailing attitudes of this very large democratic body. I mean, look at the history, you can glean many things from past decisions...it's a very sentimental body, it's not what you would call 'edgy', it rewards liberal causes, and it doesn't read comic books. The Mickey Rourke thing is probably a combination of members not seeing the movie, and wanting to reward 'Milk' as much as possible.

790 · 8 months ago

Spot on AndyIII

John Strickland, your slightly wrong about the Oscars compromising the show for ratings. If that was the case TDK would have been up for best picture.....

walkwithjesus · 8 months ago

Or maybe they just thought Penn was the suprior actor this year?!
Which tbh wouldn't be hard to believe- the range that man has is incredibly, all you have to do is compare his two oscar roles[Mystic River and Milk] . He sinked into the skin of Harvey Milk, and made it his own. Rourke gave a glossy, but overall one-dimensional preformance tbh mirrored his own life a bit too much.

curt · 8 months ago

great fucking post

walkwithsteveearl · 8 months ago

walkwithjesus is a tool. FAIL

D.O. · 8 months ago

Landon, just wanna say your article really articulates so many of my thoughts about these Oscars. Especially how sad it is that DLB's speech, which I thought was one of the most touching and beautiful Oscar acceptances ever, seems to have been lost in the mix. I didn't even want him to win, but was so glad he did after hearing him. Anyway, great post. That's all.

790 · 8 months ago

Rourkes performance was anything but one dimensional.

Both Penn, and Rourke were amazing.
Let's keep in mind the politics going on.
Not to mention that there are bigger issues going on in our society.

Congrats to the winners, let's move on!
Its 2009, the Dark Knight has passed let's get a grip on the new year.

TDC · 8 months ago

Very interersting post. I was hoping that Rourke would take it, though Penn's performance was fantastic. But Rouke's act was more like watching a man exorcise his ravaged soul than an act - it will live with me for a long, long time.

I'm from the UK, and Rourke was on our biggest chat show over here a few days before the awards and basically said he knew he wouldn't get it cos he'd pissed off so many in the higher echelons of Hollywood that they would never allow it. You have to remember that this guy wasn't even insurable at one point...

The lack of Del Toro in the line-up is again questionable - his performance in Che was superb and he deserved to get a nomination. I imagine the politics of the subject played a part in this...

TDC

LandonPalmer · 8 months ago

Thank you for your compliments, Kizer Sosay...I hope I'm not misinterpreting what you're saying, but I had no intention with this post of promoting the bandwagon that says Hollywood has a collective overt liberal agenda. I think language like that positions one as just as big as ideologue as they situate Hollywood as being. I do believe that, as Hollywood is an industry, it has over time concocted a system promoting the most basic form of conservative wish fulfillment (not in terms of specific politics, but the most basic form of American ideology). The three act structure, closure, and the inevitable victory of the hero (even in death) are ways in which Hollywood articulates a collective, unified worldview positing itself not necessarily as truth but as an ideal approach to life and events (despite Milk's progressive message, it also belonged to these structures of convention). As Comolli and Narboni illustrate, Hollywood is potentially a more powerful ideological machine than what we traditionally think of as 'propaganda' simply because it articulates its core belief under the guise of entertainment to an audience whose societal, cultural, and narrative expectations are aligned with the assumptions of the films themselves going in.

Also, sorry I'm responding to everyone's comments so late. I'll do better in the future.