Opinion Talk

By Dave Gibbs

March 2, 2006 11:47 PM | Link to this

I certainly enjoyed reading your guest columnist’s, Ms. McClure’s, rather addled vision of the ‘problem’ with today’s movies. She bemoans the lack of ‘family friendly’ fare and then proceeds to list some very high profile examples of that very thing. Look, here’s the deal: my wife and I take our little boys to movies that speak to their level of mental development, like Narnia. Then, as grown-ups are known to do, we go together to see films with more mature themes, like Brokeback Mountain which we both agreed was possibly the best we’d seen in years. Apparently, movies that appeal to grown-ups are a problem for the annoyingly tight-assed among us. So, Ms. McClure, continue to claim what is good is the same as what is popular (Danielle Steel is the greatest writer EVER and who needs John Prine when Menudo sold SO many more records!?) especially when it fits your disturbingly limited worldview. Don’t waste your money on grown-up movies; you wouldn’t understand them anyway.

By Lee

March 3, 2006 01:04 AM | Link to this

The better question is: “Does anyone outside of Hollywood give a rats a$$ about the Oscars?” Probably not.

In response to your question, Politically Correct drivel is all Hollywood produces nowadays. As far as Brokeback Mountain, I seriously doubt there were any gay cowboys. After 10 hours in the saddle, the last thing anyone would want is some back door bugger pawing at your butt.

By Joel

March 3, 2006 05:45 AM | Link to this

Yes, the Oscars are political. I never watch them, and rarely watch movies these days. Very few of the current crop of movies are worth watching.

By Charles

March 3, 2006 07:24 AM | Link to this

There’s no “think” to my answer - I “know”. It’ll be more self-evident once “Brokeback Mountain” gets awards it doesn’t deserve. It is insidious that a film that has so few viewers and much less acceptance is given so much attention.

By LHK

March 3, 2006 07:39 AM | Link to this

By Ms. McClure’s measure, I suppose we should be giving the Pulitzer Prize to A Million Little Pieces, and all the Emmys to American Idol. Because what’s popular is always right, huh?

I fear the day that the Oscars become like the Grammys and choose to reward style over substance, mass appeal over artistic appeal. Newsflash: the People’s Choice Awards are shown once a year in primetime! Watch that over the Oscars if you so desire.

By Carlton Wyatt

March 3, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

I hear there are a million times more hamburgers sold than t-bone steaks, so I guess that means hamburgers are better than a steak. The Oscars are, in most cases, about the quality of films, not about ticket sales. Sometimes the two things do converge as in the recent “Lord Of The Rings” trilogy, but sales is not an arbiter of a great movie, and it is disconcerting that someone who purports to be intelligent would think so.

By JDF

March 3, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this

In earlier days, many of this year’s film types ran at the “art” houses only. With all 5 Best Picture nominees either in that category or with anti-American themes, it would appear Hollywood is trying to cram their politically-charged agendas down the public throat while requiring a cash outlay for the privilege. Don’t know about anyone else, but I go to the movies to be entertained. Given that criteria, a major portion of the 2006 Oscars are irrelevant.

By candide

March 3, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this

Brokeback Mountain is a superb film because it shows the results, actual and possible, of homophobia — on the principals, their families, society at large. It took courage to make this film and I hope it wins big. The members of the Academy who vote have as many motives as there are people. No reason to believe their motives are less worthy than those of others.

By Van

March 3, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

Carlton Wyatt, I must disagree a little on what you said, on the whole I do agree.

There seems to be a disconecct between what the people define as a great movie and what the Acadamy thinks is a great movie.

I sometimes wonder why production companies take out ads to promote a film for an Acadamy award.

If 50 million people think movie “A” is the best movie for the year and the Acadamy thinks it should be movie “B”, then there is a disconnect.

A film may have the highest production values, best writing and the actors are on top of their craft, but if the people do not react favorable, is it a good picture?

By NotMyProblem

March 3, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Oscars reward films that tow the same left-wing socialist and homocentric line as the liberal elitists in hollywood do. Even when a film has absolutely no appeal to the average American, and deals with subject matter that is completely irrelevant to the majority of people in this country, what matters most is that they are able to make whatever political statement they stand for in that particular year. This year it’s all about gay cowboys and confused people who actually believe they’re one sex trapped in the body of another sex. One Flew Over the Coo-Coo’s Nest better describes the mental capacity of those in Hollywood.

By Beverly Blouin Davidorf

March 3, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

Jan McClure is ignorant. All movies are not for all movie goers. The Academy votes and nominates based on quality of movie, not popularity. “Brokeback” is not intended for all audiences. I have a 2 year old and a 4 year old and I did not take them to see it. “Narnia”, well, yes I did, although it was too violent in parts and we had to leave. I do not want to take my kids to everything, and thank God hollywood and other film makers do not make everything “family friendly.” Why would you have such an ignorant person write for the paper at any time? It is insulting to those of us who do not have one narrow minded opinion. Beverly Blouin Davidorf

By allen

March 3, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

Aren’t we all glad Ms. McClure is not on the Oscar Nominating Committee arguing commercial viability is more esteemed than artistic presentation? You would think someone bold enough to submit an opinion piece on a topic would at least educate herself on the subject so as not to look like a complete fool. Using her logic, any of the Madea series of movies is more Oscar worthy than the current nominees.

By John

March 3, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

The Academy Awards are for people in the movie industry to recognize their colleagues. Because the public at large might be interested, the Academy televises these awards. This in no way obligates the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to cater to popular opinion…Van! They are free to award filmakers and actors in anyway they see fit, and you are free to watch something else. If you people don’t like the attitude of Hollywood towards progressive films, then go start your own studios…good luck.

By paul jaeger

March 3, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

As for me I am sick and tired of the hollywod elite trying to spoon feed me their ideas on whats best for me and the rest of the world.

By Dana Spears

March 3, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

Hollywood definately made nominations this year based on whether or not the film fit in with their narrow view of “progressive (i.e., degenerative) politics”. It is their right to spend their money as they wish and it is our right not to support their projects. People making those fabulaously successful family films like “Narnia” are laughing all the way to the bank. Of course, the networks who broadcast the Oscars won’t have many viewers. But the networks are more concerned with degenerative politics than making money too. Fine. I suspect that very soon they all be burning in bankruptsy court. Viva la capitalism!

By Dana Spears

March 3, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

(in case the one I sent didn’t go through) Yes, Hollywood is more interested in the idea of “progessive (i.e. degenerative) politics” than in telling good stories. The are free to invest their money how they like and we are free not to support their projects. The people who tell great stories like “Narnia” will laugh all the way to the bank. Of course, the network that show the Oscars won’t have many viewers. But most of us quit watching it long ago. Clearly the networks are more concerned with politics than financial success too. We’ll all soon see them burning in bankruptsy court. Viva la capitalism!

By Hadden Knough

March 3, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

Does poop stink? Of course Oscars are politically correct, by Hollywood’s far out thinking anyways. Have you morons even looked at the list of nominees this year? God, I’d love to run over that idiot George Clooney, but he’d probably get stuck to the muffler or something. Stupid SOB has made me hate movies. Did go see “Eight Below” at the insistence of my wife. Right cute until the b*** (in the movie) took over and starting barking orders at the supposedly hapless male dogs. No joke, she barked and they jumped. All this while the stupid woman behind me sneezed and coughed the whole time. Is there no rest for the weary? And, I didn’t get to see “The Worlds Fastest Indian” like I wanted to. Looked up the review on AJC.com last week and when I clicked to see show times it tells me there aren’t any. Stupid paper. Oh yeah, anybody want a copy of “October Sky”? Too creepy to watch now. You can have “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” too. Screw ‘em all anyways. Except for my wife, of course.

By Eirik

March 3, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

Hollywood has made thousands of movies, with themes that glorify violence, adultery, and larceny to name a few…and no one howls about how politically correct Hollywood is…but let them make one movie sympathetic to two homosexual’s struggles, and listen to all the right wing whining about the assault on America’s values.

By Steve

March 3, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

Ms. McClure is showing small minded and narrow minded thinking along with uneducated opionis that as many other readers have mentioned mimic “popular” opionion vs. true artistic creation in movie making. If she’d like movies like 8 below (which I also love) to be an Oscar contender, she should get on the board of Motion picture ARTS and Sciences and nominate it. Brokeback, Transamerica, Capote or ANY other FILM is ART and is not based on a total DOLLAR of tickets, since, IF she did her research, she’d have found out the LIMITED amount of theatre each of theses ART films where being shown….and should NOT be compared to MUCH LARGER released films….GET YOUR “research” correct Ms. McClure..or do you use “Fuzzy Math too” as I suspect….

By Van

March 3, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

And people wonder why awards shows gets poor ratings.

By Jim

March 3, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

It appears that Ms. McClure has not actually seen “Brokeback Mountain”

I am continually amazed at the number of people in our society, like Ms. McClure, who so take such definitive stances on subjects that they may not truly understand.

Ultimately, her article reads as if derived from hearsay and political agenda … not from actual experience.

The truth of the matter is that Hollywood is experiencing a slump at the box office, but that is more likely due to the fact marketing and PR people much like herself pull the purse strings these days … and the greatest irony is there are more right wing MBA’s determining what films actually get made in Hollywood than those of her belief would care to admit.

By Kip

March 3, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

In 1962, it is likely that Ms. McClure would have considered the film To Kill a Mockingbird to be socially elite and morally disconnected. Separated at birth: Jan McClure & Sadie Fields?

By E. Lewis

March 3, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

Asking if Hollywood is political is like asking if the oil & gas, pharmaceutical or evangelical Christian churches are political.

By Mcm

March 3, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

Of course they do! Why do you think they are so incredibly enamoured with Holocaust movies?

By Hadden Knough

March 3, 2006 08:45 PM | Link to this

And how come when I used the word “b***” in this column it replaced the last four letters with asterisks, but when I used “bastard” over in the Luckovich cesspool it took it letter for letter? Stupid sissy feminist paper. Screw ‘em all anyways, I’m moving to the New York Times.

By candide

March 4, 2006 07:58 AM | Link to this

Anyone who comments on Broadback Mountain without seeing it is just a blowhard. Anyone who has seen it and doesn’t understand how brilliant it is is a homophobe.

How do I know? Because I am infallible.

By Carlton Wyatt

March 4, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this

Van: you are still trying to equate popularity with quality. If a random sample of people on the street were to judge whether the “best” painting was one of those nice, safe, prints from Garden Ridge or a Pollack original, I have no doubt they would go for the safe print. Does that mean the Pollack is worthless or isn’t really “art” to you?

By Terri

March 4, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this

If you believe Hollywood is trying to “spoon feed” you an agenda or that the Hollywood elite is “cramming degenerative politic down your throat,” you have a very weak and overly-impressionable mind. I imagine movie-going to you would be like Little Alex at the end of “Clockwork Orange,” wouldn’t it? Did someone hold you down, pry your eyelids open and try to brainwash you at your theatre? You probably have no idea to what I alluded. Because when I go to the movies, I sit back, relax and allow myself to watch and involve myself in someone’s story. Never have I felt brainwashed. Never did my ideas on morality or politics change. If you saw films like “TransAmerica” or “Brokeback Mountain” and had the energy to look at what themes the filmmakers wish to elucidate (or in the case of “Brokeback Mountain,” how the filmmaker brought Annie Proulx’s sparse and beautiful short story achingly to life), you would see similar expressions in several other stories. There are no new stories, just new and creative ways to tell them and various methods in which they are told.

Or you could not go to the movies…film enthusiasts would love it if you didn’t ruin our experience.

Or you could read a book…but that would require making an effort I can plainly see many would not want to make (re: thinking)

By candide

March 5, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this

CNN had a story this morning about how people in Lebanon, Kansaw are not interested in the Academy Awards and would not go to see Brokeback Mountain. What a surprise! Remember what Karl Marx wrote about “rural idiocy.” These people said they preferred the pollyana Sound of Music. What a surprise!

Movies should deal with real issues as they also entertain. Merely catering to the mindless minds of middle Amerika is not their role.

By Eric

March 5, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this

It’s a silly question that provokes equally silly answers. Show biz is a business! What that means is this, movie studios want to make money. They’re not interested what the public thinks regarding society or politics any more than do baseball teams for example. Some voters may have an agenda, but overall I’d have to say voters respond to artistic merit. And to those who complain that Hollywood is pushing some liberal agenda, please. How about giving a moment or two of thought to the issue before you spew. The academy of voters is spread throughout the country. There are even voters here in the good old, conservative, Bush loving, red state of Georgia.

By Pascal

March 5, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

Yes, Oscars are sometimes political, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact sometimes its a good thing. Is “Brokeback Mtn” political? No. Is “Good Night & Good Luck” political? Yes. Is that okay? Yes. Is it only political? No. There is a real story behind it with real people - good and bad. That’s what literature and the performing arts are about.

By Van

March 5, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

While the films nonimated for Best Picture may be art, the people have handed Hollywood year after year of lackluster boxoffice revenue.

Why is that?

With some kind of award show every other week(yes, that is exaggerated, but close), why are the Acadamy Award Show(the big one) a rating loser?

Wasn’t the original purpose of the movies to entertain? Wasn’t the idea of award shows to recognize excellence? When movies are not entertaining, they lose money. When movies are awarded statues for excellence and the people buying movie tickets disagree, then the awards lose credibility.

Just my thoughts on the way things appear.

By Roger

March 5, 2006 06:48 PM | Link to this

The real question should be: Should every industry cater to the average, stupid red-stater. God, it’s appalling - this is the only country where people “don’t trust them intellectuals.” Something wrong with someone so book read. I remember people not liking Gore because he was too intellectual. Imagine that - no you don’t want your politicians smart you want em as dumb as your next door neighbor!

By Court

March 6, 2006 08:45 AM | Link to this

Yep, no question about it. In fact, the politcally correct message is often pitted against standard ethics and generally is shown to carry more weight — usually in the form of violence or poetic justice violence heaped upon some transgressor of some politically correct notion.

By E. Lewis

March 6, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

Who knew that so many xenophobes read the AJC? What makes anyone think that the American public has to embrace a film in order for it to be good and Oscar worthy? Hollywood is about more than this country. Films should appeal to a broad range of people and if one does well here fine and if it doesn’t that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

By E. Lewis

March 6, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this

BTW which subject has been covered more by Hollywood: Christianity or the Holocaust?

By E. Lewis

March 6, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

BTW which subject has been covered more by Hollywood: Christianity or the Holocaust?

By E. Lewis

March 6, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

BTW which subject has been covered more by Hollywood: Christianity or the Holocaust?

By E. Lewis

March 6, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

BTW which subject has been covered more by Hollywood: Christianity or the Holocaust?

By Ross

March 6, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this

It is interesting to see Ms. McClure’s take on the entertainment industry. Yet, she fails to take into consideration the production budget of a movie or how many screens it is being shown on. Therefore, a movie like Brokeback Mountain (budget around $13 million) is possibly more profitable than a movie like Eight Below (budget of about $50 million).

By candide

March 6, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

E. Lewis: no need to worry whether Christianity or the Holocaust has been dealt with more. Why? Because Christianity is responsible for the Holocaust.

By Van

March 6, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

candide, how ignorant. How can you blame christianity for the ravings of a mad man?

By E. Lewis

March 6, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

Sorry about the repeats

By kimberly

March 6, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

Van, I hope you will watch “Crash.” It’s not political; it’s a glimpse into the complexity of human beings — different, yet connected. No one is all good or all bad. It’s time we started acknowledging that reality. Great film.

By candide

March 6, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

Van: read “The Holy Reich” by Richard Steigmann-Gall. Read “Das Glaube des Adolf Hitlers” by Friedrich Heer. Read, for godsake and stop defending the indefensible. It was Christianity that taught Europe to hate the Jews.

By Van

March 6, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

candide, that was not what I was responding to. You stated that christianity was responsible for the Holocaust. Now, whether or not christianity was responsible for europe hating the jew, is a different story. To link the two, I think irresponsible.

Within the “Final Solution”, Hitler declared war on not just the jew, but christians(some), gypsies, gays and anyone that worked against him and his grand plans.

By Van

March 6, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

kimberly. “Cinderella Man” was one that I thought I would not like, but I think it was outstanding. “Crash” is on my list.

By kimberly

March 6, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

I’ll rent Cinderalla Man then. True stories of courage and beating the odds are the best! Sometimes it’s hard to find inspiration in the world we live in today.

By candide

March 6, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

Van: you’d make a good Jesuit. Hair-splitting it is called.

By candide

March 6, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

Van, you’re hopeless.

By Van

March 6, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

candide, Jesuits are too scary for my taste, Franciscan maybe.

I do not think it is hair splitting. You were refering to a status quo that had existed in Europe for a long period of time. The jews lived in relative peace with in their communities, until the mad man of Austria came to power.

While they may not have been the most liked people, until that goose stepping freak started his campaign to blame them for all of Germany’s ills, they lived their lives like most of us.

You cannot blame the general situation, you must lay the blame on those that took advantage of the situation to stir up the hate to a higher level.

By candide

March 6, 2006 05:45 PM | Link to this

Van: there is no way Hitler could have turned Germans into murderers in less than ten years without the prior teachings of Christianity concerning the Jews.

By Van

March 7, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this

candide , read my last paragraph -

You cannot blame the general situation, you must lay the blame on those that took advantage of the situation to stir up the hate to a higher level.

That Girly Man Hitler took advantage of the situation, feed the hate and brought it to a boil.

Anyone that fans the fire of hate, should get all they deserve, for they are the true terrorist.

Hate the jew, kill the jew - sounds like the pseudo-palestinians or Hitler.

Hate capitalism, kill the capitalist. Sounds like Marx and Engel.

Do you blame the underlying theme, just the one that plays it loudest?

I may not like those people that can but refuse to work and lift themselves out of poverty, but I would not try to violently eliminate them.

If someone starts tourching homeless people, does that make me responsible? No.

By Carlton Wyatt

March 7, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

Van: repeating the same lie over and over, that box-office sales denote quality, does not make it true. You can attempt to rephrase it and twist it all over the place, but you’re still trying to say that only box-office bonanzas should be denoted as having artistic merit. BTW, the box-office receipts for “Brokeback Mountain” have made back the investment in the film many many times over. I would call that a success. Likewise for “Crash”, which was made on a shoestring budget.

You keep trying to say that because more people have seen “Porkys” then it must be a better movie than “Citizen Kane”. How sad.

By Van

March 7, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

Carlton Wyatt, I do not know what your beef is. I have my opinions and you have yours. This is a discussion forum, we are not dealing with whether things are “true” or not, just opinions.

BTW, if two screens of a theater we playing Citizen Kane and Porky’s, Citizen Kane would win, hands down.

But then again, not many people today even know who William Randolph Hearst was or his connection with the character. They might gravitate towards Porky’s because of the subject matter.