To Be Fair, the Academy Did Overlook Cruising* Back in 1980...

Nick Gillespie | March 1, 2006

The Christian youth group Generation Life is calling upon wicked Hollywood to stop the GLAADness and, as rumored dirty-song-subject and Full House alum Dave Coulier might put it, cut it out already with the Oscar-backed promotion of "the culture of death":

The movies which you have consistently chosen to highlight for us as "the best of the best" do not represent our generation's conscience. In 1999, the Academy chose to give the Oscar to the best supporting portrayal of an abortionist in the film The Cider House Rules. Last year, the Academy glorified the horror of euthanasia by proclaiming Million Dollar Baby as deserving of Best Picture. This year, the Academy is celebrating homosexuality and the pain that comes with embracing this lifestyle by giving the film Brokeback Mountain the most nominations. These nominations should not come as a surprise as the Academy has a record of celebrating movies and the portrayal of those struggling with same sex attraction in films like Philadelphia (1993) and As Good as it Gets (1997).

We, the youth of America say enough is enough!

Whenever I hear the phrase we, the youth of America I reach for my Ritalin. More here.

Let's leave aside for the moment the rather unexamined equation of abortion, euthanasia, and homosexuality (what exactly do any two of these have in common?). And let's leave aside the fact that this year's Best Picture nominees are more filled with cultural spinach than a typical Popeye cartoon (they're all so good for us, we can feel ourselves getting morally superior even before the first bathroom break). And let's leave aside the dubious assertion that movies automatically "glorify" and "celebrate" their subject matter (did the Academy glorify retardation by giving Cliff Robertson an Oscar for Charly? I--and millions of schoolkids--think not). And hell, let's even leave aside the debatable point that The Chronicles of Narnia may have deserved more than one nomination (CS Lewis, one assumes, is getting his reward in whatever heaven for junior-varsity Catholics to which Anglicans go).

Leaving all that (and more) aside, let's stress that Hollywood has always leaned toward moral disintegration as a theme for best-pic nominees. What was the saying during the Clinton years? There's nothing new here...

Thanks to the wonderful Academy database, you can search decades worth of Oscar nominees in every category here. When it comes to immoral best picture noms, this year's crew has nothing on 1934, which gave nods to flicks such as the pro-skank epic Cleopatra, the titillatingly titled Flirtation Walk, the immorally suggestive The Gay Divorcee, the undoubtedly boring One Night of Love, the proto-Village People vehicle Here Comes the Navy, the pro-bandit epic Viva Villa!, and the love-that-dare-not-speak-its-name snoozer The Barretts of Wimpole Street. The year's winner? The scandalous It Happened One Night which, among other vices, glorified hitchiking and the non-wearing of T-shirts.

Full list of best pic noms here.

*The fag-bashing, pro-police-entrapment brief Cruising, certainly not the worst in Al Pacino's stinker-filled filmography, did snag several anti-Oscars. Details here. But why no Oscar nom for best soundtrack?

And speaking of "the best of the best," where was Eric Roberts' Oscar for The Pope of Greenwich Village or Star 80?

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|3.1.06 @ 9:27AM|#

Last year, the Academy glorified the horror of euthanasia by proclaiming Million Dollar Baby as deserving of Best Picture.

Heroine: Crippled, suffering and finally dead.
Hero: Deprived by the end of his life's work, his surrogate daughter, and perhaps his soul.

Yep, everyone comes out a winner in that one. Glory abounds.

|3.1.06 @ 9:32AM|#

"And let's leave aside the fact that this year's Best Picture nominees are more filled with cultural spinach than a typical Popeye cartoon (they're all so good for us, we can feel ourselves getting morally superior even before the first bathroom break)."

Actually, Nick the Best Picture nominees this year (and many other films) "have a worldview antithetical to the biblical, conservative worldview. They communicate philosophies that, in the final analysis, are anti-human, anti-God, un-American, false and immoral -- and that can only lead to disaster."

You can learn about the specific defects of the films (e.g., Syriana "glorifies Islamic terrorists while trashing the United States of America and capitalism.") here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49037

|3.1.06 @ 9:42AM|#

abortion, euthanasia, and homosexuality (what exactly do any two of these have in common?)

Uhhh, is this a trick question or are you really that ignorant of the beliefs of a large sector of the North and South American populace?

Jesse Walker|3.1.06 @ 9:53AM|#

The abortion/euthanasia connection makes sense to me, but throwing in homosexuality is just weird. The fact that millions of people believe that it makes sense only makes it weirder.

|3.1.06 @ 10:11AM|#

Hey Nick! Anglicans do not go to a "heaven for junior-varsity Catholics." They go to Hell! Don't even think about denying papal infallibility, or Sister Mary Ignatious will be on your ass like white on rice.

Warren|3.1.06 @ 10:12AM|#

Does Generation Live even take themselves seriously? Why didn't we hear about the 'glorification of sadomasochism' over The Passion of the Christ? I think this bunch can be safely dismissed

As to the bigger question, all awards are a crock. Politics inevitably overwhelms recognition of excellence. Nothing to see here, move along.

|3.1.06 @ 10:13AM|#

We, the youth of America say enough is enough!

Huh? Did I miss a memo or something? I don't remember agreeing to this. Do you jerks mind not pretending to speak for me from now on? I'd really appreciate that.

Jesse Walker,

The idea is that homosexuality = a culture of death is that they associate it with not only AIDs, but also the lack of procreation associated with it. Homosexuals are denying their procreative potential in other words, which means they are promoting a decrease in human fecundity. This was one of JPII's basic crititicisms of gay marraige. I realize that it is a totally screwed up way of looking at human relationships, but the emphasis on human procreation and anything which takes away from it (homosexuality, condoms, etc.) is viewed as a "culture of death" by many Catholic, etc. adherants.

Homosexual sex kills off untold numbers of sperm that could have been used to produce good christian babies.

C'mon guys, it's so simple.

|3.1.06 @ 10:16AM|#

mk,

Yes. That's basically it.

Dan T.|3.1.06 @ 10:17AM|#

At what point exactly did making a movie about a subject mean that you're "glorifying" it?

|3.1.06 @ 10:17AM|#

Every sperm is sacred...

Hah. HAk came along and said it so much better at the same time I was posting. Ir eally do need to remember to hit that "refresh" button.

Does anyone else remember the "I am not a fag. Stop the movie Cruising" graffitti that was all over Manhattan back when Cruising first came out. I was just a kid at the time and remember asking my parents what the big deal was. I don't remember them giving me much of an answer :)

|3.1.06 @ 10:19AM|#

And let's leave aside the dubious assertion that movies automatically "glorify" and "celebrate" their subject matter

Another example of the Right co-opting the b.s. of the left. Remember, that in addition to glorifying their subject matter, movies also automatically universalize their subject matter.

If a movie portrays a Mexican farm worker, what it's saying is that all Mexicans are good for is unskilled labor, and is purposely marginalizing the many great contributions of Latinos as part of a plot by White America to stereotype people of color and keep them from sharing the apple pie.

|3.1.06 @ 10:21AM|#

mk,

I dunno, I thought your commment was better since it was far more concise. And if you disagree with me I'll kick you in the balls. :)

norbizness|3.1.06 @ 10:26AM|#

I've been a lifelong crack addict because of New Jack City, and _now_ you tell me that making a movie about something is not the same as glorifying it? Funk dat!

|3.1.06 @ 10:35AM|#

At what point exactly did making a movie about a subject mean that you're "glorifying" it?

The second that the first keystoke is made on the first draft of the screenplay.

|3.1.06 @ 10:36AM|#

I agree with whoever said that the Academy Awards are nonsense anyway. Here's my formula for guaranteeing a Best Picture award:

Doomed love affair with death of one of the participants. If more than one movie that year has that plot, add hoop skirts, togas, or WWII airplanes. If more than one movie has togas or hoop skirts, add two or three speeches on the utter pointless of life. Speechmaker must sweat profusely. Subract points for all jokes or levity.

|3.1.06 @ 10:52AM|#

Perhaps it's going overboard to say that these films "glorify" abortion, euthanasia, and homosexual behavior. But one cannot deny that they cast such actions in a positive light. (I've not seen Brokeback, so correct me if I'm wrong on that count)

There's a world of difference between portraying an abortionist as "the patron saint of children" (a la Cider House Rules) and depicting the negative aspects of war, drug use, etc.

|3.1.06 @ 10:55AM|#

Nick,

Thanks for the Oscar database link. Imanaged to overlook that. My principle film database is:

http://www.imdb.com/

Using http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405159/awards and looking at Million Dollar Baby, I see that not only did it win a bunch of Oscars, the awards cermony at the following list also gave it a win in one category or another:

American Screenwriters Association, USA
Boston Society of Film Critics Awards
Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards
Central Ohio Film Critics
Cinema Writers Circle Awards, Spain
Cesar* Awards, France
Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association Awards
David di Donatello Awards
Directors Guild of America, USA
Florida Film Critics Circle Awards
Golden Globes, USA
Image Awards
Kansas City Film Critics Circle Awards
National Society of Film Critics Awards, USA
New York Film Critics Circle Awards
Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards
San Diego Film Critics Society Awards
Sant Jordi Awards
Satellite Awards
Screen Actors Guild Awards
Seattle Film Critics Awards
USC Scripter Award
Vancouver Film Critics Circle

Not to mention that I left out many, many awards groups that "merely" nominated it for something.

Also it won the happyjuggler0 award for Best Picture!!! :) I think that movie rocks.

Looking over the list, sometimes you just have to admit that you are out of touch when you think a movie "glorifies something bad".

*My apologies for not getting the accent over Cesar. The preview of this post could not handle it for some reason.

|3.1.06 @ 10:56AM|#

crimethink,

Since there is nothing wrong with euthanasia, homosexuality, etc., what's the problem with "glorifying" them?

|3.1.06 @ 10:58AM|#

And as for what these three topics have in common, they're all issues where the opinion of the Hollywood consensus is far removed from the opinion of the society at large. So it's no wonder that many feel that these films are intended as propaganda.

|3.1.06 @ 11:00AM|#

Hakluyt,

You might want to check your argument for an unwarranted assumption there.

|3.1.06 @ 11:03AM|#

six abortion threads in one day make server go crazy
six abortion threads in one day make server go crazy
six abortion threads in one day make server go crazy
six abortion threads in one day make server go crazy
six abortion threads in one day make server go crazy
six abortion threads in one day make server go crazy
six abortion threads in one day make server go crazy
six abortion threads in one day make server go crazy
six abortion threads in one day make server go crazy
six abortion threads in one day make server go crazy

|3.1.06 @ 11:04AM|#

We are consistently choosing to elect public officials who have respect for human life from the moment of conception till natural death as best indicated by our generation�s choice in President.

Quick research says that voters between 18-29 went for Kerry 54% to 46%.

We want entertainment that best reflects our respect for all human life, our decision to practice sexual purity and our traditional family value system.

Certainly such entertainment exists, but that isn't enough. All entertainment must conform to their morality.

crimethink,

How removed are they? Polling demonstrates a large majority of Americans support euthanasia to some degree. You are also losing the battle when it comes to homosexuality, as each generation becomes more progressively more tolerant.

|3.1.06 @ 11:06AM|#

I should probably stay away from the abortion threads today, considering how cranky I'll be since I'm fasting...

|3.1.06 @ 11:07AM|#

...till natural death...

What is exactly natural about death these days?

crimethink,

Yes, my presumptions are liberty and reason.

|3.1.06 @ 11:08AM|#

But one cannot deny that they cast such actions in a positive light.

In what way does Million Dollar Baby cast euthanasia in a positive light?

|3.1.06 @ 11:09AM|#

Not to mention that the rush of adrenaline that comes with arguing on here is probably comparable to the one that comes with sex (not that I'd know).

|3.1.06 @ 11:12AM|#

David,

Certainly such entertainment exists, but that isn't enough. All entertainment must conform to their morality.

They're simply part of the forces of reaction that always fight human liberty and progress. I compare it to the RCC's efforts to keep drugs which combat syphilis off the shelves. How sick can an ideology get when it opposes such efforts?

|3.1.06 @ 11:14AM|#

Phil,

It was portrayed as the best decision given the circumstances.

|3.1.06 @ 11:16AM|#

So "the best of a number of possible choices, all bad" = "portraying in a positive light?" Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

Phil,

Because they wouldn't have had a claymation euthanasia on Davey and Goliath.

I'm far more familiar with Generation Life than I ever wanted to be because one of its professional scolds/media whores lives in my hometown. They protested condom handouts at the Salt Lake Olympics, squeezed themselves into the Terry Schiavo media circus and pretty much follow the Jesse Jackson tactic of following TV cameras to insert their twisted take on whatever is making news at the moment. I could give myself high blood pressure watching them, but I choose to enjoy the unintentional comedy instead.

Dave W[REDACTED]ski|3.1.06 @ 11:18AM|#

hope you get paralyzed in a boxing match and no one euthanizes you phil

|3.1.06 @ 11:20AM|#

Phil,

Because someone viewed it as a choice with positive benefits and they went through with it.

|3.1.06 @ 11:24AM|#

Does that make all versions of Of Mice and Men "liberal propaganda"?

|3.1.06 @ 11:25AM|#

Phil,

Imagine it. End of life decisions being up to individual choice.

|3.1.06 @ 11:31AM|#

"Generation Life" and the "Academy of Motion Picture Arts" do not provide any products or services I'd pay for.

The idea is that homosexuality = a culture of death is that they associate it with not only AIDs, but also the lack of procreation associated with it.

Some factoids:
http://www.quantumbalancing.com/news/new_germ_theory.htm
(Reprinted from The Atlantic)
The best estimates of the fitness cost of homosexuality hover around 80 percent: in other words, gay men (in modern times, at least) have only 20 percent as many offspring as heterosexuals have.

http://www.arthurhu.com/index/gay.htm
There is a lot of criticism of Cameron's claim that gay life expectancy is only 43 years based on obituaries of gay newspapers, but there's lots more evidence that 50% of at least some categories of gay men are dead by their mid-40s, certainly so if they have contracted AIDS, which is a significant fraction of gay men.

|3.1.06 @ 11:39AM|#

Mr. F. Le Mur,

Are you suggesting (as the RCC claims) that human beings exist solely to procreate? Or rather, that is their most important function?

As to the issue of gay men's health, lots of cohorts of people have specific health problems associated with common activities (say Hep B in the Asian male population or poor diet amongst African-American males) but I don't see the sort of moral import placed on these issues that is placed on gay sex.

|3.1.06 @ 11:40AM|#

I can't help but wonder why people who seem to hate gays so much haven't thought about the possibility that they may be (in my opinion definitely are) that way because of genetics, and driving them into the closet pretty much ensures that an awful lot of them will thus get married to someone of the opposite sex to hide their "gayness", and then have babies, thus spreading their DNA.

Of course, it may very well be that they get their DNA completely from heterosexuals without homosexuality in the family tree, but maybe they do. If redheads such as myself can only have red hair if neither of their parents do, then why can't a homosexuality gene be buried for more than one generation too?

|3.1.06 @ 11:44AM|#

i think groups like these forget that a movies "message" is not the only thing to be considered when determining the quality of a movie and deciding whether or not it should be awarded.

i mean honestly, what does a nomination for cinemetography (sp?) have to do with a films message? or wardrobe, or score, etc. etc.?

correct me if i'm wrong (because i haven't seen it) but i've heard that million dollar baby has some fight sequences that rival raging bull.

it's not like there's a category for Best Political Message.

|3.1.06 @ 11:50AM|#

happyjuggler0,

that is an interesting idea - antihomosexual activists promoting the lifestyle in order to prevent its spread.

yet that would require admitting that homosexuality is indeed something which is not a choice and consequently cannot be so easily demonized.

i am fully capable of accepting the possibiliy that many such people would acknowledge this, but continue to demonize it anyway.

|3.1.06 @ 11:58AM|#

The Christian Right should just set up their own damned awards show. They can only give out awards to "good", aka moral, films and directors, actors etc., and is they want they can also give out a Christian Right Razzie as well for the most immoral film, or most immoral non-porno film anyway. Wouldn't want to corrupt the voters by "forcing" them to watch premarital sex.

They can get Pat Robertson to emcee. I truly believe they can get more such "good" movies made this way, because whether or not I think they are a bit loonie, there are a whole bunch of them, and it doesn't take much more than ten million ticket buyers to put a movie into the $100,000,000 blockbuster category.

Anyone else see My Big Fat Greek Wedding? It was a funny movie in a wholesome kind of way, and I heard and read lots of comments from people who hate "immoral Hollwood movies" that absolutely loved this movie. I thought it was pretty funny, if a bit corny. Hollywood would definitely make more such movies like this if they thought there was an awards show that promotes this type of movie, and that a good number of people would go see because it got nominated.

Of course, by having Christian Right Razzie they would also guarantee that tons of people would see that movie too. One wouldn't think "they" would be so stupid as having such an award for that very reason, but "they" always seem to make "artists" like Madonna and 2LiveCrew into bestsellers by their indignant protests.

|3.1.06 @ 12:04PM|#

happyjuggler0,

Brokeback Mountain was a great movie, but it got a lot of attention because individuals like Krauthammer dissed it.

|3.1.06 @ 12:08PM|#

David: anyone who's been to a DVD outlet lately knows very well that there are rafts of pro-Christian movies available. They just all suck. These people are basically admitting that their entire cultural contribution is mind-bogglingly dull and amateurish.

And Narnia was terrible, but not because of the Christian themes. It sucked because the delicate magic of the book was jarringly altered with "Lord of the Rings"-style realistic battle scenes. The tone was off for the whole movie. Frankly, I don't understand why the Christians have so much enthusiasm for seeing their precious "history" turned into mythology and I don't really care. Bible stories and themes have been coopted for innumerable artistic works with infinitely better results. "Million Dollar Baby" is arguably a Christian movie, since it deals with important moral choices. The question of whether the trainer made the right decision or not is really up to the viewer. Eastwood the director makes him a sympathetic figure, but that doesn't necessarily make him right.

The Evangelicals purport to promote a Bible that is full of such ambiguity: souls saved and lost, people who give into temptation and yet are redeemed, heroes who falter, sinners who unexpectedly rise to a challenge and succeed. And yet they persist in an absolutist view of good and evil in which a person is one or the other and never both at the same time. The viewer is expected to forgive the trainer even though Eastwood makes it clear that the trainer will never forgive himself. Isn't that a starting point for a Christian discussion? Not if you're one of these Christians. Their view of Christianity is one of inhuman machine-like programming. They don't think, they obey. But obedience is not evidence of genuine faith. If I were in Iran I would obey the law because I would be afraid not to. But only a fool would take that to mean I was a Moslem.

|3.1.06 @ 12:10PM|#

Anyone else see My Big Fat Greek Wedding? It was a funny movie in a wholesome kind of way, and I heard and read lots of comments from people who hate "immoral Hollwood movies" that absolutely loved this movie.

i saw it and liked it well enough. there are a number of movies i'd put in such a category that i really like. Napolean Dynamite comes to mind immediately.

however, i think there are a lot of people - not just religious right loonies - who appreciate good films without the sex, violence, bad language, etc.

my question is more about the loonies - are such good films like Greek Wedding, Napolean Dynamite, etc. what they're really aiming for? or are they really wanting an explicitly expressed christian theme?

|3.1.06 @ 12:11PM|#

Are you suggesting (as the RCC claims) that human beings exist solely to procreate? Or rather, that is their most important function?

I wasn't suggesting anything, just tossing out some numbers which may provide background info about "lack of procreation" and "lifespan."

If RCC = Catholic Church or similar, I'd guess that their claim would be more along the lines that humans exist to glorify god (celibate priests and all that), and that a biologist would be far more likely to claim that humans exist solely to procreate.

|3.1.06 @ 12:32PM|#

Are you suggesting (as the RCC claims) that human beings exist solely to procreate?

You're conflating sex with existence. Didn't I have this argument already?

|3.1.06 @ 12:37PM|#

You're conflating sex with existence. Didn't I have this argument already?

Yes, you said that in case of people who don't ever want kids, being celibate for life is "small sacrifice" to ensure that no woman has to get an abortion. Don't be surprised to discover that a lot of people are unwilling to stay virgins for life just to avoid offending your religious beliefs about abortion.

|3.1.06 @ 12:41PM|#

crimethink,

I'm not conflating anything. It is very clear from the writings of JPII that any limit on procreation is viewed as evil and that it is a denial of what it means to be human. Which is why gay marraige is described by JPII in such negative terms; why gay marraige is viewed as a grave threat to human society.

Happily I'm not part of such a screwed up, anti-freedom ideology.

|3.1.06 @ 12:42PM|#

crimethink,

Your basic problem is that like thoreau you are in complete denial about your faith's basic tenents, and how those basic tenents would deal a crushing blow to human liberty if they were ever enforced by secular governments.

|3.1.06 @ 12:47PM|#

crimethink,

BTW, if anyone is conflating sex, that is procreative sex, with existance, its you and your ideology. After all, I don't claim as your church does that heterosexuals can only have a full relationship if they forgo contraceptives, and that the use of contraception keeps people from having such. Your belief system is absolutely obsessed with how and for what purpose people fuck each other, not mine.

|3.1.06 @ 1:45PM|#

Yes, you said that in case of people who don't ever want kids, being celibate for life is "small sacrifice" to ensure that no woman has to get an abortion.

No, I did not say that. Do a search on that thread for "small sacrifice" and you'll turn up matches in your posts, not mine.

I said that it is obvious that if you want to be 100% certain in avoiding getting [your partner] pregnant, you have two options: (a) abstinence, or (b) killing any unborn children who happen to turn up in your [partner's] womb. One involves a lot of self-sacrifice, whereas the other involves sacrificing the life of another.

|3.1.06 @ 1:52PM|#

I said that it is obvious that if you want to be 100% certain in avoiding getting [your partner] pregnant, you have two options:

This is false. I have not chosen either of those things, yet in 15 years I have not gotten my wife pregnant.

|3.1.06 @ 1:55PM|#

crimethink,

Clearly someone is already pregnant if they have an abortion. You do understand how the human procreative process works, right? Or does abortion also include contraception in your eyes - such as condoms, IUDs, the pill, etc.?

|3.1.06 @ 2:01PM|#

crimethink,

BTW, maybe only a Catholic would view forgoing sex as some sort of major sacrifice.

|3.1.06 @ 2:23PM|#

crimethink sez:

Wow, that explains a lot. Or was that a joke, I can't tell some times?

|3.1.06 @ 2:31PM|#

No, I did not say that. Do a search on that thread for "small sacrifice" and you'll turn up matches in your posts, not mine.

True enough; you didn't say it was a "small sacrifice," you merely implied that it was not "so terrible a sacrifice" (i.e., a sacrifice we should all be willing to make):

Jennifer,

First off, you're assuming that abstinence, 100% effective at preventing such "accidents", is either impossible or so terrible a sacrifice that the killing of an unborn child pales in comparison.

Comment by: crimethink at February 28, 2006 05:47 PM

It takes some serious gall to tell people who don't want kids that they should simply be content to forgo sex for their entire life so that your religious sensibilities are not harmed. You are welcome to have sex-free relationships if you choose, but don't tell others they have to do it.

I do not share your religious faith and thus I will not be bound by your religious dogma.

Ken Hagler|3.1.06 @ 2:53PM|#

Of the movies this bunch is upset about, the only one I've seen is The Cider House Rules. If they can watch that movie and find Michael Caine's character objectionable, all I can say to that is: I really hope they never have daughters.

|3.1.06 @ 3:05PM|#

Jennifer,

I was all set to point out the fact that you cut off a relevant part of my statement, but then you quoted it in full. In any case, I was saying that being killed is worse than lifelong celibacy; is that such an absurd notion?

It takes some serious gall to tell people who don't want kids that they should simply be content to forgo sex for their entire life so that your religious sensibilities are not harmed.

It is not the harm to my religious sensibilities that I'm concerned with, but the harm to the unborn child who is destroyed.

|3.1.06 @ 3:07PM|#

kmw,

The parenthetical comment was true, if that's what you're asking about.

crimethink,

Actually, you perfer to use state sanction to enforce your religious beliefs; you also perfer to force me to give you money to sponsor speech that I don't agree with.

|3.1.06 @ 3:15PM|#

crimethink,

So then, are you in the ministry, or just a commited layman?

|3.1.06 @ 3:16PM|#

It is not the harm to my religious sensibilities that I'm concerned with, but the harm to the unborn child who is destroyed.

Saying that a one-day-old fertilized cell is "a child" is a matter of faith; with no evidence to prove it, you expect me to take your word for it and live my life accordingly.

By the way, have you had time to ponder
my question about whether ablations should be outlawed? Yesterday you said you needed time to consider it.

|3.1.06 @ 3:20PM|#

If they can watch that movie and find Michael Caine's character objectionable, all I can say to that is: I really hope they never have daughters.

There's the problem, Ken. For Generation Life, the fact that he is not objectionable is objectionable.

|3.1.06 @ 3:30PM|#

kmw,

I may have given the wrong impression ... I haven't made any vows of celibacy or anything, but I am as yet unmarried, so I walk the walk.

|3.1.06 @ 3:45PM|#

I think we need to spike the punch at the next Generation Life party. Heck, they might even start, gulp, dancing!! Then, all kinds of crazy things could happen.

|3.1.06 @ 3:46PM|#

kmw,

Remember that crimethink has butchers like Innocent III and General Franco to inspire him.

|3.1.06 @ 7:20PM|#

Thanks for teh Crusin' reference...used to watch that at my bar/video store every Sunday for 2 years. It certainly does have a throbbing soundtrack.

|3.1.06 @ 7:22PM|#

The Christian Right should just set up their own damned awards show.

Well, along those lines there is the CAP Movie Ministry (http://www.capalert.com/) which screens movies based on "biblical correctness" and moral righteousness with a 0-100 score (100 being highest). Unusual reviews sometimes. For instance, Mary Poppins gets a perfect 100 even though 'witchcraft' is strongly condemned biblically. Take it with a grain of salt but fun to read anyhoo.

|3.1.06 @ 8:20PM|#

I think we need to spike the punch at the next Generation Life party. Heck, they might even start, gulp, dancing!! Then, all kinds of crazy things could happen.

We can't do that. It might lead to awkward, unsatisfying virgin sex. Nobody deserves that.

|3.1.06 @ 9:13PM|#

"When it comes to immoral best picture noms, this year's crew has nothing on 1934, which gave nods to flicks such as the pro-skank epic Cleopatra, the titillatingly titled Flirtation Walk, the immorally suggestive The Gay Divorcee, the undoubtedly boring One Night of Love, the proto-Village People vehicle Here Comes the Navy, the pro-bandit epic Viva Villa!, and the love-that-dare-not-speak-its-name snoozer The Barretts of Wimpole Street. The year's winner? The scandalous It Happened One Night which, among other vices, glorified hitchiking and the non-wearing of T-shirts."

Interestingly, 1934 happened to be the year in which, responding to Roman Catholic boycott threats, the movie industry tightened up its Production Code, aka the Hays Code, so as to improve the moral content of movies.

One would expect, therefore, that the 1934 awards -- given to movies produced before the tightening of the code -- to go to salacious movies, and so it proved.

Just for yuks, I looked at the awards for 1938, after the stricter rating system had been put in place. The following movies got nominated in at least one category:

Algiers, Angels with Dirty Faces, The Citadel, Pygmalion, Boys Town, Kentucky, Four Daughters, Marie Antoinette, If I Were King, White Banners, Jezebel, Three Comrades, Of Human Hearts, Merrily We Live, You Can't Take It with You, The Great Waltz, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Alexander's Ragtime Band, Carefree, Holiday, Mad about Music, Army Girl, The Buccaneer, Suez, Vivacious Lady, The Young in Heart, Test Pilot, Block-Heads, Blockade, Breaking the Ice, The Cowboy and the Lady, Pacific Liner, Girls' School, Storm over Bengal, Sweethearts, There Goes My Heart, Tropic Holiday, Going Places, The Lady Objects, That Certain Age, Grand Illusion

Maybe a movie expert can help me on this, but I can see how some of these movies may be a little racy ("Jezebel," "Girls' School"). I also note, however, that there are some movies which are more in line with what those young pro-lifers would want.

|3.1.06 @ 9:18PM|#

You might want to check your argument for an unwarranted assumption there.

You mean like "God?"

|3.2.06 @ 2:47AM|#

Remember that crimethink has butchers like Innocent III and General Franco to inspire him.

C'est what? General Franco was celibate? No shit?

|3.2.06 @ 7:27AM|#

Stevo Darkly,

No, but he was a Catholic. crimethink hasn't taken a vow of celibacy.

|3.2.06 @ 8:16AM|#

Akira McKenzie,

Heh. :)

|3.6.06 @ 9:58AM|#

I'm a straight guy, I've always loved pussy, but I saw Brokeback and now I've gone gay. All I can think about is getting fucked up the ass. Don't see it, you could become gay too! (well, if you do, call me, and we can go fishing together).

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements