Oscars, cont.

Not enough can be said about the excellence of Brody's speech; classy is right. It started by shocking Halle Barry with a dip and a kiss on the mouth, gained momentum when he ordered, ORDERED, Gil Cates and his henchmen to let him talk beyond his alotted time, and ended with a tearful, respectful call for peace. Amazing.

As for Moore, again, Jesse got it right in pointing out it was more about Bush than about war. I would have cheered a brief statement about Iraq, but instead Moore fixates on the 2000 election? He's grinding an axe, that's all.

Brody's speech was the appropriate one with a war already on: personal, regretful, and calling for a quick resolution.

Comments

[geophile]

Clearly Brody's comments were made on-the-fly, but it seemed strange to me that he'd call for a peaceful resolution to a war that has already begun. Also, so far none of the anti-war celebs have advocated that war be averted/shortened by Hussein disarming and/or leaving the country, as this could have achieved both Bush's aim and averted war at the same time. Can't one be against war and still insist that it be Hussein, the irredeemable tyrant, who backs down in order to prevent conflict? Not in Hollywood apparently.

Also, he mentioned that his opinion was the result of having just made a movie about the horrors of war. (Although something tells me he would be against it anyway.) No mention from him about the horrors of despotism, on the other hand. My own impression of the conflict is one of ambivalance, I am not some zealot or hawk. As someone who has avidly studied war and conflict I can see war's costs clearly. But, for their part, Hollywood has yet to come to terms with the price of inaction.

[Evan McElravy]

"Not enough can be said about the excellence of Brody's speech...."

Not to mention the excellence of Brody's performance that got him there.

[Anonymous]

yeah whatever, the academy gives brody an extra five minutes but takes the mic away from and boots the LotR visual effects guys off stage. fuck the academy.

[MY]

"Can't one be against war and still insist that it be Hussein, the irredeemable tyrant, who backs down in order to prevent conflict? Not in Hollywood apparently."

Complaints like this don't make a lot of sense to me. Clearly, the point of making a speech like Brody's is to try to influence public opinion, and indirectly to influence the decisions of public officials who have the power to change American policy. Now, a particular statement by a Hollywood celebrity may have very little real impact on American policy, but it would certainly have Zero influence on Iraqi policy.

This is similar to complaints about Americans protesting actions of the American government, but not protesting far, far worse acts committed by Saddam Hussein. The reason is obvious. The U.S. is a free country with democratically elected officials. Swaying American public opinion can in the short run cause politicians to soften or outright change their stances on issues. In the slightly longer run it can force out of office politicians who face challengers more in sync with public opinion. In the much longer run it can change the scope of what is considered mainstream debate on an issue.

Certainly, not every person who tries to influence the public will have an effect - far from it. But it certainly is possible. There have been plenty of times in American history when the cumulative effect of many people has turned public opinion and with it American policy.

On the other hand, it really doesn't matter how many million Americans take to the streets condemning Saddam Hussein, or how many celebrities give impassioned speeches against him. It won't make even the slightest difference.

[Gene Berkman]

I don't care for Michael Moore or his leftist politics, but his point about Bush occupying the White House against the expressed wishes of the voters in 2000 is correct.
Al Gore received 540,000 votes more than Bush. Nearly 4,000,000 Americans voted for Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan and Harry Browne. Gore, Nader, Buchanan & Browne all oppose this war.
An un-elected President has ordered American troops to invade another country, without a casus belli or a Declaration of War by Congress.
Even Moore's buffoonery cannot distract from this fact.

[Anonymous]

The last time I looked, the Constitution gives the Electoral College the power to select the president, not voters. Bush had a clear majority where it counted, making him the duly elected president.

[Steve]

It's all about the 2000 election for the left. They're the kids you played with when you were young who whined how unfair it was that they didn't win. the fact that they had to go by the rules or actually have some talent was immarterial to them. It was all about their conception of "fairness".

The rules are that the guy with the most votes nationally might not win. The founding fathers put that little caveat into the Constitution to avoid "tyranny of the masses". Lefties go to the courts when they feel something is "tyranny of the masses". They LOVE that little trick....until it doesn't go their way. Then they whine. Just like when they were kids.

[Joe Dokes]

This is completly off topic but is anyone else pissed about eminem winning best song and beating out U2?

Regards

[geophile]

MY, I'm not saying that speaking out against something necessarily brings about change. Clearly, Bush's opponents in the street have failed to sway his opinion also. I am speaking of capturing the much-disputed moral high ground. In my opinion, the only way the staunchly antiwar crowd can do that is to stare straight in the face the fact that what they advocate would mean the continued horrors of the Hussein government, and come to terms with this fact. I find this request to be highly sensible.

Hating him and being against this war are not necessarily incompatible, and the failure of some to vigorously deride his regime contributes to my view that many of the antiwar folks (mostly the leftists) are uncomfortable and insecure with respect to their position on this.

It should be pointed out that the pro-war people seem to want to sweep various unpleasant issues under the rug as well. They are not trumpeting the fact that this conflict will take its requisite toll in human life and suffering, as all war does, but they don't completely ignore it, while the antiwar left is suddenly silent on Hussein's atrocities.

Whether or not to favor this conflict should not be an easy decision for anyone on either side, as it is not nearly so simple an issue as a couple of Oscar night soundbites make it seem.

[geophile]

Joe D: that category never fails to piss me off, whether it's the wrong person winning, or having to sit through all five blisteringly insipid performances. Will someone please tell me why Randy Newman should ever have won?

[Eliot Gelwan]

Blame Florida, not Iraq.

[DavidMSC]

"Eminem" winning an Oscar is just symptomatic of H'wood's overall sickness.

[MY]

geophile: I agree that there's a big difference between 1) not protesting Hussein's crimes, because doing so is pointless and 2) denying Hussein's crimes and trying to sweep them under the rug. An intellectually honest debator has to be willing to address the worst results of their preferred action and to argue that the benefits outweigh those costs.

But I was responding to your statement "Can't one be against war and still insist that it be Hussein, the irredeemable tyrant, who backs down in order to prevent conflict?", which I don't agree with. Suppose I opposed the war with Iraq and saw three possible options for the US: 1) launch a war against Iraq - this is my worst case scenario, 2) US takes whatever actions it can to disarm Iraq, but stops short of going to war - this is better than the first option, but not perfect, or 3) Saddam Hussein steps down and goes into exile, his successor voluntarily and openly disarms - by far the best option, but not at all realistic.

You seem to be saying that people opposed to the war should have insisted on option 3, despite the fact that nothing they said or did had any possibility of causing that option to actually occur, rather than focusing on option 2, where they felt they might actually be able to make a difference, for reasons I mentioned in my first post.

Now, it's perfectly reasonable to argue that option 2 is actually worse than option 1 -- that's the substance of most of the good pro-war arguments. But complaining that the anti-war side doesn't push for option 3 just makes no sense.

[Then What?]

Moore and others keep reminding us about the 2000 election debacle. Even if they're correct, then what? What are we supposed to do about it, depose the administration by force? And what does a stolen election have to do with evaluating whether the US/Iraq war is good or bad policy? I don't understand why the Moores keep beating that same tired drum.

[David F]

hey all!

the fact that U2 lost that is most excellent. hell, that folk singer, what was it? Iris De Mint?? her performance is bound to be better than that fake, middle-brow wanna be, krappy (sic!), idiotic, moronic shit, aka "U2".

oh sorry. what was the question?

🙂
drf

[Brian]

That Moore used the spotlight to insult Bush and whine about the 2000 election rather than make a well-reasoned statement against the current war just goes to show how utterly vacuous his rhetoric usually is. Given the decidedly liberal orientation of the Oscar audience, one almost has to wonder if he was being booed for making an anti-war statement or for using his platform so ineptly.

[Ken]

I think Adrian Brody's one of those actors that seems to think being in a movie about a war makes him an expert on war. The fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto couldn't go to their trailer and take a hot shower and listen to CDs at the end of the day.
And as for Colin Farrell, if it weren't for war, Ireland may still be run by the English. Maybe someday he'll do a movie about Eamon DeValera and he can learn a little more about Irish history. Then he'll be a warfare expert, just like Brody.

[geophile]

That's where we'll part ways on this, I suppose, MY. Not because I think that asking Hussein to step down would work (as you seem to think I believe), but rather because I feel this would work just as well as asking Bush to back off (i.e. not at all.) In that case, why not, in a rhetorical way, put the onus on the monster, rather than the leader that we can oust in a couple years?

Has anything Bush has said made you think he could be swayed on this? If the millions of worldwide protesters and general global disapproval of this action (which doesn't actually count for all that much anyway) didn't change his mind, how will the limosine liberals succede?

It takes two to tango, as they say. Bush chooses to foster war, Hussein chooses to be a boil on the ass of humanity.

[Anonymous]

Re eminem etc. I thought they already had a place for insipid MOR trash of little or no value - I believe you call it The Grammys.

[Andrew Lynch]

Ken, I wonder if you suffer from the popular belief that actors are artless nitwits. One could easily argue that someone like Meryl Streep is an artist and that her performance in Sophie's Choice constitutes a noble form of performance art. If we work under the assumption that an actor can be an artist, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest -- as with a novelist or a painter -- that their research or exposure to material that informs their work creates in them a sense of enlightenment.

It's also reductive and dismissive to assume without any facts that Brody thinks he's an expert. I didn't hear him say he thought he was. You heard what you wanted to hear, methinks, through an earphone clogged with popular, rather than discriminating, perception. An example, possibly, of sweeping generalizations at work? Hot showers and CDs. What do they have to do with increased awareness or a sense of growth through experience. That's a bit like you talking at a party about a Chinese dynasty book you read, and how it changed your views of history...as if you know anything about Chinese dynasties since you probably take hot showers and listen to CDs...

I don't recall Farrell proclaiming to be a "warfare expert," either. Must not have seen the same edition of the Oscars that you did.

[Davidson Jean]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://free-digital-photo.online-photo-print.com
DATE: 01/21/2004 12:13:29
The lesser of two evils is still evil.

[Sicherman Miriam]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 212.253.2.204
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 02:29:32
The truth is outhere