63 Comments

1. Terrye:

Younger audiences might argue with you about the music [I won't] but I agree when it comes to the movies.

There just aren’t any Clark Gables or Joan Crawfords anymore. No glitz.

BTW I hear that Ron Silver and Ann Coulter are dating. The gossip mags will be on them.

Feb 24, 2005 - 3:14 am 2. Peg C.:

Roger, I couldn’t agree with you more. I grew up in (ok, near, and definitely with) Hollywood. For decades, I never missed a major awards show. Due to the business I was in I occasionally went to premieres, and I respected people in the entertainment industry.

These shows are now so shallow, so political, so devoid of glamour, and the product they now award is so just plain bad, that I have totally stopped watching award shows and find myself struggling to like any movies or popular entertainment. Also, put simply, I refuse to subject myself to the inane and uneducated political wailings of a class of people so removed from reality and everyday life that they literally believe up is down and black is white.

I find it hard to believe that many others haven’t become totally disillusioned and disgusted by the entertainment industry in general as I have. On one hand, I feel like a veil has been lifted from my eyes. On the other, I greatly resent the fact that an enjoyable bit of fantasy in my life has been destroyed by self-centered twits who can’t just shut up and sing or act. I don’t want to know their politics or their hideous personal problems; I want them to transport me with their singing and acting. For me, that is largely no longer possible. They have destroyed the glamour and fantasy. Thus the award shows can no longer attract me.

Feb 24, 2005 - 3:19 am 3. Vasily:

Frank Rich is half right, though it’s the direction the noses are pointed,and the downward-glancing self-important, look-at-us faces attached to them I won’t be watching this Oscar season. Roger and I agree about the animated films quality. Though if I knew Clint would repeat his, “Show up at my door, stick a camera in my face and I’ll kill you Michael”, I’d watch for that!

Feb 24, 2005 - 3:20 am 4. HA:

Roger,

Well, I’m no defender of censorship, but I don’t think that has much to do with why they’re not watching.

I think Rich is inadvertantly correct that censorship plays a role in the complete collapse of artistic creativity in our popular culture. But what is being censored is not what Rich thinks.

The complexities and contradictions of human nature are the raw material of great art. Nothing reveals human nature more than our religious traditions.

Our post-modern creative/artistic class has not only become secular, but even hostile to our relgious traditions. It is not the censorship of sex and violance from art that has led to the collapse of creativity. It is the censorship of religion and therefore human nature itself.

I would also add that the censorship of Southern culture has singlehandedly devastated our musical culture. All America’s great music originated in the South – with its hedonistic collision of Scots-Irish and African cultures.

Feb 24, 2005 - 3:41 am 5. Matt Evans:

Personally, I think America is getting fed up with overexposed celebrities. This morning, I heard that the gift bags for the presenters (ie people making anywhere from 5 million to 20 million per movie) are worth $35k. If I recall correctly, weren’t many of the people who are picking up these gift bags complaining about the lack of giving to tsunami relief, especially in red states ?

Not to mention, I’ll be able to read all about the Chimperator jokes the next day without wasting 3-4 hours of time I could be doing something else, anything else.

Feb 24, 2005 - 4:38 am 6. Barry Dauphin:

Frank Rich writes as if it somehow makes any difference whether people watc these shows or not-silly man. The Golden Globes has always been schlock but within the last few years has tried to puff itself up as “important.” People tuned in and saw it for what it is. The Grammys have been lame for years. There are a bazillion music awards shows. It’s a miracle that anyone watches.

The idea that people tune out because the F-word will get bleeped doesn’t even pass the sniff test. Boy, Manhatten must be incredibly insular. It is hard to call oneself a sophisticate if you are clueless to what happens in the rest of the world. Contra Rich’s thesis, I’ll bet that the viewership for the Oscars will be OK, not great- But suppose that both F-911 and The Passion of the Christ were nominated for Best Picture, the ratings would be through the roof.

Feb 24, 2005 - 4:50 am 7. Stephen_M:

I’m with Matt on the Chimperator jokes. Dumbya – soo ‘edgy’ in front of that crowd. Chris Rock can’t use his blue material on the broadcast (recent fine increases or no). So what do we get as a preview? “Straight black men don’t watch the Oscars.” Well, partly right. Had Chris had a brief chat with Mr. Incredible he’d know that straight men of of all colors and um, origins mostly don’t watch. And he’d know why. Best Original Screenplay nominee don’t ya know.

Feb 24, 2005 - 5:05 am 8. Hermie:

It isn’t because of censorship. Rich accepts the convenient excuse why viewership is down (It MUST be because of those ‘holier than thou’ types in the Bush White House.), and fails to look at the real reasons why.

People watched these shows because 1) The people in the movies were someone they admired, and who were above petty politics. The year that actors started pontificating on the Oscar stage, was the start of the decline in viewership. The Oscars were an island of glamor and if an actor wanted to make political comments, that was not the place to do it.

2) The shows became unbelievably BORING. They took away the production numbers at the Oscars supposedly to save time, when they should have found a way to eliminate a category or two.

3) The majority of films have become either unimaginative or over the top with special effects.

4) The films being presented for awards are for the most part, ones that have been presented only over the last couple of months and in limited release; just in time to be eligible for awards.

That’s fine if you happen to be in a city that has one of these limited release theatres. But the majority of people who hear about these films can’t see them at the same time as Academy voters or the media. If you haven’t seen the film, why would you be interested in seeing if they get an award or not?

That’s a few reasons, but there are probably more that others can propose.

Feb 24, 2005 - 5:12 am 9. Richard Nieporent:

Once the feds vowed to smite future “wardrobe malfunctions,” the customers started bolting the annual TV franchises where those malfunctions and their verbal counterparts are apt to occur. An award show sanitized of vulgarity and encased in the prophylactic of tape delay is an oxymoron.

According to Rich, the real reason people watch these award shows is that they are hoping for a glimpse of a little soft porn. Has the Left lost its collective mind?

Feb 24, 2005 - 5:31 am 10. rastajenk:

Sad to say, but that’s all I ever watched them for.To me, “Golden Globes” are the ones between an actress’s head and waist.

Feb 24, 2005 - 6:07 am 11. LemonDrop:

I used to watch the Oscars, the Golden Globes, etc. but no more. My reasons are simple. I am not interested in hearing Chris Rock, Susan Sarandon, Babs (heh, she hates that name) tell us their political views when they are on stage for ANOTHER reason….

Since it’s not supposed to be about their political views, I will make a political statement and keep my tv off.

May Oscar suffer from major shrinkage this year. Heh.

Feb 24, 2005 - 6:25 am 12. Hogarth:

Mr. Rich is grasping at the same ‘values’ straw that the defeated Democrats continue to over emphasize when trying to rationalize their defeat at the hands of George W. Bush.

I can only speak for myself, but I can no longer stomach a self-aggrandizing “awards” ceremony that celebrates the questionable accomplishments of Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Jeannette Garafalo (sp? Who cares!) etc., along with the collection of “celebs” that promised to leave the country but have to-date not done so.

The reality is this: I’m tired of these bloviating gas bags that think their ability to assume character roles in front of a camera somehow make their “intellectual” opinions superior to mine, and take any opportunity, no matter how inappropriate, to denigrate the man I chose to be my president.

Feb 24, 2005 - 6:27 am 13. Patrick Tyson:

Sex always has something to do with it.

I’ll never forget Ashley Judd’s walk to the podium in 1998. That was, I think, the last great year—Nicholson v. Fonda, Affleck & Damon, Titanic v. L.A. Confidential, Baldwin & Basinger, Cameron v. the writers (the writers finest moment), Donen & past winners, and DiCaprio v. Cameron for “King of the World.”

You would have had to nominate The Passion of the Christ and Fahrenheit 9/11 for Best Picture to get the BIG ratings. You did the right thing.

Feb 24, 2005 - 6:36 am 14. thedragonflies:

The reason the movies are slowly failing is because of formulae, formulae, formulae. The same old movies made over and over.

It’s odd, because the acting continues to get better and better, the directing gets better and better, the special effects get better and better. Who is failing the movies? the people who give the projects greenlights. They get worse and worse. There is so much money involved in making movies today that no one can take a chance, so they just greenlight the stuff that won’t get them in trouble.

We aren’t seeing better writing because the greenlighters have become too timid.

Plus, of course, the stars have been exposed as moonbats who despise normal Americans and hate their country.

Feb 24, 2005 - 6:38 am 15. byrd:

While I’m no fan of censorship either, it should be pointed out that the golden age of Hollywood was a time of much greater censorship than we have today.

To some degree, the censorship drove creativity–forcing directors and writers to find ways to get the story out within the confines of the restrictions led to better art than we get today, where you can just show anything, no imagination required.

So, if one were to take Frank Rich’s way of thinking seriously, the proper conclusion is that we need more, not less, censorship.

Feb 24, 2005 - 6:41 am 16. Percy Dovetonsils:

Frank Rich is utterly clueless. The reason we rubes in Jesusland have no interest anymore in Hollywood is because Hollywood has nothing but utter contempt for us. I used to watch the Oscars regularly for the high camp value (or as much camp as a hetero male can grasp), but now have no time to waste watching people who have utter contempt for me and my neighbors in flyover country. (And hell, I’m a Chicago Catholic – at least the coastal smartypants acknowledge that we conceal our prehensile tails well. If I was a Southern Baptist, I’d be even more alienated.)

They took away the production numbers at the Oscars supposedly to save time…

I must admit that Debbie Allen’s interpretation of Saving Private Ryan at the 1999 Oscars – via tap dancing – is still one of my all-time top ten moments of enjoyable befuddlement.

Feb 24, 2005 - 6:53 am 17. Matt Evans:

*The reason the movies are slowly failing is because of formulae, formulae, formulae. The same old movies made over and over*

Ah, exactly. Or geared specifically for Oscar consideration, which is just as bad. Out of the 5 (5 right ?) movies up for an Oscar, I’ve seen the Aviator, which I enjoyed for about an hour or so (mostly, I enjoyed seeing Cate as Kate and Kate B. as Ava- roowwwwwrrrr) but finally, I just got bored and both myself and my significant other were dead asleep by the end.

Feb 24, 2005 - 6:53 am 18. WichitaBoy:

Well, I’m of a somewhat different opinion.

Frank Rich is full of it, ok. Duh!

But regarding the decline of music and the movies, although I completely agree that popular music has become of no account, I think the movies are in a golden age. Just consider the proportion of movies since 1990 that are in the top 250 of all time, according to IMDB.com. Even granted that people are likely to rate more highly that which has come more recently, still it’s undeniable that many movies of very high quality and of wide variety are still being produced every year.

Yes, the formulaic approach looms as a danger, but when has it not? There are a number of very original recent movies in the list, such as Schindler’s List, City of God, and Memento.

I don’t agree with the politification of all things Hollywood (which is a direct consequence of the establishment of the New Religion in the ’60’s) but the movie industry is IMHO very much alive and well. It’s a great time to be alive.

Feb 24, 2005 - 7:03 am 19. Stace:

I used to be able to separate the silliness of the actors’ personal lives from my enjoyment of watching their work. Now that we are at war, though, there is just too much at stake. For example. I loved Susan Sarandon’s and Tim Robbins’ work over the years (Bull Durham is the movie that comes to mind first), but now I can’t stand the sight of them.

The only non-kiddie film I went to see last year was Team America-Tim and Susan were great in that movie!

Feb 24, 2005 - 7:08 am 20. richard mcenroe:

“Once the feds vowed to smite future “wardrobe malfunctions,” the customers started bolting the annual TV franchises where those malfunctions and their verbal counterparts are apt to occur.”… ummm, because the FCC is fining the audience members? ‘Honey, let’s check out the Oscars, maybe we’ll see a booby!’ ‘Uh-uh, not til I’m sure Michael Powell is gone! I don’t want to lose the house…”

Movie attendance has been dropping year by year, a fact masked by the steady rise in ticket prices. The audience for the biggest movie is a fraction of the TV audience; if they’re not going to watch the awards shows.

And let’s face it, there are now officially more awards programs than there are major summer releases. The market is past saturated, it’s starting to have landslides…

Besides, if I want gratuitous T&A, I can always watch “Smallville” or any of the other softcore closet pedo treats on the WB. Hey! Marketing idea! If animations are hot, and teenybopper smut is hot, maybe the WB can use its contract players to make a big budget version of Demon Beast Invasion! (NOTE: If you don’t know what that is, do NOT do a search for it…) It’s like, that synergy thing…

Feb 24, 2005 - 7:34 am 21. Henway:

Most movie actors have a different notion than I do of the job of movie star. Many dress like rag shop refugees, speak like high school dropouts, refuse to prepare remarks for public events because it would interfere with the authenticity of the moment. Say what you will about the myriad abuses of the studio system, but it boot-camped actors into public figures both glamourous and charming. I miss charm.

Feb 24, 2005 - 7:41 am 22. Roger:

For those who think movies are better because their imdb.com ratings say so (a sub-select of the living), consider the Oscar nominees for 1939:

Wizard of Oz

Stagecoach

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Gone With The Wind

Dark Victory

Wuthering Heights

Goodbye Mr. Chips

Ninotchka

In the Seventies we had the likes of The Godfather and Chinatown. No, movies have gone down hill. There are many reasons but two jump out: The studios have gone corporate. There’s too much competition for our interest with movies having lost their “centrality” to the culture. I don’tthink the “formula” issue has much to do with it. There have always been formula movies.

Feb 24, 2005 - 7:55 am 23. Salt Lick:

Kinda veering off on a tangent here, but has anyone else found politics intruding into their theater attendance? This morning our local paper carried a photo of a dress rehearsal for a university production of “Streetcar Named Desire” and Stella is FAT. I’m not talking curvaceous or voluptuous, I’m talking FAT. Stanley, down on his knees and hugging her legs, is the same muscular hunk as Marlon Brando. Knowing our university theater department, I can guess this mismatch is some kind of political statement. We attend far fewer theater productions because there are often surprises of this sort.

Feb 24, 2005 - 8:12 am 24. Matt Evans:

I agree with Roger and disagree with Wboy. I’ve been an avid movie goer since college and yet the number of movies I will actually go to the movies and see have decreased steadily then. It used to be about the money – ticket prices are ridiculous- but now, as I’ve settled down and can actually afford movies, I don’t give a damn about the vast majority of movies they’re churning out.

Plus, and I hate to admit this, but I can’t bring myself to watch movies featuring the most vocal left wing actors/actresses- nothing with the Robbins, nothing with Penn, I wouldn’t go see the new Fockers because of Streisand. It feels very much like buying a ticket is endorsing their message, which is basically, “as rich smartypants knowitall actors/tresses, we know more than you”.

Feb 24, 2005 - 8:14 am 25. Cap'n Billy:

The only awards show I watch is the TVLand annual event. And last year a little skit by Sally Struthers and Rob Reiner got close to the line.

Feb 24, 2005 - 8:28 am 26. Stacy's Mom:

The populace is aging and becoming more conservative as it does. Hollywood is a collection of botoxed, Peter Pan wannabe’s, trying to relive their glory days of the 1960’s.

It’s no mystery why we aren’t watching.

Feb 24, 2005 - 8:41 am 27. Larry J:

The main reason I quit watching the awards shows long ago is that there are just too many of them. How many “Aren’t we wonderful, we’re CELEBRITIES!” shows where overpaid and undertalented people give awards to one another do we need? That, and their insatiable desire to be considered relevant by spouting off their political views when they largely have room temperature IQs make for very boring programs.

Grammies

People’s Choice

Academy Awards

Tony Awards

etc.

etc.

etc.

Feb 24, 2005 - 8:42 am 28. Mike_Nargizian:

I admit I won’t even waste my time reading Rich’s drivel garbage.

But anyone my age knows why people don’t watch the Oscars, they’re long and boring.

The main people who watch them are the older generation anyway, when Hollywood used to be ‘glamorous’… and I’m sure they’re simply too upset with the supposed pc “censoring” lol!!

Listen if Rich can skew something and blame it on the Bush administration even if you have to be stand on your head and open your mouth real wide to accept it… then he’ll fork it out…

Kind of like his cohort Krugman….

LOL! these guys can’t even help themselves from parodying themselves at this point… its like the producers of the Fockers… they don’t get it either.

Mike

Feb 24, 2005 - 8:51 am 29. Kevin P:

Roger:

Rich is a one note johnny, everything is President Bush’s fault. There are mant reasons that ratings for the Oscar’s are on the decline and censorship is not on the list.

1.- There are too many award shows being televised. In the past only the Oscars and the Grammys were televised and thus they were a special event. There are so many award shows on the tube that now the oscars are just one of many and they are no longer unique. How many times do you want to watch Hillary Swank thank her agents, Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman.

2.- Look at the Oscars of the seventies and eighties when the rateings were better. Were they stocked with foul language and breast flashings. Of course not but somehow they were able to draw the people in.

3.- If Bush’s supposed blue nose attitude is making the ratings for blue material go down how does Rich explain the success of “Desperate Housewives” and the billion dollar porn industry. As much as Mr. Rich likes to think that Bush is able to retard the lustfull instincts of americans and controll the viewing habits of this country the facts state the complete opposite. But Rich has never allowed facts to influence his ideological rants.

4- The movies that they honor are becoming less mainstream and less commercial. If the industry wants to head in this direction that is their choice and maybe for the artists it is more rewarding. But if you are going to tailor your product to a more narrow demographic then don’t be suprised when you get smaller audiences. If the movies that you honor are not seen by a mass audience you are not going to draw a mass audience to your awards show.

5- The reason the ratings are down is because the product is boring and have become tailored to a smaller demographic. It’s the free market. If the shows were glamerous and exciting President Bush could stage a hunger strike and it wouldn’t make any difference. Rich is just a lazy journalist who carries his hate for Bush to the extreme and reflexivly blames everything that he sees as wrong in the world on him.Bush has no controll over the remote controlls of America and Rich is a paranoid reactionary.

Feb 24, 2005 - 8:53 am 30. Roberts:

Rich writes a great column. Great that is, if you admire incoherent writing, a utter lack of logic and the complete absence of any relation between his thesis and reality.

He gets paid for this?

Feb 24, 2005 - 8:58 am 31. jedrury:

Did it ever cross Frank Rich’s little mind that middle America may identify with Meryl Streep and Robert DeNiro but not with Puffy Combs [did I get his present name right?], 50 cents or Snoop Doggy Do?

Feb 24, 2005 - 8:59 am 32. PJ:

So iowahawk was right, it’s all a Rovian conspiracy!! I truly think Rich is projecting a bit. Maybe he gets his kicks by innocently (wink, wink) being subjected to adolescent sexcapades, like Janet’s exposure problem.

Not only are these shows boring, but now they also evidence the contempt that the music and movie industry have for Americans, as another poster said. Their movies are largely what a friend of mine calls “life is s**t” movies, and the music industry aggrandizes real/fake gangsters and ho’s. Blech. I’d rather watch a Sporanos re-run.

Feb 24, 2005 - 9:05 am 33. rastajenk:

Has anyone seen any comments or commetary about toning down the Oscar celebration this year, being as we’re in a war, and the tsunami thing, and all the blight all over the world, a la the Inauguration criticisms?

Thought not.

Feb 24, 2005 - 9:11 am 34. Silicon valley Jim:

The product of the music business has been mediocre and plastic for the better part of two decades. Ray Charles was a great musical genius

I’d say that it’s been mediocre and plastic for far longer than that.

If Ray Charles was a great musical genius, what term would you apply to Mozart? Or Itzhak Perlman?

Feb 24, 2005 - 9:13 am 35. acassa:

Rich is way off the mark here.

The reason people don’t watch these awards shows is that nobody with half a mind wants to spend a mind-numbing 4 hours watching a bunch of over-paid, over-pampered megalomaniacs in a televised circle-jerk.

Feb 24, 2005 - 9:17 am 36. miskin:

You can find 9 reasons why Hollywood makes so many bad movies here.

Feb 24, 2005 - 9:17 am 37. Patrick Tyson:

I feel I should support at least some of what WitchitaBoy wrote. After all, toward the end of a spirited e-mail movie debate on 1/1/02, I wrote:

I’m attaching a Microsoft Word list culled from the IMDb All-Time Top 250 tonight. It is the Top 100+ movies of the past 20 years as they would be ranked were such a list to be present on the Web site. Bold text titles are movies released within the last five years (IMDb has been in business for at least the past five years) and italicized titles are movies realeased more than ten years ago (they’d be eligible for my own all-time list.) Why am I sending this? No particular reason except that 1.) The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring has headed the full list since its release and 2.) it’s not, for the most part, a bad list.

The Trilogy made it to the screen. The adaptation, in my opinion, was botched, but The Trilogy made it to the screen. Later in 2002 the Angels (owned at the time by Disney) won the World Series.

WichitaBoy is right: It’s a great time to be alive.

Feb 24, 2005 - 9:20 am 38. Knucklehead:

Acassa,

That pretty much sums it up for me. Succinct. I like that. Can’t do it but I like it.

Feb 24, 2005 - 9:24 am 39. Terri:

Speaking for myself, the main reason I don’t watch awards shows is OVEREXPOSURE (and NOT the wardrobe malfunction kind of exposure either)

When I was younger, and we are talking 20-25 years ago unfortunately, I used to look forward to the grammys and the oscars because it was a chance to see the stars and what they were wearing and who they were with yada yada yada. It was all about ‘access’ to a very elite club (hey, I was young and naive!) Back then most people were ’star struck’ because stars were something mysterious and, yes, mystical.

Today thanks to millions of tabloid-type magazines, tabloid-type television (and the advent of cable and all that airtime to fill) and, of course, the internet and it’s instant gratification, we are saturated with everything about anyone even remotely deemed a ‘celebrity’. What they are wearing, saying, eating, dating, vacationing, blah blah blah.

Why should I sit through hours of boring blabbering nonsense when I can just instantly click on a link and see what they are wearing? Read what they said? Find out who won? I don’t have to watch the commercials, or sit through the bits of the show in which I have no interest.

I still love movies – not all of them, but I am a movie fan. I think that there was more of an incentive to watch the awards when the stars were less accessible and you didn’t know every little detail of their daily lives. I really don’t want to know all that. I appreciate them more when they are acting from a script rather than destroying my illusions by trying to speak out when they should be keeping their trap shut. Too much information isn’t a good thing. It’s just like the old adage, ‘Always leave them wanting more’.

It’s that simple…. at least for me. I don’t care about 99% of it, and what I do care about, I can get somewhere else without a huge investment of my time.

Feb 24, 2005 - 9:26 am 40. Kyda Sylvester:

Literature is no great shakes these days either. The last 20 or so years have been a period of artistic mediocrity. Oddly enough, it’s in the last 20 years or so that the baby boomers have come to the fore. Coincidence? I think not.

Remember when Paddy Chayefsky castigated Vanessa Redgrave for turning her acceptance speech into an anti-Zionist screed? Those were the days.

Feb 24, 2005 - 9:45 am 41. slarrow:

You’re right, Roger: it’s the work. I won’t be watching any of the Oscars this year because there are no Lord of the Rings movies involved. I loved those movies in addition to thinking they were truly monumental.

Otherwise, anything Hollywood throws out at me, I can take it or leave it. Besides, why should I care how the beautiful people strut and preen for the cameras when all the movies I watch these days are tailored to the interests of a 16-month-old little boy?

Let ‘em have their fun, but seriously: these people get paid to pretend to be other people. I should be concerned?

Feb 24, 2005 - 9:49 am 42. Karl:

Bob Dylan: “I know there are groups at the top of the charts that are hailed as the saviours of rock’n'roll and all that, but they are amateurs. They don’t know where the music comes from,” he wrote, adding,”I wouldn’t even think about playing music if I was born in these times… I’d probably turn to something like mathematics. That would interest me. Architecture would interest me. Something like that.”

Dustin Hoffman: “The whole culture is in the craphouse. It’s not just true in the movies, it’s also true in the theater.”

Feb 24, 2005 - 10:06 am 43. Old Dad:

I suspect that the Oscars have almost always been over produced and silly, but there was a time that they had real cultural significance because movies had cultural significance. Sure the stars often lead revolting private lives, but they’re public face was typically glamorous and decorous. John Wayne was an important figure because he was the Duke.

I can’t really comment on whether or not movies have gone down hill. To my Philistine sensibilities, the Oscar crop for best movie this year is pretty good, but I still wouldn’t even consider watching the Oscars telecast. It will be predictably dumb and boring, and I really could care less who won.

Now there is much more competition for my free time, and the Oscars just can’t compete.

Feb 24, 2005 - 10:09 am 44. Patrick Tyson:

Regarding 1939 Best Picture nominees, what happened to Love Affair and Of Mice and Men? In addition, Destry Rides Again, Gunga Din and Renoir’s great La Regle du Jeu (in France anyway) went into release in 1939.

1939 was a phenomenal year.

IIRC, Orson Welles began work on his first feature in 1939. He watched Stagecoach again and again and again.

Feb 24, 2005 - 10:17 am 45. mcg:

Funny you should mention Robert Evans in this context:

http://www.drudgereport.com/evans.htm

Feb 24, 2005 - 10:42 am 46. Kevin P:

Roger:

The oscars seem to be in love with “serious ” movies they pretend to be important statements on society but in reality are just films that wallow in the ugly and perverse just for the sake of shock value.

I saw “Closer.” The acting and the all the technical aspects of the film were outstanding. But the story made me want to take a shower after I got out of the theatre. It is the story of two couples who meet, swap mates and find different ways to emotionally torure each other. Yes, there are probably couples like this in the world but does anyone want to spend time with them? This is supposed to be an important statement on the state of relationships in modern society but I thought it was Jerry Springer for the smart set.

I am not calling for the return of Ozzie and Harriet. But a film should give you a reson to connect to the characters or teach you something about life. The goal of non judgemental “examinations” of life has led to a sort of lets go watch relationships that resemble a multiple car wreck on the freeway. If you drive by your are going to look at an accident but I doubt you would stand in line and pay 12 bucks so you could pear at the dismembered bodies. If you are going to depress me at least teach me something.

Feb 24, 2005 - 10:49 am 47. Brian:

Everyone from Sun Tzu to Ayn Rand agrees that any culture is driven by its philosophy, and being as the reigning philosophy of the past forty-fifty years has pooped out (secular humanism —> postmodernism —> outright silliness), it’s no surprise that the arts have pooped out too. As of yet nothing has arisen to replace it.

Charles Murray’s latest book goes into detail about the importance of what he called “transcendent values” in culture creation. At the moment, transcendent values are a little hard to come by, but that’ll change.

(Anyway, it’d better change.)

I might tune in to see Sidney Lumet get his – finally!

Feb 24, 2005 - 11:11 am 48. Coisty:

The self-importance of the actors is astonishing. These are people who can’t even make a thirty second speech – “OH MY GOD!…OH MY GOD!…I can’t believe it!…OH MY GOD!” Actresses are the worst. Every year they reinforce every stereotype of the ditzy bimbo actress. And they’re often so skinny they don’t look sexy at all. Jennifer Connely comes to mind. She once had curves and breasts. On Oscar night she had neither.

I think the best remark so far was the one about the films not being released until the end of the year, and even then only in limited release. I suspect that doesn’t bother most nominees as they prefer to be seen as a part of a small elite impervious to the supposedly ignorant masses.

I see the (Canadian) writer of Million Dollar Baby and some other millionaires have put an ad in some paper arguing in favour of allowing illegal aliens to have drivers licences. The ad says if “we” let them look after our children and homes why not allow them to drive. I know several people from California and they were all raised by their parents not illegal aliens from Mexico. They even cut their own grass if I’m not mistaken. Just another example of how out of touch these aristocratic-wannabes are. The ad was probably only in Variety so that only those who matter would read it.

Feb 24, 2005 - 11:41 am 49. Charlie (Colorado):

If Ray Charles was a great musical genius, what term would you apply to Mozart?

Uh, dead?

Haven’t seen anything new from Mozart in quite a while….

Feb 24, 2005 - 12:01 pm 50. Brian:

I checked out that Evans link.

First thought: who’s that guy next to Beck?

Good link though.

Feb 24, 2005 - 12:02 pm 51. Vexorg:

I have not set foot in a movie theater now in almost a year now, and the last time I was in one was to watch a safety training video to get a food handler’s permit from the county (long story…) and I think the last “real” movie I saw in the theater was Monsters, Inc. Ostensibly, my “excuse” for not watching movies on a regular basis is that I have the attention span of-Oh look, a bunny! Oops, gone now. Where was I? Oh yeah, short attention span. I wonder where they’d get that idea? Anyway, to be honest, there is just so much garbage coming out of Hollywood these days. So-called comedies these days seem to consist mostly of two hours of potty humor and people being morons, which I see no humor in (and the blogosphere hasn’t excactly helped in that regard.) Just about every type of film you can think of short of “The Care Bears Movie 3: This time, it’s personal” seems to feel it necessary to throw in gratuitous sexuality that does nothing to advance the plot, as though they’re getting their demographic info on their male audience from a Lifetime Original Movie and a couple of issues of Maxim.

And this would be the case even if a good chunk of Hollywood wasn’t comprised of preachy self-righteous Marxist wanna-bes who wouldn’t know a class struggle if it bashed down their door and carted them off to the nearest guillotine. If not for the accident of celebrity, most of these people wouldn’t be qualified to do much more than flip burgers It should be noted that in times past, performers and artists were generally found among the lowest classes of society. Sure, you could occasionally find a rich noble to act as your patron, but for most of recorded history performers and artists have been among the lowest classes of society. It’s only been in recent times that Hollywood has elevated these people to the upper classes, and it shows. Nonetheless, other than their role in forming people’s opinions, these attitudes are ultimately irrlevant, since it’s highly unlikely that these people are going to be the ones taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government to bring forth the Worker’s Paradise. That’s a job for the little people.

TV isn’t much better these days either. Most of the time, half the shows I can even stand to watch are on Food Network and HGTV (for as much of that stuff as I watch, you’d think I could actually cook or hang drywall, but that’s for another time…) There’s a couple of Network shows I’ll watch on occasion (I’ll occasionally watch CSI reruns on Spike TV if nothing else is on, but believe me, you don’t want to get me started on what an insult to 50% of humanity that network is…) but for the most part everything I watch anymore is on cable. It seems a little odd that I know more grownups than kids these days that watch Nickelodeon on a regular basis, but I do have to say that some of their cartoons are much better comedy than the tripe in the theaters, even if they are a tad formulaic (Fairly Oddparents in particular.) The fact that I’d rather watch kids cartoons at any given time than just about any Hollywood films should say justabout everything about the situation as I see it.

Feb 24, 2005 - 12:37 pm 52. Matt Evans:

Coisty, a plague on your house for insulting my Jennifer !!!!!!

Ok, that sounded creepy but seriously, Jennifer Connely is, imho, the best looking actress in Hollywood (and thats actress as opposed to “model”, “bimbo” “flavor of the month”)- plus she’s got talent and poise and seems to stay out of the limelight as much as possible.

I’ve been infatuated with Jennifer since the Rocketeer. ..

Feb 24, 2005 - 1:21 pm 53. Kyda Sylvester:

I’ll occasionally watch CSI reruns on Spike TV if nothing else is on, but believe me, you don’t want to get me started on what an insult to 50% of humanity that network is…

Take a gander at Lifetime Television for Women sometime. CSI is Macbeth compared to the crap over there.

Feb 24, 2005 - 1:23 pm 54. Kevin P:

Matt:

Jennifer is beautifull and a good actress but she seems to be following the trend of many actresses towards maximum exposure of the skeleton structure. Check her out in “A Beautifull Mind” and some of her latest photo’s. Borderline anoxeria is not attractive.

Feb 24, 2005 - 1:49 pm 55. Terrye:

I liked Robert Mitchum, he said he became a movie star becasue his wife said she would leave him if he did not get a job and he thought being actor would beat working.

I loved the Lord of the Rings, but then I love the books too. Maybe what we miss are the stories.

My favorite Oscar moment was years ago when David Niven walked up to the podium and opened his white dinner jacket displaying pots and pans hanging fromm the lining. He smiled at the crowd saying ‘My lucky charms’. The crowd loved it.

Now, there was an actor.

Feb 24, 2005 - 1:58 pm 56. jerry:

Terrye:

David Niven was more then an actor. He mixed his acting career with his other profession… Special Air Service. Niven was in special operations through a good deal of his career. When he died they found a true “chest full of medals” in his home.

Feb 24, 2005 - 2:47 pm 57. thibaud:

the position of movies in our culture has been on a continual decline (with minor bumps) since the 1970s

Amen, Roger. Most movies today are aimed at children and young adults with the cultural depth of a child. This was not the case in the era of Coppolla, Bogdanovich, Polanski, et al. Prior to the mid-80s, any film that was so dumb as to appeal to kids only was, well, a kids’ movie: whether Disney or “porky’s” fare, the premise was that kids were one, relatively minor, target demographic. Today, the mass market that really matters is the uneducated 16-25 year old market.

Feb 24, 2005 - 4:45 pm 58. Terrye:

jerry:

That is so interesting. I heard he died of ADL. When asked how he was doing he told a friend he fell down a lot. When I was very young, I thought he was so cool.

You know come to think of it I did hear he came from a well connected family that looked down on his acting. Maybe he was trying to do something useful.

Feb 24, 2005 - 5:39 pm 59. Neo:

There are just too many “awards” shows.

Then the most popular movies (the one take make hundreds of millions) are always relagated to the “technical” awards, while the “tales from the far end of the Guassian curve” or “freak show” productions are awarded for “art”. Then there are factors like “British and boring”.

In a world where my time is most precious, I have bigger fish to fry.

Feb 24, 2005 - 6:17 pm 60. Sandy P:

–Remember when Paddy Chayefsky castigated Vanessa Redgrave for turning her acceptance speech into an anti-Zionist screed? Those were the days.—

Yup.

And David Niven/Lala Liz and the streaker.

Hope and Carson never needed to swear.

Lowest common denominator.

Feb 24, 2005 - 7:51 pm 61. idi_amin:

Frank Rich is dummy! He should be sentenced to spending the night with Joan and Melissa Rivers. Then maybe he will understand that the evil Republicans have nothing to do with people losing interest in AccessHollywood / E.T. / Bennifer / Aniston-Pitt / ByronAllen red-carpet BS.

For a long time the populace accepted being force-fed this garbage as “entertainment”, but those days are over. Same thing applies to dull, illogical columnists at major newspapers.

Feb 24, 2005 - 9:32 pm 62. 2468:

Jennifer:

She does get too thin quite often. Although she was near perfect in “The House of Sand and Fog”. Roaarrr! I suspect she diets so that women don’t feel as intimidated by her. As a guess.

Quality of Recent Movies:

I disagree with Roger here. LOTR anyone? A Beautiful Mind? City of God? Going earlier…

Shawshank Redemption? Schindler? Pulp Fiction? Usual Suspects? Goodfellas? Memento?

What about Airplane, Top Secret or Team America? Airplane pretty much created a genre.

I think in large part it’s because the movies cater to young men these days, and many of the commenters here no longer fit that demographic.

No disagreement on the animations though. Perhaps that’s partially due to the creative process itself. You can kind of edit it on the fly to get a sense of how good a particular scene is, correct?

Feb 25, 2005 - 1:24 am 63. PJ:

2468, good movies all.

The movie that most surprised me this year was Open Water. It knocked me over; couldn’t even speak for hours.

Feb 25, 2005 - 8:55 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: