oscars censored

[miker]

still think filmmaking isn't political?

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=295902003

THE backlash against prominent stars opposing any attack on Iraq has impacted on this year?s Oscars, with organisers drawing up a blacklist of people who will not be allowed a platform to air anti-war views.

Meryl Streep, Sean Penn, Vanessa Redgrave, George Clooney, Dustin Hoffman and Spike Lee are among those who will not be speaking, amid fears they could turn the ceremony into an anti-war rally.

In a move denounced by some as a return to McCarthyism, star presenters have been ordered to stick to scripts, while winners, who the producers have no control over, could find their acceptance speeches cut if they say anything much more than a brief thank you.

[GREATwarEAGLE]

still think filmmaking isn't political?
Who is this question addressed to? Of course filmmaking is political. There are politics involved in everything. Did I miss a thread where contrary opinion was expressed?

Myself, and I know I speak for many, I don't take the Academy Awards seriously whatsoever. As I get older, I don't take the film industry too serious for that matter. Egos, pretentiousness, narcissism, etc. - all synonymous with the film industry as a whole. Not just Hollywood. Therefore, I 'll pass at their lecture about what's going on in the Persian Gulf. Or saving rain forests. Or AIDS. I have no interest in hearing about morals and ethics from someone who gets paid $20 million for a coupla months "work".

Whether they're censored or not makes no difference to me. I doubt I'll be watching.

Time and a place for everything. Imagine seeing some regular Joe on a game show:
"I'd like to buy a vowel. And SAY NO TO DRUGS!"
"Is there a "T" please? And PROTECT THE OZONE LAYER!!"

Same thing.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 14, 2003 11:00 PM: Message edited by: GREATwarEAGLE ]</font>

[miker]

i agree on the whole.

but these people do have the power to shape politics, by way of the number of 'normal' people they reach.

and perhaps it's not entirely appropriate to get political at an awards ceremony (which I have never, ever watched BTW)

here is an example of why I think the oscars move facilitates a dictatorship, using the example of the 'Brits' pop awards in the UK:

at these awards, several pop 'stars' made anti-war sentiments.

the next day, the UK's most popular newspaper 'The Sun' (owned by Rupert Murdoch, pro-war) made no mention whatsoever about these outbursts. In fact, this newspaper now promotes xenophobia by slagging off the French and Germans and branding anyone in the public eye (eg Clare Short) who protests 'a traitor'

So censorship at source alleviates the need for censorship down the news channels. Everyone gets hyped for War.

BTW, not much is mentioned of the ARAB vote about the war - 22 Arab nations are against the War, including those with borders with Iraq. Funny how that doesn't make the news.

What about the cost? Last time, 24 nations to foot the bill, this time only 3.

Anyway, I digress. I am not AntiWar. I am AntiOppression.

[8th Man]

I wouldn't want to hear the political views of celebrities on the oscars even if I agreed with them. That redicules awards show is already way too long as it is. Besides, it's not the government censoring them it's the folks putting it on.
Actors can say all they want on their own time. They can call a press confrence, and often do.

[Alex]

No matter what the actor does, it can be criticized.
I they say nothing about the war, then it can make them look very self-absorbed.

[GREATwarEAGLE]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> No matter what the actor does, it can be criticized.
I they say nothing about the war, then it can make them look very self-absorbed. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that's a good point. Sort of.

How often is their expressed moral opinion genuine, or just meant to make them look good for publicity? Wether or not they speak out - they're self-absorbed. That is, the majority who attend the Oscars. Which is where the difference between a celebrity and a simple actor enters the discussion.

Actors don't have to do talk shows.
Actors don't have to do magazine interviews.
Actors don't have to do vanity photo shoots.

All the (film) actor has to do, is show up on the set, have their lines prepared, and act. Everything else, if they choose to participate, is celebrity self-absorption. And what are they celebrating? - Themselves.

There are actors out there who make a nice living in front of the camera but protect their privacy and keep to themselves. Unlike many of the names we're familiar with who complain about their lack of privacy, the invading paparazzi, but then go on David Letterman to discuss the new house they bought.

Of course there are a few actors who frequent the public eye, but remain humble.

Paul Newman.

For years, this guy has given a sh*tload of his money to those in serious need. And from what I've heard he's always a professional on the set, very polite, and friendly.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 26, 2003 10:01 AM: Message edited by: GREATwarEAGLE ]</font>