George Clooney is a big fat phoney

[Commodore]

Edited partially for length
--------------------------------------------------


Phoney Baloney (http://www.nationalreview.com/issue/steyn200602130812.asp)
That’s what George Clooney and the rest of the Oscar crowd have served up


by MARK STEYN

George Clooney’s triple Oscar nominations for acting, writing, and directing are said to be a significant moment in the life of the nation, and not just by George Clooney, though his effusions on his own “bravery” certainly set a high mark. “We jumped in on our own,” he said, discussing Good Night, and Good Luck with Entertainment Weekly. “And there was no reason to think it was going to get any easier. But people in Hollywood do seem to be getting more comfortable with making these sorts of movies now. People are becoming braver.”

Wow. He was brave enough to make a movie about Islam’s treatment of women? Oh, no, wait. That was the Dutch director Theo van Gogh: He had his throat cut and half-a-dozen bullets pumped into him by an enraged Muslim who left an explanatory note pinned to the dagger he stuck in his chest. At last year’s Oscars, the Hollywood crowd were too busy championing the “right to dissent” in the Bushitler tyranny to find room even to namecheck Mr. van Gogh in the montage of the deceased. Bad karma. Good night, and good luck.

No, Mr. Clooney was the fellow “brave” enough to make a movie about — cue drumroll as I open the envelope for Most Predictable Direction — the McCarthy era!

How about that? I don’t know about you but I was getting so sick of the sycophantic Joe McCarthy biopics churned out year in year out — Nathan Lane in McCarthy! The Musical was the final straw — that thank God someone finally had the “bravery” to exercise his “right to dissent.” I only hope George Clooney isn’t found dead in the street at the hands of some crazed nonagenarian HUAC member.

He’s got some tough competition, of course. This year’s five Best Picture nominees are all “films that broach the tough issues,” as USA Today put it: “Brokeback and Capote for their portrayal of gay characters; Crash for its examination of racial tension; Night for its call for more watchdog journalism; and Munich for its take.” Whoops, my mistake. That should be “Munich for its take on terrorism.” In their combined take at the box office, these Best Picture nominees have the lowest grosses since 1986. That means very few people have seen them. Which in turn means these Oscars are likely to have the lowest audience ever. Okay, maybe not ever. In 1929, they handed them out to an audience of 270 in the Blossom Room at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel, and no doubt by the time you add in overseas viewership from the many chapters of the Jon Stewart Fan Club this year’s audience will be up around 309.

The fact that hardly anybody has seen these films does not in and of itself mean that they’re not artistic masterpieces. That’s why the Oscars are important: They can shine a light on undeservedly neglected art-house jewels that might otherwise get overlooked. But you couldn’t exactly call Brokeback Mountain overlooked. It’s the Jungfrau, it’s the peak of cinematic achievement. It’s an Everest papered from base camp to summit in rave reviews. And in the week the Oscar nominations were announced the world’s most ballyhooed art-house obscurity added another 435 theaters to its outlets — and business declined 13 percent.

Maybe it’s because Americans are homophobes. Or maybe it’s because these films are not as “controversial” as Hollywood thinks. The more artful leftie websites have taken to complaining that the Religious Right deliberately killed Brokeback at the box office by declining to get mad about it. Look at Tinky-Winky in the Teletubbies: Those fundamentalist whack-jobs denounce him as an obvious fruit and the guy never looks back — he’s at his beach house in Malibu sipping margaritas and eyeing up the poolboy. But make a film that’s hailed as a gay masterpiece and Pat Robertson can’t even arrange a lousy multiplex in Dubuque that gets struck by lightning just for showing it.

TRUE ROMANCES
Well, who knows? Perhaps next time they should make it two gay sheep herders in, say, Medina, or a gay Pashtun goatherd and a gay Uzbek warlord: The Mohammedans Go to the Mountain — that should light up the box office. Or perhaps they could make Broke Back Toutin’, a film about an American media utterly exhausted by its frantic efforts to flog these movies to a general audience. As it is, Hollywood’s new reputation for “serious” “challenging” “works” seems merely the dinner-theater production of the usual self-reinforcing Democrat-media bubble. A filmmaker makes a film about a courageous pressman and the pressmen hail him as a courageous filmmaker for doing so. Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal have nothing on the romance between George Clooney and the world’s press. The “serious” press, that is, even though they sound like a cover story in Forty-Seventeen. Here’s the Observer in London:

“How a Heart-Throb Became the Voice of Liberal America: George Clooney was once famous for his party lifestyle and the beautiful women that he dated. Now it’s politics that increasingly sets his pulse racing.”

And evidently the reporter’s too. That ran not in the entertainment section but on the news pages. “I’m an old-time liberal and I don’t apologize for it,” Clooney told Newsweek.

Good for him. And certainly, regardless of how liberal he is, he’s undeniably “old-time.” I don’t mean in the sense that he has the gloss of an old-time movie star, the nearest our age comes to the sheen of Cary Grant in a Stanley Donen picture, but that his politics are blessedly undisturbed by any developments on the global scene since circa 1974. Clooney’s other Oscar movie, Syriana, in which he stars and exec-produces, reveals that behind a murky Middle East conspiracy lies . . . the CIA and Big Oil! In Good Night, and Good Luck, he’s produced a film set in the McCarthy era that could have been made in the Jimmy Carter era. That’s to say, it takes into account absolutely nothing that has come to light in the last quarter-century — not least the relevant KGB files on Soviet penetration of America. To take one example that could stand for Clooney’s entire approach to the subject, Good Night includes shocking scenes of Senator McCarthy accusing Annie Lee Moss, who worked in a highly sensitive decoding job in the Pentagon, of being a Communist, and the heroic Edward R. Murrow then denouncing McCarthy’s behavior.

But we now know, from the party’s own files, that Miss Moss was, indeed, a Communist. What should we conclude from the absence of this detail in the picture? That Clooney, who goes around boasting that every moment in the screenplay has been “double-sourced” for accuracy, simply doesn’t know she’s a Commie? Or that he does know but thinks it’s harmless? That she, like he and Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, is merely exercising her all-American “right to dissent,” in her case in the Pentagon Signal Corps’ code room? If so, that’s a subtly different argument than Murrow was making: It’s one thing to argue that it’s all a paranoid fantasy on the part of obsessed Red-baiters, quite another to shrug, hey, sure they were Commies, but what’s the big deal?

Or is it that Clooney doesn’t care either way? That what matters is the “meta-narrative” — the journalist as hero, “speaking truth to power,” no matter if the journalist is wrong and wields more power than most politicians. Even if one discounts the awkward fact that these days CBS News is better known for speaking twaddle to power — over the fake National Guard memos to which Dan Rather remains so attached — the reality is that the idea of the big media crusader simply doesn’t resonate with any section of the American public other than the big media themselves. Indeed, if you wanted to create a film designed to elicit rave reviews from the critics, you could hardly do better than a McCarthy-era story built around a Watergate-style heroic reporter, unless you made the reporter gay. The media seem to have fallen for it, with the splendid exception of Armond White in the New York Press who said Clooney was far more hagiographic of his subject than Mel Gibson was in The Passion of the Christ.

This is the Platonic reductio of political art. Say what you like about those Hollywood guys in the Thirties but they were serious about their leftism. Say what you like about those Hollywood guys in the Seventies but they were serious about their outrage at what was done to the lefties in the McCarthy era — though they might have been better directing their anger at the movie-industry muscle that enforced the blacklist. By comparison, Clooney’s is no more than a pose — he’s acting at activism, new Hollywood mimicking old Hollywood’s robust defense of even older Hollywood. He’s more taken by the idea of “speaking truth to power” than by the footling question of whether the truth he’s speaking to power is actually true.

That’s why Hollywood prefers to make “controversial” films about controversies that are settled, rousing itself to fight battles long won. Go back to USA Today’s approving list of Hollywood’s willingness to “broach the tough issues”: “Brokeback and Capote for their portrayal of gay characters; Crash for its examination of racial tension . . .” That might have been “bold” “courageous” movie-making half-a-century ago. Ever seen the Dirk Bogarde film Victim? He plays a respectable married barrister whose latest case threatens to expose his homosexuality. That was 1961, when homosexuality was illegal in the United Kingdom and Bogarde was the British movie industry’s matinee idol and every schoolgirl’s pinup: That’s brave. Doing it at a time when your typical conservative politician gets denounced as “homophobic” because he’s only in favor of civil unions is just an exercise in moral self-congratulation. And, unlike the media, most of the American people are savvy enough to conclude that by definition that doesn’t require their participation.

A KNOWN WOMAN
These films are “transgressive” mostly in the sense that Transamerica is transsexual. I like Felicity Huffman and all, and I’m not up to speed with the latest strictures on identity-group casting, but isn’t it a bit condescending to get a lifelong woman (or whatever the expression is) to play a transsexual? If Hollywood announced Al Jolson would be playing Martin Luther King Jr., I’m sure Denzel Washington & Co. would have something to say about it. Were no transsexual actresses available for this role? I know at least one, personally, and there was a transsexual Bond girl in the late Roger Moore era who looked incredibly hot, albeit with a voice several octaves below Paul Robeson. What about that cutie with the very fetching Adam’s apple from The Crying Game? And, just as Transamerica’s allegedly unconventional woman is a perfectly conventional woman underneath, so the entire slate of Oscar nominees is, in a broader sense, a phalanx of Felicity Huffmans. That’s to say, they’re dressing up daringly and flouncing around as controversy, but underneath they’re simply the conventional wisdom. Indeed, “Transamerica” would make a good name for Hollywood’s view of its domestic market — a bizarro United States run by racists and homophobes and a poodle media in thrall to the administration.

You can certainly find new wrinkles on “racial tensions” — Abie’s Wahhabi Rose? — but Hollywood “controversy” seems more an evasion of controversy. If you want it in a single word, it’s the difference between the title of George Jonas’s original book — Vengeance — and the title of the film Steven Spielberg made of it — Munich. Vengeance is a point of view, Munich is a round of self-applause for the point of view that having no point of view is the most sophisticated point of view of all — a position whose empty smugness is most deftly summarized by the final shot of the movie, the Twin Towers on the New York skyline. For a serious film, it would be hard to end on a more fundamentally unserious note.

But then it’s hard to be serious when you’ve made a virtue of dodging the tough choices of the age. The BritLit blockbusters currently keeping Hollywood afloat — Harry Potter, Narnia, Lord of the Rings — may be ghastly multiplex crowd-pleasers unworthy of great artists like George Clooney but they’re not a retreat to the periphery in the way that Hollywood “seriousness” is. Spielberg’s lingering shot of the World Trade Center wasn’t even the most exquisitely framed banality of the year. That honor goes to The Constant Gardener, which may yet win Rachel Weisz an Oscar for her role as a passionate anti-globalization activist who dies in mysterious circumstances. At one point Ralph Fiennes is doing his signature stare, peering elliptically into the distance, when the camera pulls back to show him as a little stick figure dwarfed by the mega-multinational pharmaceutical company’s corporate headquarters he’s standing outside.

Oh, come off it. The Constant Gardener is distributed by Universal Pictures. Don’t they have a big office? If King Kong’s standing outside waiting to get past security to find out why his residuals check has bounced, then Universal might look like some little Mom ’n’ Pop operation. But stick any of the rest of us on the sidewalk and we’d be like Ralph Fiennes outside Big Pharma. That’s Hollywood: No one lavishes more care and expense on saying nothing.

Three months after 9/11, George Clooney was asked what he wanted for Christmas. “I want,” he said, “one day when nobody is getting shot at. Call a truce for a day.” Our own Jay Nordlinger remarked at the time that this was “a child’s response,” correctly noting “the implied moral randomness . . . People are just shooting at each other, you know, and shooting at each other is bad.” If you want stories about journalists, nobody was shooting on the day the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Pearl had his head sawed off. If you want stories about “racial tensions,” nobody was shooting on the day British expat Ken Bigley was similarly decapitated. Hollywood’s “bravery” is an almost pathological retreat: It’s against segregated drinking fountains in Alabama and blacklisting writers on 1950s variety shows. It’s in danger of becoming an oldies station with only three records.

I noticed the other day that Nigeria now has the third biggest movie industry in the world, after Hollywood and Bollywood. In the showbiz capital of West Africa, you can make a feature for 40,000 bucks. What talk radio did to network news and the Internet is doing to monopoly newspapers, someone will eventually do to the big studios, and one day we may wind up with a Hollywood in which, as Clooney might say, nothing is getting shot. In the meantime, Danish cartoonists are in hiding for their lives but George Clooney will be televised around the world picking up an award for his bravery.

Mr. Steyn is NR’s back-page columnist, and a writer for many other publications. His website is www.MarkSteyn.com.

[bob]

What can I say? Clooney's the man. Whether or not you feel his comments about how brave the film GNGL was, he's still one of the most laid-back, intelligent, and secure celelbrities you hear from. Whatever the political implications of his films are, they were both good pieces of filmmaking, and he deserves his triple nomination. I disagree with the sentiment Stein supplies that Clooney has some sort of responsibility other than making good films, and he seems to be turning him into a scapegoat for any celebrity with occasionally backwards political agenda, which is...ANY celebrity.

[Commodore]

Well I don't think he was comenting on the quality of the films themselves, rather how Clooney and Hollywood think they are so brave and how self-important they think they and their films are.

[Duke Nukem]

That is one of the best thread titles in a long time and the understatement of 2005. Switch his name with Michael Moore, and it would be the understatement of 2004.

[Buck Turgidson]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't really come here to read huge cut 'n' paste chunks from right wing blogs.

[Commodore]

Yeah I considered just posting snipets of it to start a conversation about the Hollywood culture, but I decided to paste almost all of it.

[The Heart Collector]

.... What was the point of that. CLEARLY the standards of whats allowed and not allowed in HOLLYWOOD aren't the same as in independent film. :rolleyes: Of course Theo Van Gogh can do whatever the fuck he wants, his financial responsiblities and associates are not the same.

[Buck Turgidson]

Theo van Gogh was also a vile son of a bitch. I understand his martyr status, and it's well deserved, (no one, EVER, should be physically attacked for his opinions), but he was hardly some simple advocate of free expression and equality. He had some extraordinarily sickening views. I wouldn't want that fact to get lost in the rush to make him an exemplar of western culture.

And now I'm discussing politics, which I try never to do here, so that's it for me in this thread.

[AceD]

I don't think that George has put himself in the same league or level of bravery of the likes of Theo van Gough or the number of other filmmakers also making films that put them physically at risk. And I agree with Bob, he also seems like a genuinely cool dude, so I'm not going to knock him totally.

However, I don't think there was ANYTHING "brave" about making either of the films he made this year. There's a large segment of the country that would agree with some of the messages George is trying to communicate, but the films are entertainment first and messages second -- regardless of your political viewpoint, you can enjoy both films as solid drama/thrillers.

The only part of the original post that I agree with is that none of the "controversial" films this year (like GNGL, Syriana, Brokeback) are as controversial as people on both sides of the debate want you to believe. Especially Brokeback. It's a well-made film but the love story element is far from original and it moves too slowly for many tastes, so the filim (IMO) is hardly a watershed. It's a story. GNCL and Syriana obviously have a little bit more of a political statement to them, but the filmmakers are kidding themselves if they think they're making brave films.

[Annie Hall]

I think the word "brave" is thrown around far too much in the film industry these days.

While I definitely do think that the risk involved in creating candid, honest art could be considered brave, and any qualms we may have about the bush administration (oh, god, the many I have)...it's not like we're living in Communist Russia here. I really think that George Clooney is a talented filmmaker, I liked both Goodnight and Good Luck and Syriana, I think they both touched upon interesting topics, and required of us--surprise surprise from the industry that brought us Big Momma's House 2 and Wolf Creek--to think about the world around us.

Brave? Maybe not. But a challenge for betterment, possibly.

[Mr-Blonde]

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/5164/phoney2gg.jpg

"HEY EVERYBODY! THIS GUY'S A PHONEY! A BIG FAT PHONEY!!"

[HeavyFknMetal]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/5164/phoney2gg.jpg

"HEY EVERYBODY! THIS GUY'S A PHONEY! A BIG FAT PHONEY!!"

Oh my fucking god thank you so much for posting that. Everytime I read the title of this tread I kept saying that, and I couldnt for the life of me figure out where it was from.

[Duke Nukem]

Mistake. My bad. I re-did it some posts down. I am so sorry. I did not mean to direct that at you. I quoted the wrong post.

[HeavyFknMetal]

Originally posted by Duke Nukem
Oh, noes! Is he?!? That's it! I'll get the machine guns, you bring the torches! And Timmy! Timmy, you bring the shovels! Let's pull shoot the fucker down, burn `em up and bury him six feet under! Right next to where we buried Michael Moore!

Excuse my ignorance, but what??

[Duke Nukem]

Originally posted by HeavyFknMetal
Excuse my ignorance, but what??

It's called politics (the theme of the subject, George Clooney), humor (something funny) and sarcasm (a way of using and/or combining humor and the theme). Learn it.

[Duke Nukem]

Oh, crap! I'm sorry, I clicked the wrong button! My apologies! Let me fix that!

[Duke Nukem]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/5164/phoney2gg.jpg

"HEY EVERYBODY! THIS GUY'S A PHONEY! A BIG FAT PHONEY!!"

Oh, noes! is he?!? That's it! I'll get the machine guns, you bring the torches! And, Timmy! Timmy, you bring the shovels! Let's shoot this fucker down, burn `em up and bury him six feet under right next to where we buried Michael Moore!

[HeavyFknMetal]

Yea, I was confused because you quoted me and I was just talking about the Family Guy quote.

[The Postmaster General]

I think when they say "brave" they usually mean that they are taking a chance that it won't make money.

I'm pretty sure that's what they mean. That's what I've always taken it as.

Brave can apply to many different things, and to start basing this shit on merit is fucking asinine. What the hell did (scrolls up the page) MARK STEYN ever do that was fucking brave? Write n article bashing the guy who used to star on ER, America's favorite hospital drama. Give me a fucking break and make the internation hand gesture for 'big jerk off' for me for about 2 hours just to help share in the dipshitivity of insightful diving into the mind of the man who has uttered such powerful dialogue as "All right, vampire killers, let's kill some fucking vampires."

Give me a fucking break. Taking pot shots at George Clooney is on par with challenging Ron Kovic to a three legged race with Ron Jeremy on his team, with Dewberry heading up your rear using a cast iron cane with a head stone of Mr. T on the tip.

This is like PCU through the looking glass, and the white rabbit has just put a bullet in his head. Fuck Mark Steyn and his George Clooney hard-on, fuck Jesica Stein, and hell fuck George Clooney too.

The cocksuckeromitiviticiousness of this dippity-doo-wad is only further made clear when he ends his column with a substandard pun on the title of one of the Hollywood productions he's put under the eye glass of his psuedo dicklectual ramblings. Yeah, well I can do it too, so Steyn better watch out because the next biggest danger to George Clooney degrading the meaning of the word 'brave' is an attack of the killer tomatoes. Return to Horror High, indeed.

[Mr. Fred Krueger]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/5164/phoney2gg.jpg

"HEY EVERYBODY! THIS GUY'S A PHONEY! A BIG FAT PHONEY!!"

Haha! You beat me to it, Mr. Blonde. :D

[Nachokoolaid]

Clooney was leaking spinal fluid FROM HIS NOSE from injuries he got on Syriana-- and he kept filming. That there gets him some brownie points from me, no matter what the hell his politics are.

[Scorpio24]

I think Bubba has hit the nail on the head.

When he says brave I'm pretty sure that he means as in carrer choice or/and making money. I've watched a few interviews with him on UK tv the last few weeks and he was commenting alot that it was a touchy carrer choice for him to make his last two films. He was also a little worried about the reaction of filming in black and white and using real life footage merged in with his work.

Clooney is a great film maker and a good actor. He also comes across as easy going and down to earth. I got no problem with him.

I have to second the sentiments of why this was posted in the first place.

[bigred760]

I also agree with BubbaStrangelove (and Scorpio24 too I guess); George Clooney is one of the most famous movie stars on the planet and to produce, direct, write, and co-star in a movie with political undertones (both past and present) is, in my opinion, always risky - and therefore brave.

But George Clooney has never held back on his political views. Hell, he was on Larry King Live last night talking about politics, the Oscars, the movie, etc. etc. So why's this prick bashing the guy now? Oh no, the woman in the movie actually turned out to be a Communist. Whether Clooney knew it or not - that wasn't the point; the movie was bashing the McCarthy's methods and the loss of civil liberties and such.

And I like how this guy first states that these movies made no money at the box office, but then stated that that's not the point of the Oscars. Then why the hell bring it up? I'm sorry that these movies don't have the fan potential of Return of the King or Gladiator, but again, that's not the point. Never mind the fact that the 4 out of 5 of these movies are independent films and don't get that much theater time.

This guy just seems like one of those critics who wants to make movies but doesn't know how and is bitter.

[cobro]

Come on "fans". There's nothing brave about doing a picture that all of the spoiled Hollywood elite celebrates and the public rejects.

Clooney got the nominations we all knew he would get, and Hollywood continueds to slap itself on the back while the general public supports the industry in shrinking numbers.

Clooney lives in a world of wealthy, spoiled, self-congratulatory narcissists. He attacks the only country in the world where he could be wealthy for being handsome while possesing only marginal talent, and not being part of a royal family or dictatorship.

This is a great thread. Steyn rocks!

[The Postmaster General]

Brave or not, what Clooney did has more clout than writing a blog entry chastizing the guy who starred in fucking Batman And Robin based on one sentance.

All Clooney said was that people are getting BRAVER in Hollywood. Then this ass munch Steyne takes that as far as he possibly can in the sake of what????? Telling us that Hollywood is superfiscial!

Gee, what fucking great investigative skills he has. I'm glad he's cracked this story for all of us illiterate, nose-picking assholes who hadn't figured out that Hollywood is superfiscial.

And I'm not a fan of Clooney, I just don't approve infering ideals into other people, then mocking those ideals. Comparing Clooney's statements to the work of Theo van Gogh is about the same as comparing King Roach to Beethoven because the lead singer says, "This is a great album we made."

It should be obvious to any gimp an IQ larger than his shoe size that Clooney is refering to the fact that American audiences don't particularly like politically charged films, and in making them, you are taking a risk of losing money, and not getting anymore films made. Clooney barely even said brave, but the way Steyn talks, you think Clooney had applied for a medal of honor.

Not only is it ridiuclous, it's childish, and a very illiterate interpretation. Sorry, but I can hear Steyn smacking himself on the back much louder than I've ever heard Clooney. He's no better than the picture he's tried to paint of Clooney - the only difference is I'm sure a helluva lot less people will ever hear what he has to say.

[Commodore]

I think the idea that those movies are a risk for Clooney is dubious. A guy that rich is not worried about losing at the box office. He wants to do something important, because he has every other comfort in life. But the point the author was trying make is that Clooney is more concerned with being percieved as important.

Now Mel Gibson would qualify as someone taking a legitimate career risk with The Passion. I would be surprised if he ever gets nominated for another award by the Academy. He wa also rich and wanted to do something important to him, but he obviously wasn't concerned about how Hollywood and the media would react.

[The Postmaster General]

Yeah, but the Passion made way more money than Clooney's films ever will.

I didn't mean to say that Clooney would get blacklisted or something to that effect, just that he was making movies not many people are interested in. Making a movie about Christ seems much more bankable, doesn't it?

It's hard for me to judge Clooney though -- the writer quoted ONE THING he said and used that as the basis of his entire rant. I belive he took that one thing pretty far out-of-context.

Maybe if I could see more quotes to validate this guys assertion that Clooney is nothing but a back patter, I'd feel less resistant. As it stands, I think the guy just used Clooney as a scapegoat to preach his own politics.

[RustyRazor]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/5164/phoney2gg.jpg

"HEY EVERYBODY! THIS GUY'S A PHONEY! A BIG FAT PHONEY!!"


Family Guy quote! Brilliant! Thank you, sir.:D

[cobro]

I appreciate your misplaced passion, but as far as risk to Clooney...

The point is because he is box office bank there is NO RISK in making a film the monolithic Hollywood left approves of.

As you see from the Oscar voting, even meager box ofice is okay as long as you are slamming America, or even better Israel.

If Clooney made a film criticizing CNN for wimping out on the Danish Mohammed cartoons that would be risky.

[The Heart Collector]

If you think making a movie that doesn't make money in Hollywood ISN'T a risk, you don't know Hollywood.

[HeavyFknMetal]

Originally posted by cobro
Come on "fans". There's nothing brave about doing a picture that all of the spoiled Hollywood elite celebrates and the public rejects.


When you spend a lot of money to make a film the has a pretty good chance at failing, that's taking a risk, and inturn, being brave. If the "Hollywood elite" loves the film, but the rest of the general public hates it, that's what we call a failure. Studios don't give a shit about politics, they care about money. They're taking a huge risk when financing a film like this, thus being brave.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by cobro
I appreciate your misplaced passion, but as far as risk to Clooney...


If you think that's an example of me being passionate, then I don't appreciate the misplaced patronizing.

If you're trying to be funny, that I get, as it's far more relevant - especially on the internet, where people tend to troll and often times under the guise of multiple screen names.

I asked for some examples of Clooney being whatever you are accusing him of being. There have still been no examples that I've seen.

What's the point in all this?

The point is because he is box office bank there is NO RISK in making a film the monolithic Hollywood left approves of.

The point is that the Hollywood is left leaning and and George Clooney is a big star?? That's the point?

Wow! No, I mean it - Fucking WOW! If only Steyn had come up with this insighful thinking a couple years earlier he could have provided this information before a movie starring marionette puppets did!

Who cares about Clooney taking risks or not taking risks? What he said doesn't seem like the big deal Steyn made out of it to me. Jeez - you want to talk about misguided passion - I mean, really talk about it. This guy went on like a sailor in a circle jerk over one sentance that only slightly resembled what he was ranting about.

What makes you think that making money in Hollywood is not important?


As you see from the Oscar voting, even meager box ofice is okay as long as you are slamming America, or even better Israel.

What are you talking about "As you see from Oscar voting..."?

Do you seriously want me to go down a list of past Best Picture winners pointing out the absurdity of your statement?

Have you ever seriously contemplated what Clooney should do to take risks? Seriously? The guy who's biggest break was a guest stint on "Roseanne".


If Clooney made a film criticizing CNN for wimping out on the Danish Mohammed cartoons that would be risky.

Well you should credit Clooney for at least giving you a platform to speak you mind on totally unrelated topics.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't really come here to read huge cut 'n' paste chunks from right wing blogs.

I am buying you one way ticket to Iran. There everybody would agree with you!

[Lynn7]

George Clooney is extremely savvy. He made that movie Ocean's 11 with a lot of real A-list people and catipulted himself to A list status via association with them. They all had a good time and became quite the group and suddenly it was cool to be George Clooney. Now that he is in that position he can get a lot of stuff done.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
.... What was the point of that. CLEARLY the standards of whats allowed and not allowed in HOLLYWOOD aren't the same as in independent film. :rolleyes: Of course Theo Van Gogh can do whatever the fuck he wants, his financial responsiblities and associates are not the same.

You missed the point.
It was about not being brave why claiming being brave.
There are lotsa real issuies and troubles in the world and America that happening right now and making good movies about them seem too risky (financially and politically) for the same guys who claimed to be brave.

Can you use the word FUCK only when it's really necessary? :(

[lunatic]

Originally posted by bigred760
I also agree with BubbaStrangelove (and Scorpio24 too I guess); George Clooney is one of the most famous movie stars on the planet and to produce, direct, write, and co-star in a movie with political undertones (both past and present) is, in my opinion, always risky - and therefore brave.

But George Clooney has never held back on his political views. Hell, he was on Larry King Live last night talking about politics, the Oscars, the movie, etc. etc. So why's this prick bashing the guy now? Oh no, the woman in the movie actually turned out to be a Communist. Whether Clooney knew it or not - that wasn't the point; the movie was bashing the McCarthy's methods and the loss of civil liberties and such.

And I like how this guy first states that these movies made no money at the box office, but then stated that that's not the point of the Oscars. Then why the hell bring it up? I'm sorry that these movies don't have the fan potential of Return of the King or Gladiator, but again, that's not the point. Never mind the fact that the 4 out of 5 of these movies are independent films and don't get that much theater time.

This guy just seems like one of those critics who wants to make movies but doesn't know how and is bitter.

Why do you think it's o.k for you anonymisly called the guy "prick" and not o.k. for him arguably de-throne untalented Clooney?

:confused: :mad: :confused:

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by lunatic
You missed the point.
It was about not being brave why claiming being brave.
There are lotsa real issuies and troubles in the world and America that happening right now and making good movies about them seem too risky (financially and politically) for the same guys who claimed to be brave.



And I think you missed THC's point.

The standards of Hollywood are different. if you want to compare Hollywood cinema with World cinema, or even European cinema, that's one thing - Yes, Hollywood is more capitalist in its ventures. This is why there's more marketing in America, and the money making venture can be traced to a lot of criticisms in Hollywood. Movies in America are more often aimed at profits than at art.

Things are not going to change in Hollywood by leaps and bounds. Maybe you could say that Clooney isn't as brave, but one could also say that von Gogh was being reckless.

Sure Clooney could be 'brave' in the sense of making a movie that would bomb and piss off everyone in Hollywood, but that would be asking for (career) assassination. At least he is trying to do something somewhat challenging for audiences and not another remake of Big Momma's House or something.

If we are going to compare things in Hollywood to things elsewhere, why stop with political movies. Was Reservoir Dogs not groundbreaking, because just look at Raffifi, for instance? Things work one way in Hollywood and things only ever change gradually. Maybe Clooney isn't making a movie that's going to get his head blown off, but at least he's doing something other than just making bad movies for profit.

George Clooney is extremely savvy. He made that movie Ocean's 11 with a lot of real A-list people and catipulted himself to A list status via association with them. They all had a good time and became quite the group and suddenly it was cool to be George Clooney. Now that he is in that position he can get a lot of stuff done.

What are you talking about? He was Sexiest Man Alive and all that good stuff - lots of starring roles. What do you mean he "made that movie" -- he was selected for that movie, which is proof that he was A-List going into it. How else do you get THE LEAD role in a movie of A-List actors? What's going on with this?

Jesus - I didn't even think that much of Clooney before this thread, but the more I hear you people making up about him, the more I'm starting to appreciate what he's actually done. :confused:

[Commodore]

Clooney is a great actor. That isn't the issue. And clearly he was not motivated by money when he made these films.

The argument is that the films are designed to win accolades by pandering to Hollywood sensibilities.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove

What are you talking about? He was Sexiest Man Alive and all that good stuff - lots of starring roles. What do you mean he "made that movie" -- he was selected for that movie, which is proof that he was A-List going into it. How else do you get THE LEAD role in a movie of A-List actors? What's going on with this?

Jesus - I didn't even think that much of Clooney before this thread, but the more I hear you people making up about him, the more I'm starting to appreciate what he's actually done. :confused:

I didn't say he wasn't famous before he put together Ocean's Eleven. He was not A list in any way. It's like Jennifer Anniston who was extremely popular but once she married Pitt her stock went way up and suddenly she was getting all the big roles in the major movies with Jim CArey etc.

There are thousands of very talented actors but only about 10-20 real A list actors at any given time. I just think Clooney has been extremely smart in the way he has handled his career. He chose all the Ocean's Eleven stars (Pitt, Damon, Roberts etc). He was the one who got that movie together. I remember when he was doing it he said he called them all and said they would all have a lot of fun making it.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Commodore
Clooney is a great actor. That isn't the issue. And clearly he was not motivated by money when he made these films.

The argument is that the films are designed to win accolades by pandering to Hollywood sensibilities.


Yeah, but it's kind of a moot point, IMO. Didn't Titanic pander to Hollywood sensibilities?

IMO, people have a problem with this particular batch of films because they disagree with their personal politics.

To me, this is no different than the "Tianic Sucks" rant, except that there's a veil of heated politics fueling it. The Academy awards films that aren't always the most mindblowing - yeah, we know that. Singling out the guy who continously screamed, "Damn! We're in a tight spot!" seems kind of ill-guided.

Imagine if you will that the same article was written in 1997 when Titanic was getting all sorts of awards - You know James Cameron was considered brave for going way over budget and risking another Waterworld, but then the movie made a butt load of money and he was awarded. How strange would it be to rant against Cameron by comparing him to someone like Alejandro Amenábar, saying that Cameron didn't take a risk, Abre Los Ojos was a risky film to make!!

It's apples and oranges - the foreign and Hollywood market. Different rules in the matrices and all that good stuff. I dunno....



Lynn7:
I didn't say he wasn't famous before he put together Ocean's Eleven. He was not A list in any way. It's like Jennifer Anniston who was extremely popular but once she married Pitt her stock went way up and suddenly she was getting all the big roles in the major movies with Jim CArey etc.

There are thousands of very talented actors but only about 10-20 real A list actors at any given time. I just think Clooney has been extremely smart in the way he has handled his career. He chose all the Ocean's Eleven stars (Pitt, Damon, Roberts etc). He was the one who got that movie together. I remember when he was doing it he said he called them all and said they would all have a lot of fun making it.


Okay....

"It's like Jennifer Anniston who was extremely popular but once she married Pitt her stock went way up and suddenly she was getting all the big roles in the major movies with Jim CArey etc"

Yeah, but did you hear me? George Clooney was getting big roles in major movies before Ocean's Eleven. In fact, he got the role in Ocean's Eleven.

I just think Clooney has been extremely smart in the way he has handled his career. He chose all the Ocean's Eleven stars (Pitt, Damon, Roberts etc). He was the one who got that movie together.

I've never heard this before. I know eveyone became friends on the set, because it was a party-like atmosphere, but I've never heard a snipett one about Clooney being part of the production, other than acting.

Steven Soderberg is the person I've always credited for getting the large ensemble of top actors together - same as he did in TRAFFIC.

In fact, Soderberg is credited as the one who decided to do the project in the stuff I found trying to find the Clooney-as-casting-director thing. Can you provide me with some way of seeing this for myself. I don't keep up with shows like ET and the sort, so I don't hear this stuff except for on the boards. Thanks.

James Ulmer is the one who coined the term "A List" and he made a scale determining how people are put on there,. but ultimately it refers to bankable stars. (There is an A+ List too - where Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, and Julia Roberts resides). George Clooney was VERY bankable long before Ocean's Eleven. WAY before - Do you really think JOEL SCHUMACHER would have choosen him as friggin' BATMAN if he wasn't a bankable star? I don't think so.


LATE EDIT:

And something else about Clooney's staus before and after Ocean's Eleven:

Lynn7 says, "George Clooney is extremely savvy. He made that movie Ocean's 11 with a lot of real A-list people and catipulted himself to A list status via association with them. They all had a good time and became quite the group and suddenly it was cool to be George Clooney. Now that he is in that position he can get a lot of stuff done."

I don't kno whwat you mean "get a lot of stuff done." If he assembled a cast of A-List actors, as you say he did, isn't that in itself getting "a lot of stuff done."

You said that after he made Ocean's Eleven it was cool to be George Clooney, but in the same paragraph you also said that he was extremely savvy and was able to get a lot of A-List people in this movie.

That makes no sense to me. How could it have been cool to be George Clooney AFTER making Ocean's Eleven, but not before, considering that you are claiming that he was cool enough to get these people in the movie?

Pitt, "Ah man, it's that B-lister Clooney calling. He wants me to star in this remake of a rat pack film. Well, I guess I'll do it because maybe if I make this movie, then Clooney will be cool, and everyone will understand why I took the role."

You know.... Seems weird....

But again - Could you provide some insight, or can someone else vouch for the idea that Clooney was the one who "assembled" the cast? I've always thought that big strong casts was one of Soderberg's trademark.

[dannywalker17]

Originally posted by Commodore
Clooney is a great actor. That isn't the issue. And clearly he was not motivated by money when he made these films.

The argument is that the films are designed to win accolades by pandering to Hollywood sensibilities.

Have you considered that maybe he just made a movie on a subject that he was passionate about, and it just happened to be something that most of Hollywood agreed with? Mel Gibson took huge risks doing The Passion, which was something he was passionate about, and it just so happened to offend many in Hollywood, and so he did not recieve accolades that he might have if Hollywood weren't so predominantly Jewish. It's all the same. Give Clooney a break and just be glad our list of Best Pic candidates doesn't include big underserving blockbusters (not that they never are deserving).

[lunatic]

Originally posted by dannywalker17
Have you considered that maybe he just made a movie on a subject that he was passionate about, and it just happened to be something that most of Hollywood agreed with? Mel Gibson took huge risks doing The Passion, which was something he was passionate about, and it just so happened to offend many in Hollywood, and so he did not recieve accolades that he might have if Hollywood weren't so predominantly Jewish. It's all the same. Give Clooney a break and just be glad our list of Best Pic candidates doesn't include big underserving blockbusters (not that they never are deserving).

Are we close to the days when some passionate filmmaker in Hollywood will make a movie about those angelic Gestapo officers? What Hollywood (that is not predominantly Jewish anymore, rather gay and suicidal /too lefty/) reaction will be then? Hah, who cares! The practitioners of the religion of peace will be happy, that's important.
I am going to take my tablets now, I kinda lost the point I was making...

[Lynn7]

[i]George Clooney was VERY bankable long before Ocean's Eleven. WAY before - Do you really think JOEL SCHUMACHER would have choosen him as friggin' BATMAN if he wasn't a bankable star? I don't think so.


LATE EDIT:

And something else about Clooney's staus before and after Ocean's Eleven:

Lynn7 says, "George Clooney is extremely savvy. He made that movie Ocean's 11 with a lot of real A-list people and catipulted himself to A list status via association with them. They all had a good time and became quite the group and suddenly it was cool to be George Clooney. Now that he is in that position he can get a lot of stuff done."

I don't kno whwat you mean "get a lot of stuff done." If he assembled a cast of A-List actors, as you say he did, isn't that in itself getting "a lot of stuff done."

You said that after he made Ocean's Eleven it was cool to be George Clooney, but in the same paragraph you also said that he was extremely savvy and was able to get a lot of A-List people in this movie.

That makes no sense to me. How could it have been cool to be George Clooney AFTER making Ocean's Eleven, but not before, considering that you are claiming that he was cool enough to get these people in the movie?

Pitt, "Ah man, it's that B-lister Clooney calling. He wants me to star in this remake of a rat pack film. Well, I guess I'll do it because maybe if I make this movie, then Clooney will be cool, and everyone will understand why I took the role."

You know.... Seems weird....

But again - Could you provide some insight, or can someone else vouch for the idea that Clooney was the one who "assembled" the cast? I've always thought that big strong casts was one of Soderberg's trademark. [/B]

I remember when they were making Ocean's Eleven, Clooney was on shows like Entertainment Tonight talking about how HE had called up all these people and got them to do the work for way less than they would ever be paid. He said it would be great fun that they would all work together. Before this Clooney was primarily known for being the sexy doctor on ER. Then he was the Ocean's Eleven guy who was pals with Pitt, Damon, Roberts etc.

The Batman gig was no big deal- it was Batman 5 wasn't it? The big risk was when they got Michael Keaton to do the first one. After the first two the movies started tor really suck.

Hollywood is all about postioning yourself to get famous. Fame can translate to movie roles and then to directing and producing. Some get there through lots of hard work and others get there through the right associations. George Clooney's early work doens't get me thinking about a lot of hard work- he was always clowning around and acting like himself. Now he is starting to become more serious with his roles but not everyone can get to that point where they are allowed to do this by the powers that be.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by cobro
The point is because he is box office bank there is NO RISK in making a film the monolithic Hollywood left approves of.

There's no such thing as the 'monolithic Hollywood left." The vast majority of CEO's of the studios and the conglomerates who own them are conservatives, like Rubert Murdoch who owns Fox.

As you see from the Oscar voting, even meager box ofice is okay as long as you are slamming America, or even better Israel.

Hmmm...

Capote, Crash, Brokeback Mountain, Munich, Good Night and Good Luck.

Granted, I don't live in right-wing fantasyland, but I'm having a hard time figuring out which one of these films slams America.

It's true that some of them indirectly attack the right-wing's anti-homosexual agenda, and GNGL does criticize Joseph McCarthy, Bush's posterboy for how to tar your opponents by calling them un-American, but that's not really the same thing.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Commodore
The argument is that the films are designed to win accolades by pandering to Hollywood sensibilities. [/B]

While directors and actors are predominantly liberal, the executives who run the studios are not. Those that are political at all tend to be conservative, but mostly they just care about making money (or is that the same thing?), actors who make money and movies that make money. That's the only sensibility you can "pander to" in this business.

So the "risk" in Hollywood is making a film that no one believes will make money. The Passion, GNGL, and Brokeback all share that in common and all were considered risky for that reason.

[lunatic]

"In our country we hadn't talked about politics or anything interesting since Watergate," Clooney said on the red carpet. "Now you go to a coffee shop and people are talking about politics. It's good."



Wrong and stupid! It's because the practitioners of the religion of peace, new "nice" country leaders (Iran, Venezuela), fifth column and Medicare reforms people are talking politics again. Hollywood is absolutely peripheral!

[The Postmaster General]

"In our country we hadn't talked about politics or anything interesting since Watergate," Clooney said on the red carpet. "Now you go to a coffee shop and people are talking about politics. It's good."



Wrong and stupid! It's because the practitioners of the religion of peace, new "nice" country leaders (Iran, Venezuela), fifth column and Medicare reforms people are talking politics again. Hollywood is absolutely peripheral!



Huh? You think it's wrong and stupid for someone to say it's good that people are talking about politics?

Every single quote made of Clooney hasn't shown me how he's patting himself on the back. It's just like he says something about politics, and then you guys go off ranting about things related to what he's saying, but nothing he's actually said. It's almost like you are hyperlinking his words.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Huh? You think it's wrong and stupid for someone to say it's good that people are talking about politics?

Every single quote made of Clooney hasn't shown me how he's patting himself on the back. It's just like he says something about politics, and then you guys go off ranting about things related to what he's saying, but nothing he's actually said. It's almost like you are hyperlinking his words.

Clooney was talking about HOLLYWOOD MAKING SUCH BRAVE FLICKS NOWADAYS that people are talking politics again. He did not say it's good just to talk politics. I just realize I quoted only partually.

From Yahoo:


But he said he was pleased that political cinema was undergoing a renaissance.

"In our country we hadn't talked about politics or anything interesting since Watergate," Clooney said on the red carpet. "Now you go to a coffee shop and people are talking about politics. It's good."

[The Postmaster General]

Yeah, but I don't see Clooney taking any credit or giving Hollywood sole credit. It seems like he's speaking of two seperate but joined things. It's good that people are talking about politics, and there is a political revival in Hollywood. Both statements don't seem like something that could be disagreed with, and it doesn't seem like Clooney is connecting one with the other, just talking about things in general.

I'm still waiting for the quote that would be in the context of how Steyn is replying to him - roughly: "Yo, Clooney here. I've been making some mad political films and changing the climate in Hollywood. Because of people like me, who are brave mofos, we's be making Hollywood think, yo. We's making it happen in the world, cause H.O.L.L.Y.W.O.O-to-the-D be da vortex of America. So we's gotz reprezent the politics, and the people be listening. Now you go nowhere that people be like, 'Syriana - yo dog, das some mad politicz" -- Haha. You heard it here first. Clooney in effect, setting the stage beyatches!"

Are there any quotes were he roughly says that? All the ones I've seen so far have been fairly modest with minimal back slapping.

[cobro]

Hey Bubba

Watching you attempt to put together an argument is like watching a hovercraft flit above the water. Somehow it stays up, but it never actually seems to touch it.

Let's go point by point with the quotes you pulled out.

MIsplaced Passion***

Clooney has consistantly made left wing films the last couple of years, and is always out there in celebrity interviews pretending his opinions are worth listening to. Syrianna makes the absurd claim that the US is behind some oil-drenchd middle east conspiracy, and Good Night is about the evils of Republicanism via MCCarthy.

There. Two pieces of evidence. Two Clooney films this year.

Monolithic left argument****

You totally sailed by that one. My point, and I will speak slowly and clearly, is that you can make a film that loses money, and be okay, ONLY if you are a big star and the film bashes Bush, Israel or America. That is because the Academy will lavish the film with Oscar nominations so you will be perceived as having made an "important film". Get it? You say "as you see from Oscar voting" and then retreat to the past with who won. That's not my point. Look at this years nominations.

CNN and the Danish cartoons***

You couldn't quite understand this point either. I was arguing that if someone in the Hollywood elite attacked someone else from the same club (CNN is the mouthpiece for Ted Turner, an avowed enemy of this administration) that would be "brave". Same topic, different example.

Bubba, If you're auditioning to be president of the Goerge Clooney Fan Club because you think he's hot, then admit it. But don't pretend you think he is doing anything "brave" by being the typical Hollywood high school grad - turned actor-turned political guru wannabe making films slamming America.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by cobro
You totally sailed by that one. My point, and I will speak slowly and clearly, is that you can make a film that loses money, and be okay, ONLY if you are a big star and the film bashes Bush, Israel or America

Among the more logic-free of your preposterous claims is that the Oscar-nominees bash America. But you've yet to provide one single example of a film that actually does so other than some rather fanatastical interpretation of Syriana, which I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't actually seen.

As for Munich, which I'm supposing you categorize as Israeli-bashing, that film does what you right-wingers claim you want, which is present both sides of the story. But that's really the sin here, isn't it? If a film sympathizes in any way with the other side, then it MUST be guilty of attacking Israel, even though all of the heroes of the film are Jews defending their homeland.

As for the so-called monolithic Hollywood, and I guess this sailed right past you with the rest of the real world and actual facts, there is no such thing. While it's true that most actors and creatives are relatively liberal, the studio execs who run the show are decidedly not. Again, I cite Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox, as a notable and very high-profile political conservative.

But let's face it. What's really happening is that these films actually dare to challenge your narrow view of the world. They're not guilty of monolithic politics so much as you are, where the beginning and end of your moral compass is whatever Bush tells you to think. Just look at how many conservatives have gone right along as Bush has shredded what was left of every single conservative principle.

And so any film that steps outside of that view, that shows a different side of the world (even when it has nothing to do with American policy, like Crash or Capote or Brokeback), must be "slamming America" where "slamming America" simply means that you don't like it.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
As for the so-called monolithic Hollywood, and I guess this sailed right past you with the rest of the real world and actual facts, there is no such thing.
I think that's the single most infuriating thing in this nonsensical debate. That people really seem to believe that this enclave of Trilateral Commission types get together and map out a full scale plan for cultural hegemony over grapefruits in Cancun. Any one who has even a cursory idea of how Hollywood operates (like, say, people contributing to a message board dedicated to movies and entertainment...) already knows that it's a cut throat death struggle between the studios for money. The idea that they're just trying to take over the world, one script at a time, is absurd.

And so any film that steps outside of that view, that shows a different side of the world (even when it has nothing to do with American policy, like Crash or Capote or Brokeback), must be "slamming America" where "slamming America" simply means that you don't like it.
To the point that insane right wing harpie Debbie Schlussel complained bitterly when Flightplan didn't actually feature mideastern terrorists as they seemed to suggest early on (they promised!!) and instead had flight attendents be the bad guys, because...flight attendants acted heriocally on 9-11 (something no sane person questions), so, therefore, any flight attendant, ever, who is depicted non-heroically is an affront to the memory of those people.

That is how insane the American right has gotten to be these days.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by cobro
Hey Bubba

Watching you attempt to put together an argument is like watching a hovercraft flit above the water. Somehow it stays up, but it never actually seems to touch it.

What's with the attempted insults, pal? It's like watching someone attempting to defend someone on the internet by resorting to childish underhanded remarks. Oh wait. That's actually what it is - no need to analogize here. It is what it is - not what I'm making it up to be.


Let's go point by point with the quotes you pulled out.

Okay, let's announce that we are doing that before doing it.

MIsplaced Passion***

Oh, you've got to be shitting me. You are giving subheaders to your retorts. Wow. Okay, there's another example of someone thinking higher of themself than anything I've seen Clooney do.

Clooney has consistantly made left wing films the last couple of years, and is always out there in celebrity interviews pretending his opinions are worth listening to. Syrianna makes the absurd claim that the US is behind some oil-drenchd middle east conspiracy, and Good Night is about the evils of Republicanism via MCCarthy.

There. Two pieces of evidence. Two Clooney films this year.

What's your point? I've never said Clooney doesn't make political films, and I've never said that Hollywood might have a lot of left-leaning filmmakers.

This is another reason I'm reckoning that you're the one missing my points --- I've already said that I've gotten your point, and it was made better 2 years ago in Team America.



Monolithic left argument****

You totally sailed by that one. My point, and I will speak slowly and clearly,

Are you actually talking to your computer monitor, man? How exactly are you speaking slowly and clearly? You're posting on an internet message board - and not even using ellipses or anything, just describing to me how you'd be responding if we were talking face-to-face. Do you remember before when you told me I was being passionate?

is that you can make a film that loses money, and be okay,

I guess no one told this to the execs at United Artists following the release of Heaven's Gate. Oh you're not done...

ONLY if you are a big star and the film bashes Bush, Israel or America.

...and the liberal left-wing media controled by the elders of Zion in conjuction with the tri-lateral forces of the Illuminati's army deep in the oceans atop Atlantis where Michael Moore is on the treadmill that keeps the CNN news ticker propogating at an alarming rate, and....

Oh sorry, I got caught up in the moment. Also, I must of forgotten all of the Oscar noms F:9/11 got.

That is because the Academy will lavish the film with Oscar nominations so you will be perceived as having made an "important film". Get it? You say "as you see from Oscar voting" and then retreat to the past with who won.

What do you mean "[i] say 'as you see from Oscar voting'"? You said that man, and I replied that I don't see a pattern at the Oscars of "important films" -- In fact, I think the films that are important don't get the recognition they often deserve.

Man, your arguements would be good if I was actually saying what you are saying I'm saying -- well, at least they'd be better.

That's not my point. Look at this years nominations.

Oh, silly me. You were only refering to THIS year's nominations as the ultimate indication of Hollywood's politics and THIS year only. Okay, I guess after reading your responses I can see why someone like you would expect someone else to infer that from your statement. Obviously you think that these 5 nominated movies are the only thing needed to make a blanket statement about the entire history and functioning of Hollywood.

CNN and the Danish cartoons***

You couldn't quite understand this point either. I was arguing that if someone in the Hollywood elite attacked someone else from the same club (CNN is the mouthpiece for Ted Turner, an avowed enemy of this administration) that would be "brave". Same topic, different example.

Yeah, I got the point fine. It wasn't exactly obtuse, absure, or abstract - very straight forward.

My only response to that point was just jiving you about the way you're throwing out lots of examples of what you feel is left-leaning and so-on.

But yes, you respond back saying I didn't understand - that was clear.

Bubba, If you're auditioning to be president of the Goerge Clooney Fan Club because you think he's hot, then admit it.

This coming from the guy who's first response on this message board included the phrase "Steyn rocks!"

Yes, clearly I'm an enormous Clooney fan - that is evident by my constant jiving of him by poking at his stint on Rosanne, his role in Batman and Robin, and the on-going ridiculous quotes he's made in he's lessor-received films. Yeah, clearly I'm the one here to support someone else.

What I think is much more obvious than my apparent love for Clooney (??) is how scared you people are of him. Why else would you explain such heated rhetoric focused on him? Before this thread started, I just saw him as some ex-heartthrob who was in one movie I liked (O Brother...) and is starting to make his own films.

Obviously he is more than that to you.

But don't pretend you think he is doing anything "brave" by being the typical Hollywood high school grad - turned actor-turned political guru wannabe making films slamming America.

What do you mean pretend he is doing anything brave? I've said that I think he was worried about losing money - that's all I've said.

Oh yeah, I've also asked for some clear quotes where he sounds like he is crediting himself for controling the political climate in Hollywood - and I still haven't gotten that. All I've gotten is attempted insults, patronizing, and more rhetoric that has very little to do with anything Clooney said.

Unlike the more mature posters on here such as: Buck, lunatic, Beeblebrox, Lynn7, and well - pretty much everyone else, you are simply trying to make it into a sandbox slapping match. Why? Because I don't agree with you - Oh boo hoo! Now either reply to me with a bit of integrity, or at least go insult someone who gives a damn.

[TrippingBalls]

I was playing Dynamite Cop on the Sega Dreamcast and one of the bosses was a huge octopus.

Hollywood is run by money. Money is fairly conservative. Brokeback Mountain made money so a lot of studios are praising it now. But wait, isn't gay liberal? BLARRRRRRHHHH. Where will it end. When will the idea of money controlling an entire country and a corrupt government who allows oil companies to charge us $3 a gallon and credit card companies fuck us over and insurance companies to drain our money and fuck us in the ass by punishing us for doing human things such as making mistakes (this 16-year old kid wrecked his car let's raise his insurance to 3 thousand dollars a month so he'll never be able to drive again!! Let's punish people for having accidents!!) and illegalizes marijuana because of the difficulty in regulating growth but legalize alcohol and tobacco which have kill more people in one day than marijuana has ever in the entire history of mankind because they can be legalized and profitted off of, go republican? When will Americans see the light of day and go conservative?

Damn liberal media and stupid democratic country.

[HeavyFknMetal]

So what, Clooney makes left wing films and the liberal media jumps all over it. Then the right wing america calls them all communists and then goes to pray. Right wingers make films as well, less popular ones of course but films nevertheless. Then liberal america makes fun of them and then they go abort children, or whatever the stereotype for the left is. Point being, who fucking cares they've been doing this for many years, and it'll continue to happen after we're all dead and buried.

[Lindsey]

Okay guys... I've gotten numerous e-mails from Schmoes complaining about this thread... Let's lay off the insults and bashing, or else I'm closing the thread down.

[The Postmaster General]

How strange that it wasn't in this thread that I finally found some examples....

Even more strange is that since last night, no one came back to provide them.

So much for amicable & sensible debates among mature individuals! Hey Linds, can we go back to personal jabs now? ;)

[Beeblebrox]

Btw, I loved Clooney's acceptance speech.

[Scorpio24]

I've always been a fan of Clooney. Last night I became a big fan.

[The Postmaster General]

Cloony was the biggest attraction of the night. He is genuinely funny. I loved when Stewart made a joke about him, and he was laughing then improvised a "Hey, wait a minute..." face.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Cloony was the biggest attraction of the night. He is genuinely funny. I loved when Stewart made a joke about him, and he was laughing then improvised a "Hey, wait a minute..." face.


I agree.

They should have him attend every year just so the camera and the audience can have something more emotive (Hot) and fun to look at (it is the Super Bowl for women anyway) other than the usual cavalcade of Botox frozen and constipated faces.

Too bad the man's philosophy is that the only time you should attend the Oscars is if you're nominated for one. (sigh):(

[Buck Turgidson]

George was, quite simply, raised right.

Jennifer Lopez was on the E! aftershow and talked about how he acted when they were making Out of Sight, things like the fact that he remembered everyone's name on the crew and made a point to interact with them (Sandy Bullock does the same thing.)

One of Clooney's best friends is Richard Kind, from Spin City. They did a pilot together when the two of them had @ 6 nickels, if they pooled them, and they've stayed friends all this time later. Kind is, by all accounts, a great guy, but he doesn't exactly...how to put this...look like a guy who would normally be a compadre to a handsome cat like George. That seems small, but I swear it makes a big difference to me.

If Clooney is a fraud, he's an extraordinarily good one, because his con is seamless and he's managing to do one hell of a lot of good while "pretending" to care, so...

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
George was, quite simply, raised right.

Jennifer Lopez was on the E! aftershow and talked about how he acted when they were making Out of Sight, things like the fact that he remembered everyone's name on the crew and made a point to interact with them (Sandy Bullock does the same thing.)

One of Clooney's best friends is Richard Kind, from Spin City. They did a pilot together when the two of them had @ 6 nickels, if they pooled them, and they've stayed friends all this time later. Kind is, by all accounts, a great guy, but he doesn't exactly...how to put this...look like a guy who would normally be a compadre to a handsome cat like George. That seems small, but I swear it makes a big difference to me.

If Clooney is a fraud, he's an extraordinarily good one, because his con is seamless and he's managing to do one hell of a lot of good while "pretending" to care, so...

I was watching the Movies 101 episode that had him on and I know part his non-pompous attitude comes from the fact that he does not feel he is entitled to the fame that he is enjoying now. He knows he's DAMN lucky to be where he is, doing what he is doing, and he knows his time doing it won't be forever so he's getting in AS MUCH as he can before that day comes. Which is why he had two movies out last year: THE MAN IS WORKING.

He knows he is X amount of screw ups away from being the Center Square in Hollywood Squares, that's the monkey on his back that is keeping him humble, funny, kind and working like a migrant worker.

[Buck Turgidson]

"I'll take Oscar® winner and 1997 People Magazine Sexiest Man Alive George Clooney, for the block..."

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Cloony was the biggest attraction of the night. He is genuinely funny. I loved when Stewart made a joke about him, and he was laughing then improvised a "Hey, wait a minute..." face.

Yeah me to. Funniest bit of the oscars for me.

He just seems at ease and as got a humorous fuck you thing going.

Just to comment on above. I've heard loads of times that he remembers people who interview them and their names and all that stuff.

He'sj ust a classy funny guy.