David, I couldn't agree with you more. I was also
offended when Frank Rich wrote that Passion of the
Christ's nomination for make-up was for big noses.
How low does he have to go to get attention?
Obviously very low.
I loved Million Dollar Baby and just tell people to go
see it. Whatever one hears about it they cannot help
but be moved by this impressive film.
I'm glad Clint also got nominated for best actor.
Toochis
--- David Kusumoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >What really makes these critics hate "Million
> Dollar Baby" is not its
> >supposedly radical politics - which are nonexistent
> - but its lack of
> >sentimentality.
>
> I don't know what the hell Frank Rich is talking
> about here. My wife and I
> cried our eyes out when we watched "Million Dollar
> Baby," and it's my pick
> (along with "Sideways") as the Best Picture of 2004.
> "The Aviator" is more
> "old fashioned," has more nominations, is more
> handsomely produced, but
> doesn't emotionally connect with most audiences.
> (And I'm angry Scorcese
> decided against tacking on a text "post-script"
> about the fate of Howard
> Hughes, as he did with great success in
> "Goodfellas," his last truly great
> picture which DID deserve the Best Picture Oscar
> over the p.c. "Dances with
> Wolves.")
>
> The Frank Rich column Kirby cites is one of Mr.
> Rich's better efforts.
>
> ---------------
>
> *** But I hate the fact that Rich on the "left" and
> others on the "right"
> have chosen to "spoil" the plot twist of one of
> Eastwood's finest films.
> Moreover, because he works for the left leaning,
> hasn't-endorsed-a-Republican-candidate-for-President
> in more than 50 years
> New York Times (but still the most historically
> important paper in the
> United States) -- Rich has elevated the so-called
> "controversy" against
> "Million Dollar Baby" -- to a level of legitimacy
> and attention that I think
> most movie lovers can do without. He just threw
> kerosene on a dimly lit
> fire, since I don't believe most who are paying to
> see "Million Dollar Baby"
> -- either know about the "pseudo-controversy" -- and
> if they did, don't give
> two s***s about it.
>
> In my view, Frank Rich, a failure as an op-ed
> columnist for the New York
> Times, has been an equal failure ever since he was
> "pushed" into that
> paper's Sunday's Arts and Leisure section. Every
> week, he incessantly use
> any "arts" related subject as a launching pad to
> write Maureen Dowd-like
> diatribes against the ultra-right (but without
> Dowd's fabulous sense of
> humor, her gift for satire and without her
> Pulitzer). He's a Maureen Dowd
> wannabe, which is why everything he writes for
> Sunday Arts MUST be connected
> to left and right wing politics.
>
> ---------------
>
> The sad thing is Mr. Rich is a genuine arts scholar
> but has none of the wit
> and subtlety for language that, let's say, his NY
> Times colleagues have,
> such as critics Ben Brantley or A.O. Scott. He only
> wants to write about
> politics. So he's stuck at Arts and Leisure, taking
> every subject about
> theater and film and "connecting-his-dots" back to
> the White House or to
> right wing wackos. His abandonment of Michael Moore
> after he "cleaned up"
> his wardrobe is as embarrassing as his endorsement
> of "Fahrenheit 9/11," a
> masterpiece of partisan entertainment, but a
> documentary it was not.
>
> Clint Eastwood was already an an icon and a legend
> before he became a GREAT
> director. His politics here in California are
> truly, as Mr. Rich correctly
> notes, hard to pin down. He doesn't need Frank
> Rich's help to raise the
> impression that he's an "underdog," now a "Commie,"
> or to "prove" his
> theories correct about the heinous "ultra-right." I
> will bet that Mr.
> Eastwood, the class act he is, didn't understand the
> "big deal" about his
> film until he picked up the phone and took Mr.
> Rich's kiss-a** questions.
> If "Million Dollar Baby" wins Best Picture, I can
> already see Mr. Rich
> writing his next column about how Eastwood's victory
> represents a triumph
> over the evil right. The fact is, the "storm" over
> "Baby" is nothing
> compared to what we saw in 2004 with Gibson's
> "Passion" and with Moore's
> "Fahrenheit." If Eastwood wins, I wanna believe
> that even in left-leaning
> Hollywood, it's because he did a great job directing
> a fine story, not
> because of any "noise" being made by wackos of any
> stripe, be they red or
> blue.
>
> ---------------
>
> Giving away a plot twist in a film that much of
> America still hasn't seen --
> is the worst thing anyone, whether they're on the
> radio or in print -- can
> do. So shame on both sides of this "non-issue" for
> ruining movies for the
> rest of us.
>
> -d.
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
>
> From: Kirby McDaniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Kirby McDaniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
> Subject: Something interesting for Eastwood fans
> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:40:05 -0600
>
> The New York Times
> February 13, 2005
> FRANK RICH
> How Dirty Harry Turned Commie
>
> THE day the left died in Hollywood, surely, was the
> day that a few too
> many Queer Eyes had their way with Michael Moore as
> he set off on his
> Oscar campaign. The baseball cap and 1970's leisure
> ensemble gave way
> to quasi-Libeskind eyeglasses and spiky hair that
> screamed "I am worthy
> of a cameo on 'Entourage.' " But not worthy of an
> Oscar. "Fahrenheit
> 9/11" got zero nominations, leaving the Best Picture
> race to five
> apolitical movies. Since none of those five has yet
> sold $100 million
> worth of tickets, let alone the $350-million-plus of
> a "Lord of the
> Rings"-level megahit, the only real drama accruing
> to this year's Oscar
> telecast was whether its ratings would plunge as low
> as the Golden
> Globes.
>
> But two weeks out from the big night, the prospects
> for a little
> conflict are looking up. Just when it seemed that
> Hollywood had turned
> a post-election page in the culture wars, the
> commissars of the right
> cooked up a new, if highly unlikely, grievance
> against "Holly-weird,"
> as they so wittily call it. This was no easy task.
> They couldn't
> credibly complain that "The Passion of the Christ"
> was snubbed by the
> movie industry's "elite" (translation: Jews), since
> it nailed three
> nominations, including one for makeup (translation:
> really big noses).
> That showing bested not only "Fahrenheit 9/11" but
> "Shrek 2," the
> year's top moneymaker. Nor could they resume
> hostilities against their
> perennial bogeymen Ben Affleck, Susan Sarandon, Sean
> Penn, Barbra
> Streisand and Whoopi Goldberg. All are nonplayers in
> this year's
> awards.
>
> So what do you do? Imagine SpongeBob tendencies in
> the carefully
> sanitized J. M. Barrie of "Finding Neverland"?
> Attack a recently
> deceased American legend, Ray Charles, for demanding
> that his mistress
> get an abortion in "Ray"? No, only a
> counterintuitive route could work.
> Hence, the campaign against Clint Eastwood, a former
> Republican
> officeholder (Mayor of Carmel, Calif., in the late
> 1980's), Nixon
> appointee to the National Council of the Arts and
> action
=== message truncated ===
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
