Bruce:
<<<<I wonder if the world will ever grow up enough to quit dividing everyone in groups.>>>> No, I'm pessmistic about that. I believe "divide and conquer" tendencies are in the DNA of humans as a social/territorial species. But some of their "group" tendencies are made worse by learned behavior. <<<<There are people who I like and admire, and ones I dislike and despise, but it is based on individual traits, not what group they are a member of.>>>> I think most people at MoPo feel the same. But I do believe a small number -- let sex, politics and religion -- disproportionately color the way they judge others. If secular and religious minds accept morality as man-made or divine creations -- then damn it, they should likewise accept tolerance. These divisions don't matter when you're at death's door. <<<<I wonder why I lack this sort of bias?>>>> Bruce, forgive me, but you're making me laugh. We grew out of our group-biases. Growing up Jewish -- as I grew up "Asian" -- made us palpably aware of "our differences" once we ventured beyond our neighborhoods. Every person split by race, religion or sexual orientation faces this. We're formed and transformed by our interactions with others. Divisions thrive on ignorance. Meanwhile, I feel you've never been more at peace with yourself than now. You might not admit it, but I believe your documented open heart surgery had an additional tranformative effect. Look at all the old hatchets you've buried. You almost died, man. Petty differences aren't important. I myself am a different fellow than the fire-breathing consumer activist jerk who appeared on these boards in the 90s. Now I'm just a jerk, and I like that better. I just got old. <<<<When I finally get to see Milk and The Wrestler I will be able to weigh in on these movies. It is so rare anymore that I see a newly made movie and think, Wow, that was REALLY great.>>>> My fear is we've created high expectations for two films that weren't masterpieces. In my view, since 1980, only 8 English-language films have reached "classic" status: Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Schindler's List, Pulp Fiction, Saving Private Ryan, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T. and A Christmas Story. My journalism and arts review background discourages me from adding more -- but if I could, I might shove in The Shawshank Redemption, Fargo, the Sixth Sense and the Matrix. Most of my choices are junk to others; it doesn't matter what I think. But neither "Milk" or "The Wrestler" felt "classic" to me. Not yet, anyway. Looking forward to you weighing in. -d. -----Original Message-----Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:21:30 -0600 Subject: Re: [MOPO] OSCARS and MoPo Turns 14 Today! From: [email protected] To: [email protected] CC: [email protected] David Sorry I botched the quote. I guess it was Craig who nailed it. I didn't know anyone else but you could write so insightfully! As to the whole perspective thing, I wonder if the world will ever grow up enough to quit dividing everyone in groups. I don't get any of it. There are people who I like and admire, and ones I dislike and despise, but it is based on individual traits, not what group they are a member of. I wonder why I lack this sort of bias? Maybe I will acquire it when I finally "grow up". When I finally get to see Milk and The Wrestler I will be able to weigh in on these movies. It is so rare anymore that I see a newly made movie and think, Wow, that was REALLY great. Bruce On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:39 PM, David Kusumoto <[email protected]> wrote: ** I think everyone has acquitted themselves well in this debate. Though my feelings about Rourke and "The Wrestler" -- vs. Penn and "Milk" -- aren't changed -- I respect the opinons of those who remain solidly behind "Milk" -- even though I myself wished the story had been constructed better on film. Penn's performance does transcend the material, and while I didn't think "Milk" was a great film, it did deserve its Best Picture nomination. ** This next part is tricky and expressed very delicately, so please forgive me if this comes out a little awkward. As a person of color -- I feel some of us have difficulty stepping back a little so we can judge material about ourselves more critically. This is true about any group, be they Asians, African-Americans, gays, etc., anyone judging filmed entertainments depicting characters similar or unlike ourselves. Some of us (myself included) -- can be so biased -- that we're not able to distinguish what's truly great -- vs. what's just "OK." We're too close to the material. So we sometimes "vote the ticket" regardless of quality, so long as the portrayal of ourselves is positive. Hence we have people who still think "Brokeback Mountain," "The Joy Luck Club," "Amistad," "Dances with Wolves," etc. -- have the equivalence of "Citizen Kane." The equal rights and diversity agendas are extremely important -- but when it comes to art -- it should never trump quality, however subjective. Voting for what's noble in art -- can sometimes result in material that becomes dated or puzzling over time, e.g., "Gandhi" over "E.T." -- "Crash" over "Capote," -- "Dances with Wolves" over "Goodfellas" -- "Lost Weekend," "Forrest Gump," Gentleman's Agreement," "Rainman," etc., the list goes on. ** I bring this up because I feel "Milk" and films like it -- were being praised by people -- (not all) -- using a similar prism. I thoroughly enjoyed "Milk" without an agenda -- despite my complaints about its structure. But my feelings for "The Wrestler" forced me to confront my own biases against Penn AND Rourke -- before finally deciding Rourke's was the better performance. But my opinions are not facts -- and reading the passions people have expressed about Penn -- further reveals why some justifiably feel Rourke did no more than play himself. Even if I don't agree, it's a valid point. I just don't want people to think that by selecting Rourke over Penn, that I'm treating Penn and his film harshly. The mere fact that some of "Milk's" fans graciously concede that Penn was great -- while his film was not so great -- is beyond fair. ** This allows me to segue into MoPo itself. I have tried the other forums and MoPo has always been the best for me, dating back to the 1990s. My only complaint is I wish old people like myself would stop hogging things so that more younger people can take part. I feel too many of us are dismissive of young people's tastes, as if we ourselves weren't derided for our own when we were in our teens and twenties. But as young people age, the smarter ones discover older material on their own. Proof? We discovered Bogart, Chaplin, William Powell, Rita Hayworth, etc. -- and I think I'm safe when I say most of us weren't even alive when those legends were at the peak of their careers! So congratulations, MoPo! And congratulations to all of its members! -kuz w/the news. -----Original Message----- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:49:51 +0000 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: OSCARS To: [email protected] What is interesting about it is when someone really gives you a clear vision of why they have that opinion. For me, not only do I learn alot about that person, but I am often enlightend to something I didn't even see. I, too, thought Sean Penn was great in Milk. I loved the film and it had a huge impact on me as I left the theater. I thought Penn's acceptance speach was wonderful and give him alot of credit for voicing an opinion that is not exactly a popular one. There are many, that while they may share the same opinion, would not voice it in a public forum such as the awards are thinking it might hurt their careers. Personally, I thought Sean Penn was even better in "I am Sam" and was overlooked for the award that time. I guess it was his time and this was the film that was going to do it. This is a film that will be just a great on your t.v. Sue -----Original Message----- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:33:07 -0800 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MOPO] OSCARS To: [email protected] this is the great thing about expressing one's opinions.... how 2 people can watch a film, look at art, etc. and one can say the piece, image or film is great..and another can say it is so-so... jeff -----Original Message----- On Feb 24, 2009, at 1:24 PM, Franc wrote: Bruce, I'd recommend you drive the two hours to see MILK which was a terrific film, whereas The Wrestler was so-so. Mickey Rourke gave a very good performance but I kept thinking he was actually playing himself whereas Sean Penn was really stretching to play Harvey Milk. He was superb and although the film is not a great film, it's certainly far superior to The Wrestler. FRANC -----Original Message----- From: MoPo List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Kusumoto Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 3:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MOPO] OSCARS Hi Bruce -- Because of the multiple forwarding of text -- you accidentally credited me for writing the first paragraph in your note. Craig Miller wrote it -- he felt Penn was better than Rourke -- and that "Milk" as a film was better than "The Wrestler." He defended both views admirably, and "nailed" why Penn was better, but I disagreed on both counts; Penn did a fine job in what to me felt like a TV-movie-structured bio-pic. I myself would not drive two hours to see "Milk" again. But I would do it to see "The Wrestler" -- because of the originality of its presentation and the sheer force of Rourke's performance. -----Original Message----- On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:50 AM, David Kusumoto <[email protected]> wrote: Craig: No argument here as to "Milk" being Sean Penn's best performance ever. I just felt Rourke's performance -- put side-by-side among those nominated -- was phenomenal. And I admit going in, I didn't want it to be so because of my antipathy towards Rourke. I think the appeal of "Milk" vs. "The Wrestler" (and Penn vs. Rourke) -- depends upon the expectations and biases you bring after you put your money down. For the sake of time, I'll just copy and paste portions of what I wrote earlier today -- in response to a few people who commented privately about my take/analysis of the dynamics behind Penn's win, his victory at the SAG awards last month -- and the hatred many people have out here against Rourke because of his documented run-ins, lack of professionalism, right-wing comments and his, for wont of a better phrase, overall weirdness. <<<<"Hollywood has always been uncomfortable with conservatives like Heston, Stewart, Wayne, Cagney, Hope, Eastwood, Nicholson and Rourke. But in the case of Hope, Eastwood and Nicholson, Hollywood prefers its conservatives to refrain from being outspoken like Heston, Wayne and Rourke (but I'm in no way putting Rourke in the same iconic league as Heston and Wayne). It's just a double-standard about Hollywood itself in the post-Vietnam era. ....I hope you are happy for Sean Penn's win because of his performance -- without regard to issues regarding the nobility and heroic nature of Harvey Milk himself. Because for the longest time, I felt Penn OWNED the best performance of 2008 -- slam dunk -- UNTIL I saw "The Wrestler." It was then I had to face down my own prejudices against Rourke -- and decide as honestly as I could -- who turned in the better performance. Penn was great, but Rourke's was something you see about as often, as I said, as a DeNiro in Raging Bull or a Hopkins in Lambs. I'm not kidding, I went in with low expectations, almost rooting against the picture because of all I had seen before. But the acting and the film were amazing. Not what I expected. I felt "The Wrestler" should have been nominated for Best Picture. It had an austere, hand-held, grainy authenticity many would appreciate. I so did NOT want to see the picture, but I came out feeling it was time well worth spent.">>>>> <<<<"Now as to the merits of "Milk" vs. any other film nominated in the Best Picture category. My view is "Milk" was structured conventionally like any standard bio-pic. But Penn's performance transcends the linear construct. Without him, "Milk" sinks like a dead weight TV-movie. Had "Milk" been presented more innovatively -- Harvey Milk's journey and accomplishments -- would've felt more profound and emotional with audiences of all stripes, gay AND straight. I am always hoping a film like this does more than preach to a choir of believers who know how the story ends. "Milk" is based on titanic material -- but lacks the necessary balance of subtlety, sledgehammer and innovation -- that should have left all other pictures in the dust. This is why perhaps in my view only, "Milk" does not feel "best" or even "new." It's supposed to play out like a high-stakes emotional drama, not a paint-by-numbers canonization. The national scope of the story with Anita Bryant and other "villains" are treated like a documentary. The movie's engine is Penn's charisma, not the script, and this doesn't quite feel right. And I've purposely left out the fact -- (because most people haven't seen it) -- that this same material was covered in a superior documentary, "The Life and Times of Harvey Milk" in 1984.>>>>> I'm back again. It's ironic that "Milk" is even being debated against "The Wrestler" -- when the more relevant discussion as it relates to the Oscars -- is how "Slumdog" overcame its flaws and beat everybody up. My wife and I liked "Slumdog," but it didn't move us in the same way the meditative and reflective "Benjamin Button" did, however over produced it was. Its existential ideas about the transient nature of life, love and mortality matter to anyone over 50. Maybe that's why it's a box office failure. Could its weighty ideas been explored as effectively for less money? Maybe. But what a handsome picture it is. -d. -----Original Message----- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:53:11 -0800 To: [email protected] From: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MOPO] MOPO] OSCARS CC: [email protected] This was, by far, Sean Penn's best performance. He's a heavily mannered actor whose performances are always full of the things actors love: screaming, crying, dying, being mentally handicapped. You can always see "acting". But in "Milk", he gave a subtle, nuanced performance that wasn't full of ticks. He relaxed into the character and stopped being "Sean Penn, A*c*t*o*r". I thought he deserved the award (although I also thought that Mickey Rourke was excellent). While not related to who should win for their performance, I thought "Milk" a better film than "The Wrestler". Rourke and Marisa Tomei were both great but the film was only "okay". Craig. > At 12:18 PM 2/23/2009, David Kusumoto wrote: I was extremely disappointed with Sean Penn's win. Sean Penn is an outstanding actor who gave an uncharacteristically loose, engaging and wonderful turn as an heroic figure -- in what I thought was a conventionally structured, by-the-numbers-bio-pic capped with the standard "where-are-they-now" text epilogue. His performance was noble and deserving -- but his victory was politically correct and in keeping with the Academy's self-seriousness to anoint things historic that makes it feel good about itself (hence the standing ovation). But in my view, the demands of his role paled compared to Mickey Rourke's shattering, full-range performance in "The Wrestler." I am not a fan of Mickey Rourke and dislike him intensely. But I could not ignore -- having seen all the performances nominated this year -- what he did in this picture, from start to finish. His character was an exercise in total immersion, on par with what I believe have been the best larger-than-life performances nominated since 1980 -- including De Niro in Raging Bull (win), Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs (win), and Liam Neeson in Schindler's List (lost to Tom Hanks). 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.
