Mar 062006
 

Aslan
I liked that “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” was picked for best makeup.

I liked that Reese Witherspoon won as the best female actress as country singer June Carter:

Oh, my goodness I never thought I’d be here in my whole life growing up in Tennessee,” said Witherspoon, who like co-star Joaquin Phoenix as Carter’s soul mate, country legend Johnny Cash, handled her own singing in “Walk the Line.”

Reese

People used to ask June how she was doing, and she would say I’m just trying to matter. I know what she means,” said Witherspoon, who told the audience the Oscar made her feel she was doing work that matters.

However, I did not like that George Clooney won supporting-performer for his anti-American role in “Syriana” (that anti-American award was the “opening act” for the night, after showing Clooney lying in bed with Stewart), where the “hero” is a self-exploding terrorist bomber, while the enemy is the U.S. government. As Krauthammer wisely declared yesterday (see his full text below):

Tonight, as the Oscars are honoring Syriana, American soldiers will be fighting, some perhaps dying, in defense of precisely the kind of tolerant, modernizing Muslim leader that Syriana shows America slaughtering.

I did not like that filmmaker Ang Lee, who won the best-director prize for the fiction tale of two old cowboys who carry on an homosexual love affair they conceal from their families for years (well, at least he did not win for best movie of the year, yeah!) Lee, whose martial-arts epic “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” won the foreign-language Oscar five years ago, became the first Asian filmmaker to win Hollywood’s main filmmaking honor. “I’m so proud of the movie,” Lee said backstage, where he was asked if he was disappointed that his film about gay cowboys lost best picture and what might have kept it from winning. “Why they didn’t go for it, I don’t know. You’re asking a question that I don’t know the answer…” (My comment: Lee, you are totally wrong on portraying the Chinese as masculine tigers while portraying the American male Cowboys as feminine and coward homosexuals. Please, oh dear movie-goer, dont buy that lie!)

My question is: Is this Chinese director trying to “feminize” the American culture to weaken it more and more, to the point to make it unable to defend against terrorists, against a Chinese Communist Imperialism and against anti-Americans like that Clooney (read it as ‘Clowney‘)?

The other ‘awards‘ to such “weakening of America through homosexuality” promoted by Hollywood was given to its musical score composed by Gustavo Santaolalla, from Argentina, and to the adapted screenplay for Larry McMurtry’s original homosexual fiction that he femininely entitled “Lonesome Dove“, and its co-adapter Diana Ossana, all of them wrongfully insinuated, when receiving their “second of glory“, that being it “love,” nothing else mattered. Oh, Really?

You want to see the really destructive for the American society weak, coward and selfish behavior of homosexuals? Just see the attitude and behavior of the other ‘Oscar‘ homosexual winner, “Capote” (and the deeply deranged, mentally and emotionally life of homosexuals as portrayed in TransAmerica).

To see the extended narrative for the American (or mostly, anti-American) movie bash, go to:

Crash,’ Witherspoon Take Home Oscars By David Germain.

Why we seriously oppose the anti-American awarded work of Clooney?

Charles Krauthammer hammers it in his March 4, 2006, piece New nadir for Hollywood in the pernicious ‘Syriana:

Nothing tells you more about Hollywood than what it chooses to honor. Nominated for best foreign film is Paradise Now, a sympathetic portrayal of two suicide bombers. Nominated for best picture is Munich, a sympathetic portrayal of yesterday’s fashion in barbarism: homicide terrorism.

But until you see Syriana, nominated for best screenplay ([Directed by Stephen Gaghan] and George Clooney, for best supporting actor) you have no idea how self-flagellation and self-loathing pass for complexity and moral seriousness in Hollywood.

Syriana‘s script has, of course, the classic liberal tropes such as this stage direction: “The Deputy National Security Advisor, MARILYN RICHARDS, 40’s, sculpted hair, with the soul of a seventy year-old white, Republican male, is in charge” (Page 21). Or this piece of over-the-top, Gordon Gekko Republican-speak, placed in the mouth of a Texas oilman: “Corruption is our protection. Corruption is what keeps us safe and warm. … Corruption … is how we win” (Page 93).

But that’s run-of-the-mill Hollywood. The true distinction of Syriana‘s script is the near-incomprehensible plot — a muddled mix of story lines about a corrupt Kazakhstan oil deal, a succession struggle in an oil-rich Arab kingdom and a giant Texas oil company that pulls the strings at the CIA and, naturally, everywhere else — amid which, only two things are absolutely clear and coherent: the movie’s one political hero and one pure soul.

The political hero is the Arab prince who wants to end corruption, inequality and oppression in his country. As he tells his tribal elders, he intends to modernize his country by bringing the rule of law, market efficiency, women’s rights and democracy.

What do you think happens to him? He, his beautiful wife and beautiful children are murdered, incinerated, by a remote-controlled missile, fired from CIA headquarters in Langley, no less — at the very moment that (this passes for subtle cross-cutting film editing) his evil younger brother, the corrupt rival to the throne and puppet of the oil company, is being hailed at a suitably garish “oilman of the year” celebration populated by fat and ugly Americans.

What is grotesque about this moment of plot clarity is that the overwhelmingly obvious critique of actual U.S. policy in the real Middle East today is its excess of Wilsonian idealism in trying to find and promote — against a tide of tyranny, intolerance and fanaticism — local leaders like the Good Prince. Who in the greater Middle East is closest to Syriana‘s modernizing, democratizing paragon? Without a doubt, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, a man of exemplary — and quite nonfictional — personal integrity, physical courage and democratic temperament. Hundreds of brave American (and allied NATO) soldiers have died protecting him and the democratic system they established to allow him to govern. Tonight, as the Oscars are honoring Syriana, American soldiers will be fighting, some perhaps dying, in defense of precisely the kind of tolerant, modernizing Muslim leader that Syriana shows America slaughtering.

It gets worse. The most pernicious element in the movie is the character who is at the moral heart of the film: the physically beautiful, modest, caring, generous Pakistani who becomes a beautiful, modest, caring, generous … suicide bomber. In his final act, the Pure One, dressed in the purest white robes, takes his explosives-laden little motorboat head first into his target. It is a replay of the real-life boat that plunged into the USS Cole in 2000, killing 17 American sailors, except that in Syriana‘s version, the target is another symbol of American imperialism in the Persian Gulf — a newly opened liquefied natural gas terminal.

The explosion, which would have the force of a nuclear bomb, constitutes the moral high point of the movie, the moment of climactic cleansing, as the Pure One clad in white merges with the great white mass of the huge terminal wall, at which point the screen goes pure white. And reverently silent.

In my naivete, I used to think that Hollywood had achieved its nadir with Oliver Stone’s JFK, a film that taught a generation of Americans that President Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA and the FBI in collaboration with Lyndon Johnson. But at least it was for domestic consumption, an internal affair of only marginal interest to other countries. Syriana, however, is meant for export, carrying the most vicious and pernicious mendacities about America to a receptive world.

Most liberalism is angst- and guilt-ridden, seeing moral equivalence everywhere. Syriana is of a different species entirely — a pathological variety that burns with the certainty of its malign anti-Americanism. Osama bin Laden could not have scripted this film with more conviction.

(Krauthammer is a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist based in Washington, D.C.)

////////////////////////////

Related to the other “winner” from Hollywood, the mentioned Chinese Ang Lee’s homosexual caricature, or parody, of the real American Cowboys (hey, Mr. liar Ang Lee et al, I am in TEXAS!), that’s just the fiction feminization of America, a trash falsehood piece called “Brokeback Mountain“, worthless even to make comments on it.

So, don’t be seduced by “good looking guys” like that charmer Clown George Clooney or those two “homosexual false Cowboys” portrayed in that feminizing and anti-American ‘Un-Hollywooding’ liberal junk!

And the next one is for you, oh twister liar Mr. George Clooney:

“from Hattie McDaniel (supporting-actress winner from “Gone With the Wind,” the first black performer to receive an Oscar) which you mentioned as one of the boasting glories of Hollywood, to terrorist self-exploding suicide bombers, there is a world of a difference! (one was tender, loving and faithful with her Masters, while the others are a serious danger to humanity, yourself included, big moron!)

 Posted by at 9:26 am

  6 Responses to “Un-Hollywooding, the good, the bad and the liar”

  1. I don’t normally let ‘er rip, but I gotta say it…

    While I would defend your right to say what you want to say, I am not going to stay silent when you spew hate.

    You come off sounding like a bigot and nationalistic fascist with insecurities about his own sexuality.

    So here are some questions you should think about.

    Can America do no wrong? Has America not propped up corrupt regimes throughout the 20th century, and killed innocent reformers in the process (Iran, much of South and Central America, much of Africa, South Vietnam)? Didn’t we go to war in Iraq under false pretenses (for oil and imperialism, not WMD’s)? Hasn’t our government (under Bush) advocated the use of torture and imprisonment without due process (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo)? What’s sick is when Americans refuse to condemn wrongdoing by our own government, or think that Americans are some breed of superior human being. It is not anti-American to fight against torture and injustice. You got that?

    Women are weaker than men? That’s news to both me and America’s fighting women.

    And what demonstrates more faith, following Jesus and committing no violence (not even in self-defense), or following an interpretation of Islam that calls for suicide bombing? And why don’t Christians like you embrace non-violence? Hypocrite.

    And who would Jesus hate? Homosexuals? Atheists? Women? Muslims? Just the same people you hate?

    Hatred comes from fear. So why do you hate gays? What are you afraid of?

    I don’t know you, but let me put it to you that you don’t know yourself either.

    And what the heck is this: “one was tender, loving and faithful with her Masters…”? Blacks should have been submissive slaves? What are you saying?

    I know I can find more disgusting posts elsewhere on the Internet. I just didn’t expect to see this kind of racist, homophobic, fascist trash here.

  2. Dl wrote:

    It is not anti-American to fight against torture and injustice. You got that?

    My response: In times in which that’s precisely what is going on with American troops in Iraq, why Clowney et al portray precisely the American authorities as the criminals?

    Read again the bold words written by a Pulitzer winner, please, and calm down your own rhetoric:

    “Tonight, as the Oscars are honoring Syriana, American soldiers will be fighting, some perhaps dying, in defense of precisely the kind of tolerant, modernizing Muslim leader that Syriana shows America slaughtering.”

    Dl wrote:

    “Women are weaker than men?”

    My answer: Those are your own words, here I’m criticizing a false and imaginary tale of Cowboys portrayed as homosexual men.

    Dl wrote:

    “why don’t Christians like you embrace non-violence? Hypocrite.”

    Answer: For the same reason that Israelites in the past fortified their armies and their cities. You are the one providing offensive adjectives here. I called Clowney a big moron because he is siding with exploding suicide bombers instead of siding with the heroic American troops.

    DI:

    “Just the same people you hate?”

    Answer: I hate nobody, I just want to point out that is a moronic act to leave America be swayed away by people like those morons Lee and Clooney. For example, backstage Lee declared that one of his homosexual actors was very original, as “original” as Brando, he said. Isn’t that also an extra moronic statement?

    I just want to alert the kind readers to don’t be deceived by those movies and by the agendas of its actors, directors, etc.

    I don’t hate Clooney or Lee, I just dislike what they have done. To call Clooney a Clowney is within his role as “entertainer“, somebody not to be taken seriously, and that’s what I am saying here! (smile).

    Dl also wrote:

    “Hatred comes from fear.”

    Answer: Preventive information is what compels us to act in the right direction.

    Dl continues:

    “So why do you hate gays?”

    I don’t hate anybody, I just deeply dislike American Cowboys being falsely represented as the homosexual “models“. Am I in my right to do so? That story is not real, that’s a fake image by a movie maker from another country. I am just warning the readers to watch out for their deception and not swallow the lying images portrayed in both ‘awarded’ movies. That’s all!

    Dl wrote:

    “What are you afraid of?”

    My Answer: The American people needs to be awake and not sleeping and unprepared, rather, to be fully aware and prepared to stop individually and as a group any repetition of 9-11!

    Those lying movies promote a deception contrary to the American nature!

    Dl:

    “I don’t know you, but let me put it to you that you don’t know yourself either.”

    God knows each one of us better than how much we can know ourselves!

    Dl:

    “Blacks should have been submissive slaves? What are you saying?”

    Again and again, those are your own words, here I am talking within the precise context that such awarded artist portrayed in “Gone with the Wind“, do you oppose her portraying of that role? What’s the difference with me describing it in words? My words are specific for her role portrayed in that movie!

    Dl wrote:

    “I just didn’t expect to see this kind of racist, homophobic, fascist trash here.”

    Charles Krauthammer wrote his New nadir for Hollywood in the pernicious ‘Syriana’, then I complemented it with my own criticism to Lee’s work. Then you, by your free will did read it. So, it is not racist to open the eyes of our readers by explaining them that those extremes are not ‘heroes‘ by any means. A suicide bomber assassin is not a ‘hero‘ by any means. Those fake Cowboys portrayed as homosexuals are not ‘heroes‘ by any means.

  3. I know I can find more disgusting posts elsewhere on the Internet. I just didn’t expect to see this kind of racist, homophobic, fascist trash here.

    You have a jaundice view of this post. Please tone it down and impersonalise your comments. Bombastic speech like this is not conducive to dialogue, but it is meant to silence opposing views.

    You must realize your characterization of certain actions of our government, group, or individuals as unjust does not make it true. What you boldly and belligerently assert as facts does not make it so.

    Even putting your jaundice and erroneous views aside, because we would never reach agreement on how we view the world. I would suggest you follow your own advice. Before calling fdocc a hypocrite, please consider we have a different worldview. Remember your own answer to differing worldviews?

    doctor(logic) said : The recognition that morality is a function of personal taste. It’s also a sword for illogically imposing one’s moral views on others.

    We get value from our separate moralities in the same way different people get value from their respective favorite ice cream flavors.

    What this means is that your views of the world is no better or worse than fdocc or Bush’s view of the world. You really don’t have any right to judge that their views are wrong and your view is right.

  4. Teleologist, you quoted that:

    “their respective favorite ice cream flavors”

    However, the problem I have with that statement is that if it can be clearly identified one of those alternative ‘flavors‘ as made of toxic waste and the other as made by dung, evidently the reasonable people is not going to take them, but to do what is due, to them.

    Today I enjoyed a really American TV show that has those things that those two non-American movies previously called into question lacked of: Patriotism and Manhood!

    The Show is called The Unit, the First Episode was “First Responders“, by CBS. I deeply recommend that episode!

  5. Slightly OT, but Reese Witherspoon is proof of Intelligent Design.

  6. Dear DonaldM, you wrote:

    Slightly OT

    Yes, I agree, this uncategorized review of movies understands that today, if you confess with thy mouth that Jesus is your Lord, and if you believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, then you shall be saved (Rom. 10:9).

    However, my understanding is that we better not take freedom as an occasion for licentiousness. See that the fall of the almighty nations of the past, may have been seriously influenced by those two lower points of my criticism. For me, it is like if we are here to restrain the full unleashing of those things deeply promoted by the adversary… When we be gone, he will feast on them!

    Then you wrote:

    Reese Witherspoon is proof of Intelligent Design.

    Well, I really liked her ‘country line’, when she declared that she is trying to keep doing “things that matter”! Me too (smile.)

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.