Azat Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 The guy that was booooooooooooed was our friends Michael Moore of "Roger & Me" and most recently "Bowling for Columbine" fame. I thought that was the funniest thing that happened at these Oscars. He possibly even jeopardized his career with that move. We have to see. Was surprised that The Pianist won so many critical Oscars even when it had not won a singe Golden Globe or Directors Guild Award(I think). Chicago ruled. It was a great adaptation of the play and everyone was superb in it. The only sad part of the Oscars this year was not enough cleavage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 The funniest part was when Steve Martin made the gay comment and the camera zoomed on Jack Nicholson. It's nice that Jack was a good sport about it. About Michael Moore ... I've often liked what he has to say and I enjoy watching him at different talk shows and stuff. But that crap he pulled was not only in poor taste, but completely inappropriate. Glad there were not more people like him ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fadi Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Sip:The funniest part was when Steve Martin made the gay comment and the camera zoomed on Jack Nicholson. It's nice that Jack was a good sport about it. <img border="0" alt="[thumbup]" title="" src="smilies/thumbup.gif" /> About Michael Moore ... I've often liked what he has to say and I enjoy watching him at different talk shows and stuff. But that crap he pulled was not only in poor taste, but completely inappropriate. Glad there were not more people like him ...This man had the gots to say what he think. More people like him are needed in America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Domino:This man had the gots to say what he think. More people like him are needed in America.The man is an actor/director. The man was receiving an award for making a documentary. The man is NOT a political analyst and the man was certainly not asked his opinion about the world. The man was simply asked to accept an award for his work and thank those who deserve credit for his achievement. But noooooooo ... the man completely misused the opportunity to have a verbal diarrhea of all the crap in his brain. He is nothing more than an opportunistic weasel who was only thinking about his strange personal agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fadi Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Sip: quote:Originally posted by Domino:This man had the gots to say what he think. More people like him are needed in America.The man is an actor/director. The man was receiving an award for making a documentary. The man is NOT a political analyst and the man was certainly not asked his opinion about the world. The man was simply asked to accept an award for his work and thank those who deserve credit for his achievement. But noooooooo ... the man completely misused the opportunity to have a verbal diarrhea of all the crap in his brain. He is nothing more than an opportunistic weasel who was only thinking about his strange personal agenda.This has nothing to do with the reason why he was on stage, it has everything to do with the fact that what he said, you didn't agree with. Be honnest with yourself Seaphan, would you have said the same if he were to tell something like: " I hope our soldiers succeed to revert the regime in Iraq" Be honnest and answer this question. We are not talking about a simple opinion about a subject, we are talking about a WAR, I think its a kind of a serious subject and it is enough serious to bring it up and make his opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 Although as I've said before I am in general in favor of this "war", I do in fact agree a lot with what he was trying to say. I totally agree we have a "ficticious" president.I totally agree that many of the official reasons they are giving for this war are also ficticious. I just can't stand for people who know nothing about anything standing up in such a place and claim to know exactly what's going on. Protest if you must ... but everything has a time and a place ... and that was neither the time nor the palce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyebruin Posted March 24, 2003 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 Did anyone watch the oscars? It felt kind of strange! you never knew if someone was going to "go political" onstage!!! I'm glad they booooooed off that guy who was bashing the prez, the election,...etc. he wanted to have his own little soap box...just say your "many thanks" and leave!~~~~the "pianist" (best actor) was so sweet! he actually got teary eyed when talking about the war~~~(hope that wasn't acting!!!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Azat:I can tell you that I am VERY proud to be an American. Before and now as well. And I am very proud to have Americans amongst my friends. It doesn't mean I have to always be in agreement concerning their foreign policy. And in defense of Michael Moore, while I agree that his choice of venue for the delivery of his comments was perhaps questionable at best, he certainly garnered attention & increased the profile of the issues that he deeems important. After all, he is an activist. And that is what activism is about - it's about mobilising the great number of American citizens that have never had cause to question their leaders, by exposing them (however inappropriately) to other viewpoints. Opportunist? No, frankly, I think he just may have sabotaged the rest of his career. Notoriety? yes. Credibilty? maybe. Enhanced future job prospects in Hollywood? I doubt it. [ March 24, 2003, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: vava ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 This is just my opinion, but I think what he did was decrease the number of people(mostly Americans) who will see his movies in the future and I think all he did was bring negative light to his issue/cause. I agree with you about the above comments and there are MANY things that I disagree on with my president and the country and the foreign policy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fadi Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Sip:Although as I've said before I am in general in favor of this "war", I do in fact agree a lot with what he was trying to say. I totally agree we have a "ficticious" president.I totally agree that many of the official reasons they are giving for this war are also ficticious. I just can't stand for people who know nothing about anything standing up in such a place and claim to know exactly what's going on. Protest if you must ... but everything has a time and a place ... and that was neither the time nor the palce. LOL ! Don't tell me you are embarassed to be an American right now. Just wait vava loading the movie in his server, you will be much more embarassed. Or maybe do you want I send it to you by attach if you can't wait. I warn you, everything funny you have seen about Bush and monkeys are joke compared with this BOMB movie. It worth an Oscar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 Every village has an idiot that includes the Oscars' Village. I can tell you that I am VERY proud to be an American. Before and now as well. A war or a president is not going to change my mind one way or another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fadi Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Azat:Every village has an idiot that includes the Oscars' Village. I can tell you that I am VERY proud to be an American. Before and now as well. A war or a president is not going to change my mind one way or another.Every village has its idiot, not the Oscars village, the Oscars village has one individual having common sense, the rest are idiots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cilician Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Sip:I just can't stand for people who know nothing about anything standing up in such a place and claim to know exactly what's going on. Protest if you must ... but everything has a time and a place ... and that was neither the time nor the palce. Go to www.michaelmoore.com to see if he knows what he is talking about. He knows ALL the facts (see specifically http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library...rful/index.php) and I am sorry but if you believe the war is wrong you have a duty and obligation to say so every forum you are given. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Raffi Kojian:... He knows ALL the facts ...He he he he! ALL THE FACTS? Just take a look towards the end of this thread where vava posts a letter that Moore supposedly wrote. He claims that NO one is for war in the US and that we LOVE the french!!!! You seriously think this guy is in check with reality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
564312 Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 this actors are just pissed because Bush is not inviting them over to the white house for political advise like Clinton did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cilician Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 Sip, Ok you got me, he knows ALL the relevant foreign policy facts! :-) (tough crowd I tell ya!) I was talking about his summary of what US foreign policy has done over the past few decades when I said he knows the facts... I did not mean it as a blanket statement about the guy, and anything not covered on that page does not count. Better? :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Raffi Kojian:Sip, Ok you got me, he knows ALL the relevant foreign policy facts! :-) (tough crowd I tell ya!) I was talking about his summary of what US foreign policy has done over the past few decades when I said he knows the facts... Better? :-)So what has it done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EZ Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 I don't see what is so terribly wrong with a person using the opportunity once it arrives to tell the world what he believes in. He didn't throw a bomb into the audience, did he??? I wouldn't have dared to do what he did if I had felt so strong about something. And I wonder... if he would have stated something like "Death to Saddam!" something that would fit more in the current US-policy, would it have irritated you as much as it did now? The way I see it, whether this guy knows enough facts to 'earn' himself the right to speak his mind about such a subject during such an event is of no importance at all. He had the opportunity that evening and apparently he wanted, maybe needed, to take it. If there are consequences to suffer from it, he's the one who will suffer. And whatever his opinion is, he deserves credit for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by EZ:....And I wonder... if he would have stated something like "Death to Saddam!" something that would fit more in the current US-policy, would it have irritated you as much as it did now? ...Dear Elly, good to see you here. Come back more often. Speaking for myself, I know I would have been as upset if he had said something stupid like "Death to Saddam!", if not more upset. It is true that if there are consequences to be suffered from his speech it will be him and not the rest of us, but there is also a place and time for everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cilician Posted April 4, 2003 Report Share Posted April 4, 2003 quote:Originally posted by MJ: quote:Originally posted by Raffi Kojian:Sip, Ok you got me, he knows ALL the relevant foreign policy facts! :-) (tough crowd I tell ya!) I was talking about his summary of what US foreign policy has done over the past few decades when I said he knows the facts... Better? :-)So what has it done?As I said, there is a link with this info, but I will paste it here. If you follow the link you can get more info on many of them.http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library...erful/index.php ___________________1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah as dictator. 1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed. 1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem. 1963-1975: American military kills 4 million civilians in Southeast Asia. September 11, 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered. 1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed. 1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion. 1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras". 30,000 Nicaraguans die. 1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians. 1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to help them kill Iraqis. 1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega. 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S. 1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait. 1998: Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan. Factory turns out to be making aspirin. 1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. U.N. estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions. 2000-01: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid". September 11, 2001: Osama Bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3,000 people.___________________________ Anyway, this is my last post on the topic... or else it can go on forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted April 4, 2003 Report Share Posted April 4, 2003 No, not better. What I expected, though. First of all, most of these "facts" tell no story to the reader and some are simply false. Additionally, so that to provide some credibility to the presumed argument, I think you should also reference such lines as what in the last several decades the foreign policies of Soviet Union/Russia, Germany, UK, France, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, India, etc, have done. Perhaps, then, in that large picture of things, we can really understand what the US foreign policy has done. P.S. I can guarantee you that I have no interest to go on and on, on the topic, either. I always force myself to speak out - when I feel enough is enough. Btw, I appreciate the work that you are doing for Armenia. Therefore, would not like to "cross my sword with you," as disagreeable as I find your conceptual world on broader issues. [ April 04, 2003, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: MJ ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River Posted April 5, 2003 Report Share Posted April 5, 2003 The OscarsHi there, this is my first time on this forum which i find very interesting and interactive, to say the least.I could not help to reply to this topic. I refused to watch the Oscars. It was out of place and insensitive to carry on something as glamorous (less pizazz this year) and celebratory . So many people were being bombarded , so many people's lives were endangered - both sides- civilians, invaders, tyrants etc. Or may be some people wanted us to watch this event rather than that event- is life so superficial and does Hollywood condition our tastes and attitudes ? Another bone of contention is Roman Polanski - a sociopath or a psychopath- being credited for a topic which will some day run out of resources and steam. From the very onset, the stage was played to oust any hope for Egoyan's ARARAT to 'be there'. No effort was spared to push away Egoyan. Surely, a new topic, another nationality and its grief could find a place there..... Sometimes provisions are made to comply to such situations. As for Michael Moore, perhaps he was too 'loud' but somebody has to voice what a lot of people think and feel but do not express themselves out of fear . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fadi Posted April 5, 2003 Report Share Posted April 5, 2003 quote:Originally posted by River:The OscarsHi there, this is my first time on this forum which i find very interesting and interactive, to say the least.I could not help to reply to this topic. I refused to watch the Oscars. It was out of place and insensitive to carry on something as glamorous (less pizazz this year) and celebratory . So many people were being bombarded , so many people's lives were endangered - both sides- civilians, invaders, tyrants etc. Or may be some people wanted us to watch this event rather than that event- is life so superficial and does Hollywood condition our tastes and attitudes ? Another bone of contention is Roman Polanski - a sociopath or a psychopath- being credited for a topic which will some day run out of resources and steam. From the very onset, the stage was played to oust any hope for Egoyan's ARARAT to 'be there'. No effort was spared to push away Egoyan. Surely, a new topic, another nationality and its grief could find a place there..... Sometimes provisions are made to comply to such situations. As for Michael Moore, perhaps he was too 'loud' but somebody has to voice what a lot of people think and feel but do not express themselves out of fear .I agree with you River, I watched Roman Polanski's movie, and it was not extraordinary to the sens that it was nothing new, the same old fashion movie about someone during the Holocaust, while Ararat was inovator, both intellectually and artistically, it was of no match. It appears to me that every movie concerning the Holocaust will win Oscars, no matter of if they worth the prize or not. More then this, "The Pianist"is an adaptation of a book, and the production is not as near difficult as the way Ararat has been directed and all those scenes that sound irrelevent and disconnected with each others are put together. Thats the kind of movie, that should recieve prizes. The Music of Ararat was even not selected, a Music no worst then those that in the past worthed Oscars. [ April 05, 2003, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Domino ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River Posted April 5, 2003 Report Share Posted April 5, 2003 I'm in total agreement with you. Egoyan has always been praised in the Canadian media, at least consistently, except for ARARAT - where one critic went as far as calling Egoyan's 'brilliant failure'...sure, sure . Even at the Genie Awards (sp.), which i watched on STAR TV there was an implication , by the female interviewer, that what's inside the envelope was already pre-arranged. Hah ! like nothing of the sort happens anywhere else...The audacity of it all. And of course the best director award went to Kronenberg and not to Atom. I remember, a few years back, here in the Canadian media, Atom had a nomination for ? film, i don't remember, they were commenting that the director of the TITANIC should sweep the floor and Egoyan should pull back his nomination. I'm sure there are many artists who deserve to receive the Oscars but do not meet the criteria.Egoyan was awarded on a tribute night dedicated to him last thursday, in Montreal- by his own community. What a talented couple they are. We should not forget Arsine, his wife.Cheers ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fadi Posted April 5, 2003 Report Share Posted April 5, 2003 Cronenberg was given the award of best direction, because his film was of no match with Ararat, and that Telefilm Canada should have found the justification for having pied the millions for his "Spider" and ending up that the film would not have any nomination at all, all that was predicted from the start, everyone knew at Telefilm Canada that Cronenberg was to have the best direction, because of the last time, Egoyan got it, and that they are in a competition for many years, and Spider was not the film expected. So they just gave the best direction to Cronenberg, and everyone has happy, that is done here in Canada for many, many and many years. Our film industry is very small compared with the US, and we should support as much people as possible with the limited telefilm Canada grants for as much production as possible. Just take a look at the number of nominations Ararat had, it had 9 nominations, how do you explain that a film that got most of the nominations, it had no nomination for the best direction, when the direction is about putting all those pieces together ? They just took off Egoyan from the list of nominations for the best director, because there should not have been any competition again between Cronenberg and Egoyan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.