From: owner-movies-digest@lists.xmission.com (movies-digest) To: movies-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: movies-digest V2 #174 Reply-To: movies-digest Sender: owner-movies-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-movies-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk movies-digest Wednesday, March 24 1999 Volume 02 : Number 174 [MV] Kazan RE: [MV] Kazan -Reply [MV] REVIEW: EDtv Re: [MV] Kazan -Reply Re: [MV] Kazan Re: [MV] Kazan Re: [MV] Kazan Re: [MV] Oscar '99 Re: [MV] Kazan Re: [MV] Kazan -Reply Re: [MV] Kazan Re: [MV] Kazan -Reply Re: [MV] Kazan -Reply Re: [MV] Kazan Re: [MV] Kazan -Reply Re: [MV] Kazan -Reply [MV] Kazan -- Snakeyes [MV] Kazan -- Snakeyes Re: [MV] MovieJuice! - SPECIAL OSCAR EDITION Re: [MV] MovieJuice! - SPECIAL OSCAR EDITION -Reply Re: [MV] Oscar Quotes Re: [MV] Kazan & Hope Re: [MV] Kazan -Reply [MV] Movie News - 03/23/99 RE: [MV] Kazan -Reply ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:44:13 -0700 From: DFN Subject: [MV] Kazan Oz, you are a moron. Kazan "ratted" on people who supported one of the most brutal, despotic tyrants ever to walk the Earth. Furthermore, all he did was publicly name members of a group whose "heroic" members hid their membership. If they were so prtoud of their sick ideology, why did they try to hude it? And consider this: There was no moral distinction between Stalin and Hitler, yet if Kazan had "exposed" Nazis, all the Hollywood lefties would be fawning all over him and asking why the Academy took so long to give him an award. Commies = Nazis = Evil Scum [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:51:34 -0700 From: jkrudy Subject: RE: [MV] Kazan -Reply How right you are! James K. Rudy - -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Bridges [mailto:Bruce@ffww.com] Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 12:44 PM To: movies@lists.xmission.com Subject: [MV] Kazan -Reply You know, I hate it when somebody on my side of an argument is so hateful. We all agreed to leave the namecalling for other lists comprised of people that like to yell behind the comfort of their computer screen. Can we keep it civil? bb [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:58:57 -0700 (MST) From: Scott Renshaw Subject: [MV] REVIEW: EDtv EDtv (Universal) Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Jenna Elfman, Woody Harrelson, Ellen DeGeneres, Rob Reiner, Sally Kirkland, Martin Landau, Elizabeth Hurley. Screenplay: Lowell Ganz & Babaloo Mandell. Producers: Brian Grazer. Director: Ron Howard. MPAA Rating: PG-13 (profanity, adult themes) Running Time: 118 minutes. Reviewed by Scott Renshaw. You'd think that the makers of EDtv could take comfort in critic Roger Ebert's dictum that "a movie isn't about what it's about, it's _how_ it's about what it's about." The film is, after all, facing the daunting task of following THE TRUMAN SHOW, a brilliant satire on the cult of personality and loss of privacy in the mass media age. EDtv, the filmmakers could argue, is about some of those same themes in a different way. This one is about why people choose to be famous, and what they give up along the way. Sure, like THE TRUMAN SHOW it's about a man's life turned into 24-hour entertainment, but director Ron Howard could still make the claim that EDtv is unique. And he'd be right, for all the worst possible reasons. EDtv is a shallow and jokey rendering of its subject, a toothless satire that fades before the last punchline. The titular protagonist is Ed Pekurny (Matthew McConaughey), an under-motivated and under-employed 31-year-old video store clerk who auditions for a cable network's radical new broadcasting concept. True-TV's program director Cynthia Topping (Ellen DeGeneres) wants to turn a man's life into a live, un-edited "reality" program, and good-looking Everyman Ed is her choice. Amazingly, "EDtv" the show becomes a must-see hit, particularly when Ed becomes romantically involved with Shari (Jenna Elfman), the girlfriend of his brother Ray (Woody Harrelson). Will fame and fortune keep Ed from the chance for true love, corrupting his values the way we all know media can? Hard to say, since we're not exactly to privvy to what Ed's values were in the first place. As played with drawling nonchalance by Matthew McConaughey, Ed is nearly bereft of an identifiable personality. The closest Lowell Ganz & Babaloo Mandel's script comes to defining Ed is suggesting that he's basically a lazy simpleton who figures he can hit the big time by becoming a celebrity without doing any actual work. Trouble is, that kind of personality wouldn't instantly endear Ed either to his televsion audience or to us, so instead he's made a nice-guy rascal who scratches himself jes' like reg'lar folks. In short, he's a bore, as the subject of a television show and the subject of a feature film. Even with a lackluster leading man, EDtv might have worked if there had been any spark to its satire. How very bizarre to watch it instead morph into a kind of a meta-commentary on its own mass media sentibilities. As "EDtv" becomes a phenomenon, we watch a parade of celebrities offer cameo commentary on Ed-mania: Ariana Huffington, George Plimpton, filmmaker Michael Moore, Jay Leno, Bill Maher, etc. EDtv often aims to score points simply by trotting out famous faces, then finds no irony in a film about fame-for-fame's-sake which includes zingers from RuPaul. Even the endless series of advertisements on "EDtv" feels more self-serving than sardonic; aside from the clever use of a Trojans ad during one of Ed's romantic trysts, they feel like someone trying to have his product placement cake and eat it too. EDtv still manages to be sporadically amusing, thanks largely to the gag-meister sit-com style of Ganz and Mandel. Martin Landau turns in a sharp supporting performance as Ed's wheelchair-bound stepfather, and Howard comes up with a couple of nicely-observed touches like the viewing parties that pop up around Ed's first on-air sex. In general, though, Ron Howard is a sentimentalist with about as much edginess as a Teletubbie. He's more interested in making EDtv a fairly generic romanctic comedy than in digging into the reasons behind Americans' video voyeurism, or examining how, in a post-modernist twist, our awareness of "reality" television has made reality just as staged as drama. In the end, EDtv really is about the subject of mass media in its own way. It's about how much easier it is to let the viewers feel good than it is to tell them what they need to hear. On the Renshaw scale of 0 to 10 talking Eds: 5. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit Scott Renshaw's Screening Room http://www.inconnect.com/~renshaw/ *** Subscribe to receive new reviews directly by email! See the Screening Room for details, or reply to this message with subject "Subscribe". - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:54:40 -0600 From: Diane Christy Subject: Re: [MV] Kazan -Reply On 3/22/99, 1:43 PM -0600, Bruce Bridges said so nicely: >You know, I hate it when somebody on my side of an argument is so hateful. > >We all agreed to leave the namecalling for other lists comprised of people >that like to yell behind the comfort of their computer screen. Can we >keep it civil? Bruce, I agree. I didn't ask this question to start a fight. I really wanted to know what you guys thought. I can accept those who have opinions that don't look like mine. But we don't need to be ugly to each other just because we don't agree, do we? ~~~~~ Diane Christy (Samantha and Joshua's Mom) Jefferson, LA http://www.geocities.com/~dchristy10/ mailto:dchristy10@earthlink.net mailto:DChristy1@aol.com ICQ #12904700 ~~~~~ [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 07:22:52 -0800 From: Blacknight Subject: Re: [MV] Kazan Oz wrote: > Damn straight. Anyone who has sympathy for this skunk of a man > should think how sympathetic they would feel if someone they > considered a friend ran them out of their chosen career in order to > save his own ass. To make it worse, Kazan has never come out and > apologised for what he did, or even admitted it was wrong. > > Screw him. Legend my ass. He might have discovered some great > actors, but he put enough people out of business with his cowardice > to negate that a hundred times. If I had been there I would have > booed. > Then thank goodness you weren't there.... blacknight [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 07:22:52 -0800 From: Blacknight Subject: Re: [MV] Kazan Oz wrote: > Damn straight. Anyone who has sympathy for this skunk of a man > should think how sympathetic they would feel if someone they > considered a friend ran them out of their chosen career in order to > save his own ass. To make it worse, Kazan has never come out and > apologised for what he did, or even admitted it was wrong. > > Screw him. Legend my ass. He might have discovered some great > actors, but he put enough people out of business with his cowardice > to negate that a hundred times. If I had been there I would have > booed. > Then thank goodness you weren't there.... blacknight [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:37:10 -0500 From: Mel Eperthener Subject: Re: [MV] Kazan At 12.03 AM 22/03/99 -0600, Diane Christy wrote: >What did you all think about the nonsense involving Kazan's tribute? I >thought it was terrible and sad. Scorsese has always been one of my >favorite directors. My opinion of him soared as I saw him set his jaw as >he stood behind Kazan looking very protective. I thought the display of >unmoving decidedness by some of the actors in the audience was terrible, >and for some, positively inappropriate!! Actually, after hearing of all the planned protests, I was surprised that he got the standing ovation that he did. I expected more people to not applaude. Having said that, I think it's time we GET OVER IT. All of this (the blacklists and such) happened so long ago, when the Soviets were still our friends. All labour unions have their basis in (somewhat basic) socialist/communist theory, but no one is taking them to task. I can remember when the Americans were so very gracious winners. They won WW2, and set up the Marshall Plan to rebuild not only Europe, but their two major enemies in the war, Germany and Japan. We now know that not only have the Americans defeated the Soviets in the Cold War, but that the Big Bad Bear that had us hiding in homemade bomb shelters was never as evil as we thought. Get over it, make your peace, give Kazan his award for what he did ON SCREEN, and get on with Hollywood's Business. Then again, I thought it would have been really classy if Kazan had apologised for his oh-so-long-ago actions. But that in itself may have caused even more commotion. Regards, - --Mel - --Mel Eperthener president, Gowanna Multi-media Pty Please support the endeavour of a friend and fellow Australian. Political Corrections by Michael Jaymes Cassidy http://www.angelfire.com/ma/politicalmusings ____________________________________________ Traditionally, most of Australia's imports come from overseas. - -Former Australian cabinet minister Keppell (Kip) Enderby __________________________ [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 20:25:12 -0500 From: Mel Eperthener Subject: Re: [MV] Oscar '99 Some comments, simply because I can't help myself:-) >Picture >WINNER: "Shakespeare in Love" > Upset! I thought for sure that they would go with the depressing, overwhelming period piece, instead of the happy, flighty period piece. As good as Ryan is, I cannot say that I'm unhappy with this, simply because perhaps we're seeing a change in Academy honours away from the serious works into more upbeat works. Then again, I guess even though I like the upset, I also would have liked to seen Ryan win. Besides... >Director >WINNER: Steven Spielberg, "Saving Private Ryan" > ...don't these honours usually go as a set?? But were we really surprised to see Spielberg win? >Leading Actor >WINNER: Roberto Benigni, "Life Is Beautiful" What a crazy mug...!! Jumping all around like that. But I was surprised to see him win. We knew that Hanks won't get another one for awhile, no matter what he does. (I thought he did better in Apollo 13 than Gump, personally. I think that it was a mistake for him to win for Gump, not because he didn't deserve the statue for that, but rather because it locks him out from winning for so much better work. Hard to believe that he started his career wearing a dress in something called "Bosum Buddies"). But I was surprised that someone from so far outside Hollywood got this one. > >Leading Actress >WINNER: Gwyneth Paltrow, "Shakespeare in Love" She seemed genuinely surprised and happy for this. If not, then she deserves an Oscar simply for the acceptance speech:-) >Original Screenplay >WINNER: "Shakespeare in Love," Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard > >Screenplay adapted from a previous work >WINNER: "Gods and Monsters," Bill Condon > >Foreign Language Film >WINNER: "Life Is Beautiful" (Italy) No real surprises here, methinks. > >Documentary Feature: > WINNER: "The Last Days" > >Documentary Short Subject: >WINNER: "The Personals: Improvisations on Romance in the Golden Years" > >Short Film - Animated: >WINNER: "Bunny" > >Short Film - Live Action: >WINNER: "Election Night" > What really peeves me is that these films are supposed to be so good, but the majority of the population NEVER sees them!! Back in the 40s, the theatres ALWAYS had shorts in front of the films. Put them on TV, video, anything that lets us see what we're missing. One nice thing about, I believe, Rush Hour is that the DVD had the director's student film as an added bonus. Not award-winning (I hope!!:-), but still a nice chance to see where he came from. Come on, Hollywood, give us a chance to see these shorts. As for the rest, the technical awards, it's nice to see these people who toil behind the scenes win, but there are no surprises, and I think the majority of viewers don't really care. Just something to add to the video box, so that Shakespeare can boast that it is the "WINNER OF EIGHT ACADEMY AWARDS!!!!!!! RENT IT TONIGHT!!!" Beyond that, I think that besides the director catagory, the only other catagory I picked was best song, for Prince of Egypt. Regards, - --Mel - --Mel Eperthener president, Gowanna Multi-media Pty Please support the endeavour of a friend and fellow Australian. Political Corrections by Michael Jaymes Cassidy http://www.angelfire.com/ma/politicalmusings ____________________________________________ Traditionally, most of Australia's imports come from overseas. - -Former Australian cabinet minister Keppell (Kip) Enderby __________________________ [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:42:01 -0700 From: Oz Subject: Re: [MV] Kazan DFN wrote: > > Oz, you are a moron. Been called worse by people with more clue, but I'll leave the name-calling where you left of. > Kazan "ratted" on people who supported one of the > most brutal, despotic tyrants ever to walk the Earth. He did not. He ratted out people that happened to feel socialism has appeal. That, in my opinion, puts him in the same category as McCarthy himself. He didn't have to name names, and those he named weren't "working against the USA" or anything like that. They were just ordinary folks who happened to think Socialism wasn't an evil thing. Ask your local union branch if they agree. > Furthermore, all > he did was publicly name members of a group whose "heroic" members hid > their membership. If they were so prtoud of their sick ideology, why did > they try to hude it? Because admitting it in that era meant never working again. A ridiculous state of affairs. You have to realise that you didn't have to be wearing a red flag on your tit and reading from the book of Mao, giving nazi salutes to be blacklisted, mate. All you had to do was know communists, have been to a meeting with communists or be named as a communist, and that was the end of your career. Go learn to type if you wanna eat. You're defending this? > And consider this: There was no moral distinction between Stalin and > Hitler, yet if Kazan had "exposed" Nazis, all the Hollywood lefties would > be fawning all over him and asking why the Academy took so long to give > him an award. Umm, wow, what a bizarre thing to say. You're saying supporting a system where the wealth is distributed amongst the populace is the same as supporting the genocide of half the world's population. I think maybe you have your wires crossed. > Commies = Nazis = Evil Scum I dare you to walk down into a meeting of your local construction workers union with a t-shirt syaing that. To cut a long story short, Kazan's films were classics, no doubt. He also brought the careers of some great actors about, again no doubt. But the man ended the careers of some equally brilliant folks, out of the sheer desire to save his own ass, and has never once apologised for that to them in public or private. Yes, his films were classics and he added something to Hollywood's growth, but he also took away from Hollywood, and took food from the mouths of friends and their families, by what he did. He could have taken the stage yesterday and admitted to making mistakes. He could have been noble. He could have explained himself. It was the perfect forum to do just that. He could have said "hey, you make mistakes, sorry." But once more he took the easy option and chose to avoid saying the tough stuff. As an aside, Hitler was responsible for the funding of some classic films from Germany during his reign as king nazi-ass. Should we give him an award? I mean, for his films, not for his actions... Of course not. Bravo Ed Harris. Bravo Nick Nolte. Bravo Jim Carrey. Bravo anyone else who refused to applaud and ignore what Kazan has done. At least they have the courage of their convictions that Kazan has never had. ------ {{{OZ}}} ------------------------------------------ "Damn the man, Joe!" -= HOLLYWOOD BITCHSLAP =- ----------- http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com ------------ [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:53:40 -0800 From: "Bruce Bridges" Subject: Re: [MV] Kazan -Reply I don't want to get into a debate about communism but I think everybody = recognizes the horror of Stalin and the millions of he people killed in = cold blood. And I don't think anybody still really believes the soviet = union was not infiltrating the american communist party. It was a fact. = =20 That doesn't excuse the illegal abridgement of party member's civil rights = of course but I think its important that we not whitewash the facts of the = day. I think you'll find the US labor unions would rather forget any past = association with Soviet communism. Of course we wouldn't award hitler for funding certain films but his = leading filmmaker (a lady whose name escapes me... Reifenstein?) has been = honored on numerous occasions including recently in the US. Her films = were just this side of evil but people still chose to recognise the = artistry. I didn't hear a peep from anybody when that was taking place. bb [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 20:59:53 EST From: KenKnows@aol.com Subject: Re: [MV] Kazan In a message dated 3/22/99, bcassidy@usaor.net writes: << I think it's time we GET OVER IT. All of this (the blacklists and such) happened so long ago>> Anyone who was made unemployable by blacklisting will not find it easy to get over it. This is also true for their families and friends and anyone who has empathy for them. But that said, I have some sympathy for your point of view. <> Not true. The Soviet Union killed and jailed in gulags millions of its citizens and tried to spread its oppressive form of dictatorship worldwide through military means. Wherever the Soviet Union succeeded, freedom died. When the puppet governments it controlled wavered, its military invaded and killed the freedom fighters, first in East Germany, then in Hungary, and then in Czechoslovakia. Its brutal aggression in Afghanistan killed many and unleashed Islamic extremists. There was almost a nuclear war over Cuba in 1962, so don't get too revisionist in your rewriting of history. Favorite Cold War films include "One, Two, Three", "Rambo", and "Steel Dawn" [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 01:00:06 -0500 From: Mel Eperthener Subject: Re: [MV] Kazan -Reply OK, I was looking for the best message to reply to. This seems to be it. When I came into work, and saw how many messages were in this thread, I should have known that it would turn ugly. Now, this list is not a place for politics or Cold War beliefs, or anything else besides movies. However, as this relates to Kazan, I think that some facts must be straightened out. Emotions are getting the best of everyone here, and I think we need to step back and look at this objectively. First of all, though it should not be necessary, let me present my credentials, so that you know where I am coming from, and that I know what I am talking about: BA in International Studies. Slowly working on a Master's (in other words, I hope to find the time to go back someday). My original Master's thesis was going to be on the fall of the Berlin Wall. This was in 1987. In 1989, before I could finish the work, it was finished for me when my predictions came true many years too early. (No one thought the System would crumble as quickly as it did, but this fact is important to the argument - and to point out true "revisionist history"). My proposed new thesis is a comparison of the Capitalist and Communist ECONOMIC systems. At 05.53 PM 22/03/99 -0800, Bruce Bridges wrote: >I don't want to get into a debate about communism but I think everybody recognizes the horror of Stalin and the millions of he people killed in cold blood. And I don't think anybody still really believes the soviet union was not infiltrating the american communist party. It was a fact. OK, first question, is how many non-Americans have comtributed to this thread?? I do believe that Blacknight and myself are the only ones (and, truth be told, I do believe that Blacknight has shown the most understanding) The problem that I have noticed is that Americans are unable to grasp that communism is an ECONOMIC system. Of and by itself, communism is not a bad thing. In some ways, in THEORY, it makes perfect sense. Of course, in the real world, economic theory gets thrown out the window; communism goes against just about EVERY facet of human nature. It simply does not work. Communism did not kill 20 million Soviet citizens. The tyrannical Stalinist dictatorship killed 20 million citizens. Yes, Stalin did it trying to force communism down their throats, but this does not make communism a bad thing. As for Kazan, he joined the ACP (American Communist Party) in 1936. He had quit within 18 months. This was during the height of the Depression. Many people saw communism as the saviour, as capitalism had failed them. They knew no better. The Soviets were our friends, WWII was just beginning to evolve from German fustration of the Treaty of Versailles (forgive any mistakes, as I am working from memory), and no one, NO ONE knew of the horrors that Stalin was inflicting on his own people. These are the people that Kazan turned in. He found himself in a different world, where the war was over, communism was the new bugaboo, and fear of the Domino Effect controlled US foreign policy. They came for him, the witch hunters, and they did not care why he had been to ACP meetings nearly 2 decades earlier. They knew that he was there, and they knew that he could be influenced to name names. Who was there for him?? No one. Since then, McCarthy has be revealed to be a bigger danger to the American system of government than the Commies that were feared to be under the beds. And in perhaps the most rational reply, KenKnows had this to say: >Not true. The Soviet Union killed and jailed in gulags millions of its >citizens and tried to spread its oppressive form of dictatorship worldwide >through military means. Wherever the Soviet Union succeeded, freedom died. >When the puppet governments it controlled wavered, its military invaded and >killed the freedom fighters, first in East Germany, then in Hungary, and then >in Czechoslovakia. Its brutal aggression in Afghanistan killed many and >unleashed Islamic extremists. There was almost a nuclear war over Cuba in >1962, so don't get too revisionist in your rewriting of history. Revisionist?? Then why are the communists treated as the Evil Empire, when the US SUPPORTED their overthrow of the Romanovs?? (Actually, I believe that the Bolshakovs overthrew that government, and then the Marxists came in and really mucked things up. However, this was the horse that the Americans were backing). However, having said that, yes, it was a different time, and we know now what we did not knew then. Breshnev's son was recently in Pittsburgh, and spoke of the Cold War. There were missiles in Cuba because the Cubans were more scared of the Americans than the Americans were of the Soviets. Moscow itself knew all along how bad things were, and that they stood no chance going head to head with the Americans. That they held on so long is either a testament to the luck of the Party Leaders in the Kremlin, or to the bumbling along of the Americans. Considering the recent track record of the CIA, I would tend towards the latter. Now, having said that, yes, Stalin killed many people, more than Hitler could ever have aspired to. Pol Pot, Amin, Mao, all amatuers compared to Iron Joe. However, he killed Soviet citizens, and the Freedom Fighters in Eastern Europe. The Americans did not know about the number of purges; they chose not to know. And if the US government was so all-fired against the Soviets and for the Freedom Fighters, why did they stand there when Soviet tanks rolled into Budapest in 1957 and Prague in 1968?? (We'll give them East Germany, as Patton already did that at the end of the War). Was Kazan wrong?? I believe he was. Was he weak?? Definately. Where were his supposed friends?? (Ironic that they showed a scene from Sparticus during the Oscars, where everyone stood together. Why did not all of Hollywood, nay, anyone who believed in true freedom, stand up with Kazan, and say "I am a Communist"?? The more that would stand up, the less power that McCarthy would have.) Again, that was half a century ago. The world has changed again. Yes, people have a right to be pissed at him. Yes, I think he should apologise (if for no other reason than to show that he was bigger than his detractors); I even said that in my original post. And yet, here we are, wasting bandwidth arguing whether an old man deserves to be recognised for his contributions to the film industry because of his political beliefs. And he was wrong. See above: Communism is an ECONOMIC system. Even some Soviets failed to understand that. Pete Rose wants to regain his eligibility to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Espcially since a drug smuggler was elected this year. Where do you stand on this item. If Pete Rose's private life does not have any effect on his baseball ability, should Kazan's ever-changing political beliefs affect his filmmaking ability?? And in an attempt to give this post any hope of staying on-topic (though I feel that it is far too late for that), and to reward anyone that has read this far, go rent Children of the Revolution. It is a comedy (comedy??) about the Australian Communist Party of the same era. It even has F Murray Abraham performing a surprisingly good Stalin. Regards, - --Mel - --Mel Eperthener president, Gowanna Multi-media Pty email: bcassidy@usaor.net gowanna@australiamail.com http://www.webz.com/gowanna 419 Butler Street PO Box 95184 Pittsburgh, PA 15223-0184 (412) 781-6140 (412) 781-6380 1-888-45-GOWANNA -- TOLL FREE (1-888-454-6926) ____________________________________________ "Mulder, if you had to do without a cell phone for two minutes, you'd lapse into catatonic schizophrenia" - --Dana Scully ______________________________________________ [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 01:45:12 EST From: SkipyLlama@aol.com Subject: Re: [MV] Kazan -Reply > I agree. I didn't ask this question to start a fight. I really wanted to > know what you guys thought. I can accept those who have opinions that > don't look like mine. But we don't need to be ugly to each other just > because we don't agree, do we? forgive me if my reply seemed slightly confrontational (I"m not sure if this was directed at me??) but I feel slightly strongly on the subject....... [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 01:49:43 EST From: SkipyLlama@aol.com Subject: Re: [MV] Kazan In a message dated 3/22/99 8:43:20 PM EST, gregorys@xmission.com writes: > Bravo Ed Harris. Bravo Nick Nolte. Bravo Jim Carrey. Bravo anyone else who refused to applaud and ignore what Kazan has done. At least they have the courage of their convictions that Kazan has never had. did Jim Carrey not stand up either?? And, while we're at it, does anyone have some sort of list of who did/didn't applaud?? I'd be VERY interested in seeing that. [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 01:52:52 EST From: SkipyLlama@aol.com Subject: Re: [MV] Kazan -Reply In a message dated 3/22/99 8:55:06 PM EST, Bruce@ffww.com writes: > Of course we wouldn't award hitler for funding certain films but his leading > filmmaker (a lady whose name escapes me... Reifenstein?) has been honored on > numerous occasions including recently in the US. Her films were just this > side of evil but people still chose to recognise the artistry. I didn't hear > a peep from anybody when that was taking place. that's probably b/c she didn't get a lifetime achievment award at the Oscars, probably the biggest honor that the film industry can give. that's sort of like saying "getting a north-east florida journalists' award for best movie about an Elizabethan writer" is the same as shakespeare in love getting best picture....... [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:58:08 -0800 From: Blacknight Subject: Re: [MV] Kazan -Reply Mel Eperthener wrote: > > OK, first question, is how many non-Americans have comtributed to this > thread?? I do believe that Blacknight and myself are the only ones (and, > truth be told, I do believe that Blacknight has shown the most understanding) Thanks Mel for that enlightening email. I do not really understand how people who have never experienced firsthand atrocities could feel strongly compared to those who were the real victims. That ordeal happened fifity years ago and I don't think we should still keep pointing the people who are guilty, the whole thing would be pointless. Mr. Kazan did something wrong and I hope that he has regretted that decision. We all have made many mistakes in our lives but do we stop living because we made blunders along the way? Mr. Kazan is an example of a person who has lead a meaningful life, he was able to overcome his past mistakes and do something great. Half a century ago, Communism was seen as an ideal society, it is only now that we realize that it does not work. What were considered the correct thing to do in the past is not necessarily the correct thing to do in the present. We learn from our past, the sad thing would be is repeating the thing that we already know is wrong. blacknight [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:52:10 -0700 From: jkrudy Subject: [MV] Kazan -- Snakeyes On the topic of Kazan: "He who is without sin cast the first stone." --JESUS CHRIST "That's all I have to say about that." --Forrest Gump On a more relevant (at least to this list) note, I rented Snakeyes the other day. I loved it. The preview made it look like a movie that I would not enjoy, but a friend pressed me into it and I'm glad he did. It was a first rate thriller, and the scene where Cage has to decide to stay with his nature or go against it for the better good, I thought that was pure Shakespearean, and the outcome of that decision was ultimately true to many of Shakespeare's themes. Not saying that it was of Shakespeare's quality it just had a clearly defined turning point as did many of Shakespeare's plays. James K. Rudy [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:44:07 EST From: OldNavyHat@aol.com Subject: [MV] Kazan -- Snakeyes unsubscribe [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 09:02:55 +0800 (HKT) From: Jayson Subject: Re: [MV] MovieJuice! - SPECIAL OSCAR EDITION On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Christi Eilleen Falk wrote: > Best actress?????? Gwenyth Paltrow??????????? > HELLO???????????????????????? > Did anyone else see how undeserving she was in that category??? > The woman(I can't remember her name) who was in that subtitled movie with the > orphan boy, now SHE deserved the oscar! THat was a fantastic performance, and > the transformation from unfeeling hateful woman, to protector of the boy brings > tears to the dryest of eyes. I can't believe she was robbed, all for a woman > who spoke in a british accent, and took off her shirt. Well, hollywood, you all > deserve her! Uhm, IMHO Gwyneth was equally deserving to win (I loved SIL but I was rooting for Cate Blanchett). I haven't seen Central Station, though, so I can't say if Fernanda Montenegro is also good. But Gwyneth still deserves to win. [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:06:25 EST From: KenKnows@aol.com Subject: Re: [MV] MovieJuice! - SPECIAL OSCAR EDITION -Reply In a message dated 3/22/99, Bruce@ffww.com writes: << I would like to go on record as having enjoyed Ms. Paltrow's performance very much and in particular her breasts. >> That reminds me that she also won the Golden Globes award. How appropriate! [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:06:01 EST From: KenKnows@aol.com Subject: Re: [MV] Oscar Quotes In a message dated 3/22/99, gregorys@xmission.com writes: << QUOTE OF THE DAY "Good evening, loyal subjects. I am the African Queen." ---- Oscar host WHOOPI GOLDBERG >> Most of her "humor" that night was in bad taste and just not funny. My favorite quote was when Jim Carey took the stage to announce an award and he started by saying that winning is not important, it's an honor just to be nominated, and then he comedically pretended to break down when he "suddenly" realized that he was not even nominated (although he should have been for The Truman Show). He was much funnier on stage than these words here can describe. [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:05:22 EST From: KenKnows@aol.com Subject: Re: [MV] Kazan & Hope In a message dated 3/22/99, gregorys@xmission.com writes about Kazan: << He could have taken the stage yesterday and admitted to making mistakes. He could have been noble. He could have explained himself. It was the perfect forum to do just that. He could have said "hey, you make mistakes, sorry." But once more he took the easy option and chose to avoid saying the tough stuff.>> Kazan could not say he was sorry because he was not sorry. He still maintains that he did the right thing by naming names. This was learned by listening to an interview that he gave on PBS' National Public Radio in the USA. The interview was given several years ago, but it was rebroadcast hours before he was given his honorary Oscar. If he would have tried to explain on stage why he still thinks he was right, he could actually have been booed, so it is just as well that he did not try to give a political speech that night which would have embarrassed the people who awarded him that Oscar. A better choice for an honorary Oscar in 1999 would have been Bob Hope, whose first job was as a boxer. If he would have continued in that career, maybe he could have been a contender, but I am happy with his final choice of careers. Bob, thanks for the memories. [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:36:35 -0700 From: Oz Subject: Re: [MV] Kazan -Reply I agree with most all of what Mel said, but I feel some important points need to be put forward. Did a little research today on the whole episode, not hard since it's a big topic of discussion. I was unaware, until today, that the McCarthy hearings had just about dried up when Kazan decided to name names. Nobody had enough dirt on anybody to really sustain what was going on, and nearly every big Hollywood name that was dragged before the committee had stood tall and told McCarthy they would not allow themselves, their industry and their colleagues to be treated in such an UnAmerican manner in what was essentially an illegal proceeding. A few folks here and there had caved and named a few odds and sods, but MCCarthy had nothing to go on and was looking at embarrassing defeat. Roll in Mr Kazan. Kazan had, a few years earlier, written in his autobiography that he would "never take part in such a barabaric display of lost freedom". He'd said so publicly. He was aware of what it would mean to all concerned to start naming the people he had known to have been involved in the Communist movement some 20 years earlier. He knew full well. But he relented and named names. Not a few. Not a dozen or so as I had believed, but in actual fact he named hundreds. From two bit actors you'd never have seen, to agents, to producers, to the biggest names in the business. Oscar winners, friends, women, people with families. Those people were run out of the business on account of Kazan, one of the biggest names in the biz at the time, having dropped them in a hole. Some of them, like Mr Gordon, who organised yesterday's Oscars picket, went from successful screenwriter to having to work in a plastics factory to make ends meet. More than a few took their own lives, seeing that without their art they had nothing else. Did you know that the Oscar awarded to Bridge On The River Kwai for screenwriting, was accepted by a Frenchman who did not even speak English, let alone write the script? The actual two writers of the award-winning classic had to do so anonymously because after Kazan they were not allowed to work. Yes, Mr Kazan made some classic films. But who knows how many potential classic films were destroyed by his actions. How many Bridge On The River Kwai's went unmade because their makers had attended a communist meeting twenty years earlier and sat alongside Kazan? If you want to give an award to someone for services to the film world and the film industry, give one to all those people who, even faced with jail, stood up to Mr McCarthy and thumbed their nose at him. The ones who stood there and told the world "this is a gross deprivation of the freedom of thought the US constitution deems I am entitled to and I will not take part. Sue me, jail me, kill me, but I shall not help you crucify good people like this." This isn't a case of "oops, he made a mistake". People were ruined. Lives destroyed. Reuptations disintegrated. Great film talents lost forever. Kazan knew all this would happen before he said a word, and he did it anyway. It was also the greatest career move he ever made. Sure, Kazan is an old man and I can understand those who look upon him sympathetically and say "give the guy a break". But is he too old to finally apologise for making a career on the ruins of his friends lives? If we forget the past, we're doomed to repeat it. - ------ {{{OZ}}} ------------------------------------------ "Damn the man, Joe!" -= HOLLYWOOD BITCHSLAP =- - ----------- http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com ------------ [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:45:28 -0700 From: The Reporter Subject: [MV] Movie News - 03/23/99 LOS ANGELES (AP) - The Academy Awards were a lot like a Roberto Benigni acceptance speech: long, full of surprises and sometimes difficult to understand. Four-plus Oscar hours Sunday night - the longest ceremony ever- narrowly favored the Bard over blood and love over war, as the romantic romp "Shakespeare in Love" reaped seven awards, including best picture and best actress for Gwyneth Paltrow. The violent World War II epic "Saving Private Ryan" won five Oscars, including the directing award for Steven Spielberg in an unusual - though hardly unprecedented - split between best picture and best director. But it was Benigni who charmed the audience with his exuberance in pulling off a stunning first: winning as best actor in a foreign film for "Life is Beautiful." -=> * <=- LOS ANGELES (AP) - A best-selling author is suing the makers of the Oscar-winning film "Shakespeare in Love," claiming they stole the tale of a lovelorn bard from her 1989 Elizabethan era-novel "The Quality of Mercy." Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard won the best original screenplay Oscar for the movie Sunday. Novelist Faye Kellerman sued them in federal court March 16, less than a week before the Academy Awards. "It's interesting that it won the award, but as I said in the complaint it should have been for best adapted screenplay," Barry Novak, Kellerman's attorney, said Monday. Named in the lawsuit are Norman and Stoppard, Miramax Film Corp. Inc., Universal City Studios Inc. and script publisher Hyperion Press Inc. -=> * <=- NEW YORK (AP) - Without "Titanic," the Oscar telecast sank in the ratings. Sunday night's telecast drew a 32 rating and 49 share in Nielsen Media Research's overnight estimate of 44 top media markets. That's a 21% drop from the comparable ratings in 1998, when the blockbuster "Titanic" dominated the awards. An estimated 70 million Americans watched some or all of the longest Academy Awards show ever, said Larry Hyams, vice president of audience analysis for ABC. Last year, the total was 87 million. The overnight ratings were off 4% from 1997, when "The English Patient" captured the most awards. -=> * <=- LOS ANGELES (AP) - He danced across seat backs and hopped up the stage steps before grabbing two Oscars and the dazed, delighted heart of Hollywood. Roberto Benigni made Academy history Sunday night by winning a best actor Oscar as the star of a foreign language film. "Life Is Beautiful," which he directed and wrote, also won best foreign film and dramatic musical score. "How do you say, it's the hailstorm of kindness of gratitude for you," enthused Benigni, whose exuberant Italian accent and animated body language pulled a celebrity audience not easily impressed to its feet. Presenter Sophia Loren praised "a dear Italian friend" before announcing Benigni's first win of the evening. Famous in Italy, but little-known here, Benigni popped up, jumped atop seat backs and stepped over heads. [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 09:39:30 -0400 From: Enrique Bird Subject: RE: [MV] Kazan -Reply Not only that but we have to remember that in the mid-1930s both the U.S. and Great Britain were perceived as being indifferent to the advances of fascism and nazism in Europe. Only communism seemed to stand in the way of these. And the Great Depression did not make people excatly confident of the virtues of capitalism and democracy. I know people from the U.S. who joined or sympathized heavily with the Communist Party in that era. They became disenchanted when the U.S.S.R - Germany non-aggression pact was announced. There were, in a way, 3 tendencies: 1. Those who after the pact became disillusioned forever with communism. 2. Those who regained their "faith" when Germany attacked the U.S.S.R. in June 1941. Remember, U.S. and British propaganda praised the Soviets and even referred "fondly" to Uncle Joe (Stalin). It is easy to overlook this fact. Many of these later became as disillusioned as those in 1. above. Others could be said to turn into 3. . 3. Those who were hard-liners all the time. Notice that those in 1. and most of those in 2. were never involved in treasonable acts (unless being a Communist was a treasonable act!). Even most in 3. were never traitors. A married couple from that era (I was born in 1950!) told me about how tense things were during this period. Although from those who became disillusioned, all were afraid that someone would tell on them. As they were college professors, their jobs were at risk. And they had several friends who DID lose such things and more because of the scare. Mr. Kazan may have been a great director but what he did was frankly contemptible and scornful; no honor to him. Enrique Bird enfbirdp@coqui.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Oz [SMTP:gregorys@xmission.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 12:37 AM > To: Movies Mailing List > Subject: Re: [MV] Kazan -Reply > > I agree with most all of what Mel said, but I feel some important > points need to be put forward. > > Did a little research today on the whole episode, not hard since > it's a big topic of discussion. > > I was unaware, until today, that the McCarthy hearings had just > about dried up when Kazan decided to name names. Nobody had enough > dirt on anybody to really sustain what was going on, and nearly > every big Hollywood name that was dragged before the committee had > stood tall and told McCarthy they would not allow themselves, their > industry and their colleagues to be treated in such an UnAmerican > manner in what was essentially an illegal proceeding. A few folks > here and there had caved and named a few odds and sods, but MCCarthy > had nothing to go on and was looking at embarrassing defeat. > > Roll in Mr Kazan. > > Kazan had, a few years earlier, written in his autobiography that he > would "never take part in such a barabaric display of lost freedom". > He'd said so publicly. He was aware of what it would mean to all > concerned to start naming the people he had known to have been > involved in the Communist movement some 20 years earlier. He knew > full well. > > But he relented and named names. Not a few. Not a dozen or so as I > had believed, but in actual fact he named hundreds. From two bit > actors you'd never have seen, to agents, to producers, to the > biggest names in the business. Oscar winners, friends, women, people > with families. > > Those people were run out of the business on account of Kazan, one > of the biggest names in the biz at the time, having dropped them in > a hole. Some of them, like Mr Gordon, who organised yesterday's > Oscars picket, went from successful screenwriter to having to work > in a plastics factory to make ends meet. More than a few took their > own lives, seeing that without their art they had nothing else. > > Did you know that the Oscar awarded to Bridge On The River Kwai for > screenwriting, was accepted by a Frenchman who did not even speak > English, let alone write the script? The actual two writers of the > award-winning classic had to do so anonymously because after Kazan > they were not allowed to work. > > Yes, Mr Kazan made some classic films. But who knows how many > potential classic films were destroyed by his actions. How many > Bridge On The River Kwai's went unmade because their makers had > attended a communist meeting twenty years earlier and sat alongside > Kazan? > > If you want to give an award to someone for services to the film > world and the film industry, give one to all those people who, even > faced with jail, stood up to Mr McCarthy and thumbed their nose at > him. The ones who stood there and told the world "this is a gross > deprivation of the freedom of thought the US constitution deems I am > entitled to and I will not take part. Sue me, jail me, kill me, but > I shall not help you crucify good people like this." > > This isn't a case of "oops, he made a mistake". People were ruined. > Lives destroyed. Reuptations disintegrated. Great film talents lost > forever. > > Kazan knew all this would happen before he said a word, and he did > it anyway. It was also the greatest career move he ever made. > > Sure, Kazan is an old man and I can understand those who look upon > him sympathetically and say "give the guy a break". But is he too > old to finally apologise for making a career on the ruins of his > friends lives? > > If we forget the past, we're doomed to repeat it. > > ------ {{{OZ}}} ------------------------------------------ > "Damn the man, Joe!" -= HOLLYWOOD BITCHSLAP =- > ----------- http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com ------------ > > > [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] > [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ] [ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ] ------------------------------ End of movies-digest V2 #174 **************************** [ To quit the movies-digest mailing list (big mistake), send the message ] [ "unsubscribe movies-digest" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ]