Comments on: Pass Me A Grapefruit

By: Mr B

Mr B — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:43:13 +0000

Everyone should get an Oscar for participating.

I suspect that Andrew’s comment on Mo’nique stem’s from the problem created by the Lefts war on Merit (did she earn it?). I find Affirmative Action offensive. And in Leftist centered environments, like Hollywood and the Oscars, one might expect to see a “token gesture”; just to make them feel better about themselves (and inclusive). The problem with that is that it is not based on merit then, it is based on skin color (racism).

If Mo’nique acted brilliantly then she needs to be rewarded on merit and not anything other than that. That problem stems from the racist policy created by the Left.

So, I find Danielle’s OUTRAGE amusing. Is it based on an unfair assessment of merit or a criticism of a leftist racist policy?

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:17:22 +0000

If actress’ continue to ask to be callled an “actor” in interviews, why not eliminate the best actress category? For the last ten years I have noticed this phenomenon becoming more accepted. Since there are no more that ten outstanding performances a year between both categories, why not? Besides, it would speed up the show!

These days all we have are actors and actresses, sadly no movie stars.

By: Will Bower

Will Bower — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 03:44:11 +0000

Ps, I listened to the interview once more, Danielle, and it sounds as if Andrew is referring to the film “Precious” as a whole… and not to Mo’Nique’s performance. As much as I prefer “Precious” (and “Up”) to most of the other nominees, I believe Andrew is correct insofar as his belief that the film (and not the acting) has little chance of winning, at least against the likes of “Avatar” and/or “The Hurt Locker”.

By: Will Bower

Will Bower — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 03:30:28 +0000

Having just listened to the WTVN interview:

Firstly, I think Andrew has nothing to worry about re: Sandra Bullock. I think she’s a shoe-in for Best Actress.

As for his take on “Precious”, Danielle, I don’t believe there’s anything racist in his assessment. I do believe, however, that Mo’Nique will be giving her acceptance speech in about, oh, 46 hours from the time of this posting.

With the exception of Best Pic and Best Director, I think the other six of the Big Eight are nearly set in stone… Bridges, Bullock, Waltz, Mo’Nique… with Screenplays going to “Inglourious Basterds” (Original) and “Up in the Air” (Adapted).

As for Best Pic and Best Director, I agree with Andrew that a split this year is most likely, with “Avatar” for Pic, and Bigelow for Director.

By: Danielle Polemeni

Danielle Polemeni — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 03:07:27 +0000

To hear Andrew Klavan’s radio interview from this morning where he refers to Mo’Nique, not the film Precious, as a “token nomination,” paste this long link to your browser: http://www.610wtvn.com/cc-common/mediaplayer/player.html?redir=yes&mps=bconyourpc.php&mid=http://media.ccomrcdn.com/media/station_content/1279/andrew.klavin.mar4_1267713170_20669.mp3?CPROG=PCAST?CCOMRRMID&CPROG=RICHMEDIA&MARKET=COLUMBUS-OH&NG_FORMAT=newstalk&NG_ID=wtvn610am&OR_NEWSFORMAT=&OWNER=&SERVER_NAME=www.610wtvn.com&SITE_ID=1279&STATION_ID=WTVN-AM&TRACK=

Thank you, Will, for your astute comments.

By: Will Bower

Will Bower — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:52:59 +0000

Coloradan:

In “Precious”, people do indeed step in to help Precious… namely Ms. Rain (Paula Patton) and Mrs. Weiss (Mariah Carey). In the case of the latter (Mrs. Weiss), she is indeed within the welfare system which you mention.

I would say that the end of “Precious” is indeed uplifting. Precious decides to take responsibility for both her children and to walk away from her abusive home situation. As grueling as it was to get there, the end made me feel as if good decisions were ultimately made and that hope was once again a possibility.

By: Wes

Wes — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:46:48 +0000

Yes that’s my take.

By: CarryingColoradan

CarryingColoradan — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:39:11 +0000

I don’t think you need to see a movie (e.g., “Precious”) to opine that it’s dumb. While it’s true that there is nothing laughable about the situation portrayed, the movie shows nothing uplifting. It’s pretty much a complete downer, which is nihilistic. Consider “The Blind Side” by contrast. The young man has a pretty crappy upbringing, too, but in this case, somebody else steps in to help him. (Sucks that the Tuohys are (1) rich, (2) hard workers, (3) white, and (4) Christian, huh?!) Doesn’t the welfare system exist, nominally, to provide that uplift for the downtrodden? And yet it hasn’t done so, in either movie. Is there a point to making a movie that portrays a lousy situation, if not to try to rectify it in some way? But how does portraying that situation as utterly hopeless right up to the credits help?

There’s enough misery out there that you don’t need to waste two hours or more in a theater to see it; you can actually go out and do something about it.

By: K

Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:38:04 +0000

What I want to know is what the researchers at the UCLA Center for the Study of Men have to say. . . . . . . wait.

By: captain grumpy

captain grumpy — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:34:55 +0000

Well,I have never heard of such a waste of money as a “centre for the study of women” .What a bunch of egotistacal self serving people they must be.
I think I will change that last para to read “egotEsticle women”.
Where is the centre for the study of men,or would that be sexist.
Why are women so full of themselves ???