The Oscars

The Oscars are about to begin. Here's a thread to discuss. Neil Patrick Harris is hosting. The red carpet hosts were unwatchable, where do they find these people? Even Robin Roberts is way too over-animated and seems phony.I hope the show is better.

Best Picture:

  • American Sniper
  • Birdman
  • Boyhood
  • The Grand Budapest Hotel
  • The Imitation Game
  • Selma
  • The Theory of Everything
  • Whiplash


Lady Gaga:

< Sunday Open Thread | Bali Ticket Sales Decline from #BoycottBali Campaign >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Were any of you aware of the (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Anne on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 08:57:16 PM EST
    #AskHerMore campaign in connection with the Red Carpet and the questions posed to women?

    One of the big questions female celebrities hear on the red carpet of any awards show is "Who are you wearing?"

    While everyone is curious about the gorgeous gowns flowing through the event, Reese Witherspoon and other stars are trying to change the conversation to include more. Through the hashtag #AskHerMore, celebrities and numerous Twitter and Facebook users are encouraging red-carpet reporters to ask women questions about things other than style, like their career, aspirations and challenges.


    "This is a movement to say we're more than just our dresses," Witherspoon explained to ABC's Robin Roberts on the Oscars red carpet Sunday. "This is a group of women - 44 nominees this year that are women - and we're so happy to be here and talk about the work that we're done."

    "It's hard being a woman in Hollywood or any industry, so it's exciting for me to talk to other nominees about all the hard work they did," she added.

    More celebrities are joining Witherspoon in the call to #AskHerMore, posting pleas on their social networks for the ladies of film to get thought-provoking and inspiring questions.

    Have to say...the coverage I saw on "E" didn't get that message.  At all.  Nor did Ryan Seacrest on ABC.

    they are asked about other things (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 09:41:59 PM EST
    They are asked about what they are wearing since most of them get the dresses and jewelry on loan for free. This is how the designers are paid -- with publicity. It's not a sexist thing.

    It's called Red Carpet for a reason -- it's a showcase for looks and style. That's the purpose. I really didn't need to know that Patricia Arquette missed her manicure today to stay home and work on a website she's creating that offers a sweepstakes of some sort for a program she's promoting. I was more interested in her saying her best friend designed her dress.


    Well, clearly there are some (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 09:36:03 AM EST
    women walking the red carpet who do feel it's sexist - should we tell them they are wrong to feel that way?

    This year at the Screen Actors Guild Awards, Jennifer Aniston, Julianne Moore and Reese Witherspoon all refused to put their hands in E!'s famous mani-cam. This is after the 2014 Golden Globes when Elizabeth Moss flipped off the mani-cam. At last year's SAG awards, Cate Blanchett called out an E! camera operator panning up her body to show off her dress, asking if he does that to the guys. The red carpet itself is optional and celebrities can skip it entirely if they so choose, but it is also becoming optional to answer questions one dislikes. For example, Nicole Kidman refused to answer Ryan Seacrest when he asked her who she was wearing at the Grammys, and went as far as pretending she didn't understand the question. "I don't know what to say," she responded.

    What a Bold Move... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:05:58 AM EST
    ...instead of just passing on the red carpet or wearing pants and a jacket, they decided to buck up and refuse to show their manicured hands to the camera.  But not their first time, or second time, they all decide to take this bold stand when they are no longer the centers of attention.

    If only women throughout the whole planet could take such a awe inspiring stand and refuse to name their designer of their dress that probably exceeds the annual salaries of 20% of the people on the planet...

    A bold move would be skipping the entire debacle, passing on the red carpet, or anything that has some sort of risk.  Refusing to do something men would never do isn't exactly hitting one out of the park.

    I find the whole dog and pony show just an enormous waste of resources whose only function is to stroke the delicate egos of Hollywood while simultaneously displaying their enormous wealth to folks who have none.


    I'm sure the outfts' cost (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:51:26 AM EST
     exceed the annual income of a lot more than 20% of people on the planet, but so what?

      I don't watch the awards show because I don't care who wins, let alone what the people are wearing, but it all seems rather harmless in the overall scheme of things.

      I don't perceive any resources being wasted that would otherwise be used to benefit the planet or its inhabitants. Another function beyond ego stroking is to sell advertising and if the shows did not perform that function well, there would not be so many of these shows broadcast. Without question there is an audience for stargazing and watching famous pretty people preen for the camera.

      It would seem that most of  audience is not offended by the ostentatious displays of wealth and glamour (and many probably like to live vicariously imagining themselves all dolled up as the center of attention. Another segment of the audience seems to get a lot of enjoyment from  either mocking the spectacle or complaining about some triviality.  

      Seems like a win/win to me.


    Pretty Sure... (none / 0) (#81)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 11:57:57 AM EST
    ...a winner can be determined without all the decadence.  But then who would watch...

    The rest pretty much supports what I said.  And the stargazing is a media creation, much like opposing politics that serves little purpose than making people believe they need to stay tuned because they say it's important.

    FYI advertizing does not benefit anyone other than the people who aren't being fleeced of their hard earned incomes.

    You clearly are a good corporate citizen, this is important stuff, a 'win/win' for everyone.


    Of all the negative manifestations (none / 0) (#109)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 02:12:24 PM EST
    of our culture, yes, I'd rank these little soirees as harmless fun for people who enjoy that kind of thing.

       And, as I implied, it also gives those like  you an opportunity to feel smugly superior to the shallow stars, sycophants, and starstruck viewers, all while making money-- which is a legitimate objective.

      So, yes, a win/win.



    Spot on, Recon. (none / 0) (#156)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:38:35 PM EST
    I enjoy whinging about and sneering at the conspicuous consumption (or more likely, rental) as much as others enjoy watching the spectacle.  

    As you so astutely observed, it really is a win/win.

    Wondering how quickly most of those photogenic phools will lose it all or be fleeced by their managers and hangers-on, is just icing on the cake.


    I think you show your ignorance of the arts (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by nycstray on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:59:47 PM EST
    there. Many of those we saw last night have quite an investment in their craft. It is their life and their lively hood. They aren't just "photogenic boobs". And most are deeply grateful to be able to work and support themselves doing what they were born to do.

    I'm not "showing" ignorance of anything. (none / 0) (#176)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 02:21:45 PM EST
    Like Recon said, it's win/win.  Everybody gets what they want.  I'm sneering at pride and crass materialism and you're sneering at me.  

    If you want to feel for actors who are actually practicing their craft, feel it for the people who never make it to the red carpet, who drudge away their lives temping so they can play tiny theatres or pile up pointless postgrad theatre degrees, anything to stay close to what they love.  Feel it for the actors who work with out a net - stage actors, not a bunch of stars seldom have to "Act" for more than thirty seconds straight and whose every incompetence is corrected by technology and sleight of hand.

    If you really want to feel for people practicing their craft then feel for the unseen armies of technical people who make modern cinema possible.


    Because those 'stars' never had it hard (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by nycstray on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 03:06:10 PM EST
    a day in their life while getting to where they are . . . and now have it oh so easy they barely have to "Act". . . . yup, you're not showing any ignorance.

    And I was thinking of the whole industry, which I am familiar with . . .  but responding to your 'photogenic boobs' slur, which I'm sure Streep or Moore (and many, many others) would find amusing . . .


    I didn't use the phrase, photogenic boobs, (none / 0) (#186)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 10:25:25 PM EST

    As I've said often, many of the brushfires on this island of civility are caused by people who do not or carelessly read.


    How dare you. TL is absolutely not (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 11:05:33 PM EST
    an island of docility.

    My apologies, "phools" (none / 0) (#188)
    by nycstray on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 11:57:03 PM EST
    and I DID read it a couple times since I was using it. My brain must just transposed it after it auto corrected a couple times . . .  

    Often said, eh?


    I believe (none / 0) (#181)
    by sj on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 02:54:41 PM EST
    I'm not "showing" ignorance of anything. (none / 0) (#176)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 01:21:45 PM MDT
    that you don't intend to be showing anything.

    Please don't be an a$$, Scott... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 11:10:18 AM EST
    do you really think women should have to hide themselves away, or dress as drably as possible in order to be taken seriously?  Is the price a woman pays for looking nice that she gets to be treated like an object without a brain in her head?

    Guess some men still think so.


    I don't think the women having to hide (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by vml68 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 12:53:20 PM EST
    themselves away or dress drably are the only two options. They can buy something really nice off the rack.
    But, as Jeralyn pointed out, they get to wear designer clothes and jewelry for free in exchange for advertising.  Essentially, they are billboards and should not be turning their noses up at questions about who/what they are wearing. Having said that, the questions asked should not be limited to just clothes.

    I have never heard of the mani-cam before. Probably, because I don't watch the red carpet on TV. I just look at the pictures on the internet the next day.
    The cynic in me wonders if the objection to the mani-cam is because your hands tend to reveal your age. Botox/plastic surgery can make your face look younger (or give you that hideous frozen look/Joker smile) but you can't do much about the hands.


    Not Being an A$$... (3.50 / 2) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 11:39:54 AM EST
    ...but if a guy shows up in spandex, can he really get offended when the camera pans up and down.  That was my point.

    And are you suggesting a woman can't look good without being is something revealing and/or tight.  And I am the a$$. OK.


    I was happy to see Patricia Arquette win ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 11:25:26 PM EST
    ... as Best Supporting Actress for Boyhood. I was also happy to see that nobody was complaining about the rain, which Southern California really needs right now.

    lol; You're expecting brainswaves (none / 0) (#26)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 09:05:45 PM EST
    from eraserheads?  

    Who's idea of progress (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 09:09:08 PM EST
    is only asking men what they wear too.

    Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was robbed.  


    Why should they bother asking the men? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 03:42:46 PM EST
    After all, for the most part they all have the same thing on -- a tux. And unless one is wearing Bermuda shorts and tennis shoes with the starched jacket and frou-frou shirt, there's nothing at all memorable about the men at these events.

    There were some interesting ones this year (none / 0) (#133)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:25:32 PM EST
    I think Jared Leto (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 09:05:04 PM EST
    is very hot.

    You sir, are correct as usual. (none / 0) (#37)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 10:44:37 PM EST
    But that hirsutism and white tux and shoes? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 12:56:44 AM EST
    Once I lock in on those eyes...I'm a goner (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 05:27:58 AM EST
    Fine tailoring (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:11:17 AM EST
    whilst exuberantly haired is an old and venerated tradition.

    He was beautiful in Dallas Buyers Club. (none / 0) (#56)
    by vml68 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 09:05:56 AM EST
    IMO, not so hot yesterday at the Oscars.

    I thought this was kinda funny.


    omg (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 10:23:17 PM EST
    Lady Gaga doing a Sound of Music tribute.


    You're (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 06:51:25 AM EST
    not the only one who thinks that. She lit up social media with that.

    I did not know Lady Gaga had (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by caseyOR on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 10:23:30 PM EST
    such an amazing  vocal range. Perhaps I just have not listened to enough of her music, but I will now.

    And I always love seeing Julie Andrews.

    She went to Tisch (none / 0) (#57)
    by CST on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 09:09:38 AM EST
    Left school to become a popstar.

    She is a pretty impressive piano player as well and has some performances of her just singing and playing on youtube, without any of the "extra" stuff.


    See my YouTube link (none / 0) (#67)
    by Slado on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:10:15 AM EST
    below from Stern Show.

    Amazing solo performance on a piano from her.


    Has anyone seen Whiplash? (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 07:21:08 PM EST
    Looks very interesting but I haven't spoken to anyone who has actually seen it.

    The only movie on the list that (none / 0) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 07:32:54 PM EST
    I've seen to date is Imitation Game which I thought was very, very good.

    A prediction by USA Today had Boyhood as the winner.


    It will most likely (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 07:46:37 PM EST
    be Birdman or Boyhood.  I'm thinkin Birdman and maybe the director for Boyhood.  Which make a kind of sense.  I think Boyhood was a better idea than movie.  Although I liked it.

    FWIW The same USA article (none / 0) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 08:09:44 PM EST
    Had one I never heard of for best director.

    Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu

    The recent Directors Guild of America award went to Iñárritu, which signals a likely win among academy members, given the overlap between memberships. Winners of the DGA have won the directing Oscar for the last 66 years all but seven times. (The film was also the choice of the Producers Guild of America.) The Mexican-born director's technical prowess dazzled industry insiders, especially the way in which he made the film appear as if it were one long tracking shot (with the magic of editing). His bold realist film was a major creative achievement.


    Good win (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 10:54:06 PM EST
    i like him

    No, I haven't (none / 0) (#3)
    by Zorba on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 07:35:02 PM EST
    But I'm rooting for either Selma or The Imitation Game.
    Hated American Sniper, and really didn't all that much care for Birdman or Boyhood.  I do recognize that they are good, actually great, movies, but I thought that they were both too.....I don't even know the words I want to use.  "Gimmicky" isn't really right.  But one movie shot as if it was done in a single take, and the other taking twelve years to make.......they both seemed to me to have been made more to impress industry insiders with how avant garde and creative the writers/directors/producers were, than to just make a compelling movie.

    I really liked Birdman (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 07:43:58 PM EST
    but I hope Imitation Game wins.  (I don't think it will)

    I don't think it will, either (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Zorba on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 07:57:20 PM EST
    But I think that the story of Alan Turing is an exceptionally important story to tell.  And it was a great film.  Plus, I love Benedict Cumberbatch.  ;-)
    Regarding Selma, it was a great film, too, and I also think that David Oyelowo should have received a nomination for best actor.

    Did you see (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Zorba on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 08:43:20 PM EST
    The Sesame Street parody of Birdman?

    Over directed is the word Zorba... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by fishcamp on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 08:33:31 PM EST
    Thank you, fishcamp (none / 0) (#19)
    by Zorba on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 08:40:00 PM EST
    I think that's the exact word I was looking for.
    To me, the mark of a great director is that you do not notice the direction in his or her movie.
    With both Birdman and Boyhood, while I did appreciate the acting, the premises, and even the artistry, I kept thinking "I see what you're doing here."  And that is not optimal for a film.

    Consider yourself spoken to, Cap'n. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 07:36:42 PM EST
    Catch Whiplash on DVD / BluRay / Netflix. J.K. Simmons dominates this film.

    Okay, let's get this going. Here are my Oscar picks (not necessarily my favorites) for tonight:

    • Best Picture - Birdman
    • Best Director - Richard Linklater, Boyhood
    • Best Actress - Julianne Moore, Still Alice
    • Best Actor - Eddie Redmayne, The Theory of Everything
    • Best Supporting Actress - Patricia Arquette, Boyhood
    • Best Supporting Actor - J.K. Simmons, Whiplash
    • Best Foreign Language Film - Ida, Poland
    • Best Original Song - "Glory," Selma


    I really like Simmons (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 07:42:25 PM EST
    I'm watching The Jinx until I can FF through the commercials and musical numbers.

    Except maybe Lady Gaga.


    Excellent (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 08:01:22 PM EST
    Simmons wins.  Great character actor for many years.

    Poland wins its first Oscar ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 08:25:54 PM EST
    ... with Ida as Best Foreign Language Film, which is an excellent choice although I thought personally that Russia's Leviathan was its equal. And it's good to see J.K. Simmons be recognized and rewarded, since he's one of the great character actors of our generation.

    We loved Ida (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 08:40:06 PM EST
    Really loved it. Glad to see it win.

    "Poland" has won many Oscars. (none / 0) (#23)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 08:47:05 PM EST
    Starting with an Honorary award for the animation for Fantasia in 1942 and most recently Best Foreign Language film for In Darkness (2011).

    the news says it's Poland's first (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 09:31:41 PM EST
    The Guardian:

    Ida, directed by Poland's Paweł Pawlikowski, has won the Oscar for best foreign language film, defeating the much-fancied Russian anti-Putin satire Leviathan, and becoming the first Polish film to win the award.

    In Darkness was nominated by didn't win. "In a Better World" won. This seems to be the first "best foreign language film" win for a Polish film.


    It sounds like this is "Poland's" (none / 0) (#78)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 11:36:51 AM EST
    first win in this particular Oscar category.

    Boy, did this year's race become predictable! (none / 0) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 11:19:11 PM EST
    I got all my calls above right, save for Best Director.

    I caught 20 minutes of it while I was waiting to (none / 0) (#13)
    by McBain on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 08:10:13 PM EST
    see "Interstellar".  I was very tempting to stay and watch the rest of Whiplash but, being such a sci fi fan, I had to do the outer space thing.

    I saw and enjoyed it. (none / 0) (#15)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 08:14:09 PM EST
    As a drummer, it reminded me of why I hated playing in jazz band in school.

    I guess I'm the only one who saw it. (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 11:59:33 PM EST
    Disturbing. He was waaay over the top. It requires one to suspend their disbelief more than I was willing or able to do. Some parts I loved. Ultimately a disquieting, but not a great, movie, imo.

    The 35th Annual Golden Raspberry Awards ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 08:02:34 PM EST
    ... were announced yesterday in Los Angeles. As usual, the competition was much fiercer than its counterpart Academy Awards, since there are always oodles of bad films and performances from which to choose. Here are this year's recipients:

    • Worst Picture - Saving Christmas
    • Worst Director - Michael Bay, Transformers: Age of Extinction
    • Worst Actor - Kirk Cameron, Saving Christmas
    • Worst Actress - Cameron Diaz, The Other Woman AND Sex Tape
    • Worst Supporting Actor - Kelsey Grammar, The Expendables 3 AND Transformers: Age of Extinction
    • Worst Supporting Actress - Megan Fox, Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turles
    • Worst Prequel, Sequel, Remake or Ripoff - Annie
    • Worst Screenplay - Darren Doane, Saving Christmas
    • The Razzie Redeemer Award - Ben Affleck, from a Razzie for Gigli to an Oscar for Argo


    Aw, come on, Donald (none / 0) (#11)
    by Zorba on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 08:08:45 PM EST
    The Raspberries are like taking candy from a baby.
    No challenge there, just too easy.    ;-)
    So many choices.......

    There was a challenge. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 08:32:51 PM EST
    I mean, how do you choose Kirk Cameron as worst actor over Seth MacFarlane for A Million Ways To Die in the West, or Nicholas Cage in Left Behind? And was Cameron Diaz's performance release worse than Drew Barrymore's onscreen faceplant in Blended?

    LOL! (none / 0) (#21)
    by Zorba on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 08:41:03 PM EST
    Have at it, my brother!

    Michael Bay could win every year (none / 0) (#14)
    by McBain on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 08:12:34 PM EST
    The only film of his I could tolerate was The Rock.

    He could, although ... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 11:12:15 PM EST
    ... Jerry Bruckheimer would likely give him an annual run for the title, if he directed more feature films. Pearl Harbor gets my vote as perhaps the cheesiest war movie made during the last 25 years, if not the sloppiest In one instance, the editors forgot to airbrush the USS Arizona Memorial out of a scene that had Japanese dive bombers plunging down in an attack on Battleship Row.

    While waiting for more (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 09:50:37 PM EST
    commercial and production number lead time I find out Walking Dead has some interesting new gay cast members.

    Yep (none / 0) (#159)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 02:46:16 AM EST
    Their storyline and how they encounter a reluctant Rick is right out of the comic.  I was wondering how they were going to or if they were going to use this storyline but again it is very similar to the comic.  

    Now when they open the door...?

    Rick is really struggling with trust after being burned at Terminus and it will be a major issue for him I think to accept that he's somewhere he doesn't have to be the alpha dog at anymore.   Plus none of these "leaders" of communities or groups has been a good person so far so I'm sure we are in for some interesting episodes.


    I can't believe my ears... (none / 0) (#31)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 10:00:26 PM EST
    "Citizen Four", a documentary about Edward Snowden, won the Oscar.

    There was a moving acceptance speech by one of the recipients who mentioned the dangers of our government, working in secret, undermining our freedoms.

    This was followed by the idiot Master of Ceremonies, one Neil P. Harris, who intoned:

    "The subject of this film, Edward Snowden, could not be here tonight for some treason."

    A new low.

    I turned it off.

    Just a little word play joke... (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 10:17:49 AM EST
    "offensive" humor is an Oscars tradition, even Sean Penn got in on the act.

    What's offensive is Snowden is still a wanted man instead of a pardoned man being nominated for a Medal of Freedom.

    Got to watch the doc last night on HBO...my respect for Snowden, Greenwald, & Laura Poitras has reached new heights.  Especially Ed Snowden...the film humanized him and his selfless sacrifices for humankind.  I recommend to all.


    I recorded it, and will watch it (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 10:42:12 AM EST
    tonight.  I caught it about 15 minutes in, and decided since it was going to be on again later, that I would record from the beginning and watch it all of a piece.

    I just didn't think it was particularly funny, after what I considered to be a moving acceptance speech, for Doogie to smirk out a pun about treason.  It didn't mock Snowden, it mocked what Laura Poitras and her collaborators created at significant personal risk in what I would regard as noble service to their country.

    It would have been more appropriate, in my opinion, for Harris to snark out a quip about the NSA, which would have supported Poitras' well-deserved honor, not detracted from it.


    I'd hardly call it a clever joke... (none / 0) (#162)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 10:56:00 AM EST
    but it was clearly just a pun, and not a political statement on Doogie's part imo.  

    You will like the doc Anne...it really gives a window into Snowden's noble intentions, and discredits the arguments that he is/was an attention seeker or had some motives other than solely altruistic ones.  


    I wonder if the people who watch it (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 11:09:33 AM EST
    will include those who really need to see it and would benefit from understanding the depth and breadth of the surveillance state and how opaque our government is being about all of it, as opposed to those of us who are already on board?

    It's very cool... (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 11:28:01 AM EST
    HBO is airing it, that will certainly help draw some people outside the choir to hear this most necessary sermon on the present and future of privacy, and by extension freedom itself.

    But the real problem is overcoming our sense of powerlessness, everybody and their mother could tune in and turn on to what's going on and we still won't have a clue as to what to do about it.  Obama's on board, Clinton's on board, and the entire GOP clown show is on board with the exception of maybe Rand Paul, and he'll sell out when push comes to shove.

    In fact, the NSA and various acronyms in the security state are a wild animal that I don't think any feasible elected representation can tame.  I fear the battle is over and the war was lost while we were sleeping and/or too scared to try and stop it.


    Agreed. It was a word play (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 12:58:26 PM EST
    on 'reason' why Edward Snowden could not be present at the award ceremony, and seemed to have the effect of a jab at the charges against Snowden under the Espionage Act of 1917--a statute to criminalize dissent in First World War.

    Ed Snowden is reported to have taken the pun well, saying "to be honest, I laughed at NPH.  I don't think it was meant as a political statement, but even if it was, that's not so bad.  My perspective is if you're not willing to be called a few names to help out your country, you don't care enough."

    Actually, Snowden is not charged with treason (as if the theft of documents,  communication of documents to unauthorized persons and the limited defense under that legal relic is not enough to put him in prison for life, as is pointed out in Citizenfour by Snowden's pro bono attorneys).

    The documentary is terrific film making.  It brings to the fore not only the pervasive and ubiquitous surveillance of American citizens but also, the bravery and maturity of Edward Snowden.  He is referred to by Glenn Greenwald as  a "29-year old kid,"  but he is much more, leaving his pursuers, such as James Clapper and Keith Alexander, in the intellectual and moral dust.

    Edward Snowden has engaged in  high-order civil disobedience and seems willing to accept the consequences.  He deserves a level playing field for the charges against him and an opportunity to present his case.  And, an individualized case it should be-- not a case to set an example for all others for all time.  Or retaliation for embarrassment.

    In looking for someone who loves his country, even if viewed as terribly misguided, Ed is the guy.  For  Rudy Giuliani and others looking for missing love, just try Christian Mingle.


    That makes two... (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 01:23:55 PM EST
    Mexican Best Director Winner Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu found Sean Penn's green card joke "very funny".

    But by all means, have a ball PC Police Twitter Squad.  Don't let context and intent stop you from having your fun.


    Not knowing anything about Harris's politics (none / 0) (#163)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 11:00:30 AM EST
    but I could equally construe it at a jab at the government that makes it necessary for Snowden to stay out of country for fear of prosecution.

    Definitely watch it from the beginning (none / 0) (#169)
    by sj on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 12:51:01 PM EST
    I saw it at the theatre and those first fifteen minutes really help set the tone.

    The remark had little affect on Snowden (none / 0) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    He even said he laughed at it at first.  Looks like he couldn't make the Oscars, but he watched it as easily as anyone.  He also said something about if you can't take being called a few names for the good of your country, you don't love it enough.

    Not only is he an undisputed god damn... (none / 0) (#172)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 01:14:42 PM EST
    American hero, he also seems like a pretty cool dude with a sense of humor.

    Can he run for office as a wanted man in exile?  What sayeth the Constitution?  He's got my vote for the house, senate, president...sh*t nominate him for the Supreme Court even.


    Edward Snowden is (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 02:23:37 PM EST
    his own man, unlike Jeb, more hydrated than Marco Rubio, more consistent than Rand Paul,  focused, un-beadied eyes unlike Scott Walker, rational unlike Ted Cruz,  no grits and gravy- train book deal like Huckabee, no I agree with Rudy, deer-in-the-headllights  Bobby Jindal, no mint-julep infused persona like Lindsey,  and smarter than brain surgeon Ben Carson.   So, no Republican qualifications. Doubt he will find a place in the Democratic party that is missing in action--based on the deafening silence on Best Documentary.  

    The Dems are silent... (none / 0) (#179)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 02:47:38 PM EST
    in words, but perhaps not in action...wouldn't surprise me to learn members of the Academy are on "the list" now. Hope they're hip to encryption!



    Agreed (none / 0) (#175)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 01:48:22 PM EST
    Wow, Lady Gaga! (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 10:25:09 PM EST
    Great voice.....Julie Andrews never sounded better....  

    That was wonderful! (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 10:44:11 PM EST
    Wish she had starred in that live version of 'sound of music' last year...that would have been a hoot!

    True (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 11:15:34 PM EST
    She is really good....She tends to get viewed through the lens of her costumes....but such a wonderful talent...

    A wonderful moment at the Oscars...


    I have heard a few of her hits. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by vml68 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 09:35:03 AM EST
    Poker face, Judas, etc. Can't stand any of them.

    I had no idea she was such a good singer. I hope she does more songs like the one Slado linked to.


    it's not just about the song (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CST on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:20:35 AM EST
    it's how she chooses to sing them.



    Solo performance of "Edge of Glory" (none / 0) (#51)
    by Slado on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:52:31 AM EST
    This performance of her playing the song solo with only a piano on Howard Stern just shows what a talented magician she is.  

    Enjoy if you haven't heard this before.

    Gaga on Stern


    Her videos are stunning. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:16:15 AM EST
    Steam and steampunk.

    the whole thing is phony, why would any of the (none / 0) (#35)
    by cpinva on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 10:31:15 PM EST
    "actors" be any different?:

    "Even Robin Roberts is way too over-animated and seems phony."

    it's the industry giving itself a loving tongue bath. as far as I'm concerned, the only legitimate awards ceremony is the Hasty Pudding awards. really, think about it, Sandra Bullock, who couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag, even if a hole were cut in it for her, has been awarded both an Oscar & a Golden Globe. I'm sure she's a very nice person, and she's certainly attractive, but I've seen high school actors with better chops. this is the industry.

    Have to say I am glad to see two of my favorite (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 10:50:22 PM EST
    films this year - Birdman and Grand Budapest Hotel getting some attention.

    That said, Eddie Redmayne is adorable (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 10:57:30 PM EST
    I think Sean Penn (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 11:06:18 PM EST
    should do a biopic about Ben Kingsley

    Ha! Yeah, I was thinking I'm not sure I would (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 11:20:03 PM EST
    have recognized him. Ben Kingsley is a good call.

    ... Ben Kingsley should play his father.

    I thought the closing line (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 11:19:49 PM EST
    of Neil Patrick Harris ("Buenas Noches") was his best line of the night. (Other than questioning whether Meryl Streep needed more money. I didn't quite get all these wealthy actresses cheering each other on about equal pay.)

    Too many movies about sad topics -- suicide, alzheimer's, ALS --

    Interesting...so you think it's okay for (4.25 / 4) (#53)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 06:40:09 AM EST
    women in films to make less than their male counterparts because, what, they're all making millions so what's the big deal if the women aren't being paid commensurate with their abilities?

    Sony's hacked e-mails have revealed a troubling truth -- that even the wealthiest and most powerful women among us are burdened by the ever-present gender pay gap. In a Dec. 5, 2013 exchange, Sony and Columbia Pictures executives mulled over that fact that Jennifer Lawrence was being paid less than her male co-stars in "American Hustle." The inequity of the situation should have been obvious. Lawrence brought an indisputable level of star power to the movie: She had just starred in "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire", which claimed one of the largest box office opening weekend in movie history and, earlier in the year, she had won the Oscar for Best Leading Actress for her role in "Silver Linings Playbook." Her co-star in that film, Bradley Cooper, was nominated for an Oscar, but didn't win. Until then, he was best known for his less-than-Oscar caliber performances in "The Hangover" franchise.

    Still, the Sony e-mail revealed that when Cooper and Lawrence starred together again, in "American Hustle," Cooper was getting the bigger paycheck. The e-mail detailed the "points" -- or percentages of back-end profits -- that each of the film's main actors was to receive, and noted that Lawrence wasn't the only actress getting shortchanged. The male actors -- Christian Bale, Jeremy Renner and Bradley Cooper -- were each getting 9 points. Amy Adams, the lead actress, was getting just 7 points. (It should be noted that Amy Adams, at this point in her career, had been nominated for four Academy Awards -- more than Renner and Cooper combined. Bale had one Oscar win at the time.) Lawrence, meanwhile, had originally been receiving only 5 points, which was later raised to 7 points, according to the e-mail written by Andrew Gumpert, Columbia Pictures President of Business Affairs and Administration. The e-mail proposed raising Lawrence to be equal with her male co-stars. It's unclear whether Lawrence's or Adams's compensation rates were increased, but to the critique that they were unfair in the first place, Sony Pictures Chairman Amy Pascal responded: "there is truth here."

    Should equal pay issues only matter at the lower end of the spectrum?  Is it okay to have a gender gap at the top of the pay scale?

    Women in Hollywood are beginning to push back against the shallow and superficial culture of "who are you wearing?" that has helped perpetuate their image as little more than empty-headed mannequins, and perhaps contributed to the perception that they are weaker, and generally "less than" their male counterparts.

    I'm happy to see the pushback; it seems to be gaining momentum.


    I found it silly and overly materialistic (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 07:49:18 AM EST
    to see millionaires pumping their fists at equal pay.

    By comparison, I found the acceptance speech by Graham Moore, one that hasn't garnered a mention here, to be the best and most thought provoking one of the night.

    But I also enjoyed nearly the entire show which likely puts me in the minority. Would one day however enjoy seeing acceptance speeches that didn't entail thanking everyone and their dog.


    I have had this argument a few times. (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by vml68 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 09:24:42 AM EST
    I found it silly and overly materialistic to see millionaires pumping their fists at equal pay.

    You are looking at it from a perspective of people who already have so much, wanting more. But, really it is about wanting to be seen as having the same "worth" as your male peers. It does not matter if you earn $20k a year or $20 million/year.

    If HRC were to become POTUS, and she was paid less than BO or W, would you find her silly and materialistic if she demanded equal pay? Afterall, she is incredibly wealthy.


    In that movie she played (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 12:07:29 PM EST
    a woman that in all likelihood did not get paid equal to her male peers. I took it as standing up for all women, not just actresses. She is pretty down-to-earth as a rule, not in the supper high paid actress category.

    I don't care what President's get paid (none / 0) (#62)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 09:52:29 AM EST
    and doubt anyone is running for president for the yearly salary. More, less, doesn't matter.

    My point is I found it to be a wasted moment, while I saw the acceptance speech by Graham Moore to be beneficial.

    But since you make the comparison, yes I find it silly that anyone at the Oscars last night makes more than the President of the United States. Even more so that Jennifer Lawrence (who I like) pockets 850 times the annual salary for a President.


    In order (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by CST on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:00:55 AM EST
    for women to receive equal pay and advancement opportunities at the lower end of the spectrum we need more women receiving equal pay and advancement opportunities at the higher end and more women BEING at the higher end of the spectrum.

    If they don't respect their own peers, the "men in charge" will never respect the women on the way up.

    It's really not just about a dollar amount, it's about how people are valued.

    We can all agree that celebrities are paid outrageous amounts.  We can still be upset at the rampant and blatant sexism that determines just how much they are overpaid.

    For example, if both a male and female actor wish to become producers and make their own movies, the male actor will have a much easier time doing that because of that pay gap.  Thus we are more likely to get movies from a male perspective, perpetuating the cultural idea that male stories are the more valid ones.


    That's all too true. (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 11:32:06 AM EST
    CST: "For example, if both a male and female actor wish to become producers and make their own movies, the male actor will have a much easier time doing that because of that pay gap.  Thus we are more likely to get movies from a male perspective, perpetuating the cultural idea that male stories are the more valid ones."

    I just read that movies which had a female protagonist constituted only 12% of all films made in 2014, which was actually down from 2013's 15%. (If / when I run across it again, I'll provide the link.) For all its perceived liberal pretensions, Hollywood has actually long been a noted and well-known bastion of sexism, as well as racism and homophobia.

    How sexist is the film industry? Well, there has been considerable fuss of late over the selection of Italian actress Monica Bellucci as the female lead in Spectre, the latest installment of the James Bond franchise that's due for release this coming November. That's because at age 50, she's the oldest "Bond Girl" ever cast in the history of the series. When her agent first reported the offer to her, she actually thought she was being considered as Dame Judi Dench's successor in the role of M.

    It's long been known that careers for actresses in the film industry generally have a much shorter and less prolific life span than those of their male counterparts. For all the acclaim Julianne Moore received as the Best Actress winner last night, the blunt fact of the matter is that at age 51, her career is likely on the wane. Were she a man, her prospects for future employment would be considerably greater and the roles offered to her much more varied.

    Further, income inequality for those working in the film industry is even more pronounced than in other industries and professions. For all the glitz and bling that was on display last night among the top ranks, Hollywood is decidedly less glamorous for those who are toiling farther down the food chain.

    In seeking to address each of these issues, I would think that confronting a high-profile and easily identifiable target such as the film industry makes absolute sense from the standpoint of public perception.



    She will make a stunning (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by vml68 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    "Bond Woman" not "girl".

    I have always thought that she was an incredibly beautiful woman. Did not know much about her and was pleasantly surprised to read that she believes in aging naturally/gracefully.


    That's exactly why I linked the article. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 02:17:45 PM EST
    We've been calling them "Bond girls" for, like, forever. Monica Bellucci asserted very pointedly to the reporter that she was to be a "Bond woman," which I thought was a great quote.

    And kudos to director Sam Mendes for casting Bellucci in the role, instead of someone who's Jennifer Lawrence's age (23). He's mentioned in prior interviews, once he signed on as director of Spectre (his second consecutive stint with the James Bond series), that such roles should be much more than the traditional "young lady in peril" that we've seen in previous Bond films. An older actress like Bellucci brings worldliness, gravitas and stature to the screen, which a younger woman could likely never hope to pull off until she's at least pushing 40.

    (Unless they're Italian, perhaps. 25-year-old Sophia Loren simply knocked it out of the park in the 1960 drama Two Women, as the war-weary Italian widow fleeing the Allied advance on Rome with her teenaged daughter in tow. Deservedly so, she was the very first actor -- male or female -- to win an Oscar for a non-English-speaking role. Trivia question: Who are the other non-English-speaking actors to win Oscars for their performances? Hint: There are only two besides Ms. Loren.)

    That's one of the reasons why I felt that the then-21-year-old Ms. Lawrence was miscast as Christian Bale's estranged wife in American Hustle. For all of her considerable talent as an actress, she had a hard time passing for a woman who's 30+ years of age, which is what that role really called for, given that she was also the mother of a six-year-old boy. But Hollywood loves the young ladies. Older women, not so much.

    And before I forget to do so, here's the link to the Variety article about the San Diego State study of gender disparity in lead film roles, which I cited above in my earlier comment.



    Oops! Sorry, I missed your link to the (none / 0) (#116)
    by vml68 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 02:46:05 PM EST

    I saw both speeches as being beneficial. (none / 0) (#65)
    by vml68 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:05:04 AM EST
    Different causes, both important.

    I agree with you that the POTUS salary is ridiculous. But, I am guessing that the reasoning is that it is a government job. Plus, all the extras (living in the White House, designer clothes, chefs, Airforce One, security, etc.) that go with it amount to a substantial sum.

    Another bonus is the earning potential after being POTUS.


    So people of wealth shouldn't (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by nycstray on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:05:02 AM EST
    stand up for the rights of others? Because, in case you missed it, it wasn't about HER, it was about ALL women.

    And really, Hollywood is one of the industries that is seriously behind the times in this area and a few others regarding equal rights . . .


    CG, have you seen McFarland yet? (none / 0) (#77)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 11:32:50 AM EST
    Well, what did YOU think of it? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 03:19:23 PM EST
    It's currently on our list of possibilities, having just opened out here last Friday, but I've yet to talk to anyone who's actually seen it yet. I have, however, spoken to some who've basically dismissed it because it carries the Walt Disney name, which I think is a shame.

    Go see it. I'd see it again. (none / 0) (#122)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 03:42:42 PM EST
    CG's a runner (as am I) and the movie is about a HS cross country team, so I don't want to pre-bias.

    I'll just say that it's a Hollywood biopic movie, so, like American Sniper, Selma, The Imitation Game, etc., dramatic license might be taken.


    Thanks, I will. As long as it's not ... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 05:57:34 PM EST
    ... like Chariots of Fire, which still ranks as the most tedious sports movie I've ever seen. How that film ever won the 1981 Academy Award for Best Picture, especially with that overwrought / overblown soundtrack score by Vangelis, I'll never know. But my elder sister just loved it, and still does, I imagine.

    My top ten favorite sports movies -- in chronological order -- are Bang the Drum Slowly (1973), the original Rocky (1976), Breaking Away (1979), Raging Bull (1980), Hoosiers (1986), Eight Men Out (1986), Bull Durham (1989), Friday Night Lights (2004), Glory Road (2006) and Moneyball (2011).

    Not surprisingly, four of them are about baseball, which is my first love. And who cannot like the underdog appeal of Hoosiers and Glory Road? But Rocky and Raging Bull are about boxing, a sport which I otherwise don't particularly care for. Those two films just had compelling storylines which grabbed me.



    Have not seen it yet (none / 0) (#126)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:01:40 PM EST
    but will soon and looking forward to it.

    As you mentioned, yes they took liberties with the movie (according to an interview with the real life coach) but it's a movie for entertainment not to tell the exact story.

    Not sure if I mentioned... now at 14:39 under BQ for 2016. Next up is an ultra in May, for no other reason than I had a beer too many.


    Very nice! What distance is the Ultra? (none / 0) (#128)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:10:47 PM EST
    And I hope it's somewhere more temperate than FL!

    50 Miles (none / 0) (#137)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:32:01 PM EST
    And sadly no.  It's actually down in the backyard of fishcamp and KeysDan.

    Maybe it was a little more than one beer too many.


    Should be flat, anyway. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 05:03:49 PM EST
    And women in films, generally, have shorter (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by nycstray on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 12:18:51 PM EST
    careers and less opportunity over all. So that pay gap is magnified over the long run . . .

    So, hiring "above the line" personel (none / 0) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 11:56:45 AM EST
    on a movie, tv show, whatever, is generally not about finding the person(s) who can literally "do the job," but rather finding the person(s) who will "put the a**es in the seats."

    It sounds like someone, somewhere, somehow, made the decision that Lawrence is not as big a box office draw as some of her co-stars.


    the problem is two-fold (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by CST on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 12:24:31 PM EST
    one - that person is probably wrong about butts in seats.

    two - that's not actually what it was about.  All three of the male "lead" actors received higher compensation than the two female "lead" actors.  The women received the same amount as each other as did the men.  Including the third male "lead" who was originally given a starring role in the film and then bumped down because they had a better option for the male star.  This person automatically received the "male star" rate going in, despite the fact that no one can say with a straight face that they would have put more butts in the seats than Jennifer Lawrence.

    So it's pretty clear, IMO, that it was the role that demanded the pay rather than the star power of the particular person playing it.  And the female roles got less money.


    but it may have been in this case.

    There is also the aspect that the salaries are negotiated, so one actor could have an offer of X for one film, so another film offers X+ in order to get that actor, whereas another actor may not have that leverage.


    And, fwiw, there is probably 99.99% (none / 0) (#90)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    gender equal pay in the industry. Even the non-union gigs are generally gender equal pay.

    You might want to rethink that one. (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 01:22:47 PM EST
    See here, here, and here - for starters.

    Just curious why you would think that the film industry would be different in terms of gender equity in pay than every other industry.


    I don't think your links (none / 0) (#95)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 01:31:44 PM EST
    are in conflict with what I wrote.

    If a studio feels like they "need" a particular star they will pay what it takes to get that star, male or female.


    you also said (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by CST on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 01:37:40 PM EST
    there is equal pay in the industry.

    Another counter-example of what you just said is Snow White and the Huntsman where Chalize Theron negotiated a $10 million dollar pay raise after finding out from the Sony leaks that that was what her male co-star was making.  Since they agreed to pony up, rather than find a replacement - I would think that they "needed" her.  They still offered her $10 million less to begin with.


    Yes, Charlize is a 1%'r. (none / 0) (#99)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 01:47:36 PM EST
    Both in the common usage of that term as well as w/in the industry. That is the point that many seem to be missing.

    we're not missing it (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by CST on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 01:54:50 PM EST
    That's how this whole debate started - whether or not people care that a gender pay gap exists for the 1%ers.  If you see my comment upthread I explain exactly why it matters that female 1%ers are underpaid compared to male 1%ers, even while acknowledging that they are all overpaid.

    OK, go back to my original comment, #80. (none / 0) (#103)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 01:59:44 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#105)
    by CST on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 02:08:25 PM EST
    The problem is there are now concrete examples in front of us of blatant gender inequality that can't be explained away using any of your "star power" logic because that clearly wasn't the case in these examples.  And that matters.

    I don't agree with your belief (none / 0) (#106)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 02:10:04 PM EST
    that there was equal "put butts in the seats" star power to those who made the decisions.

    and I'm sorry but there is no objective view (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by CST on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 02:14:31 PM EST
    that puts Jeremy Renner ahead of Jennifer Lawrence in the "put butts in seats" category.

    And someone somewhere apparently decided that Charlize Theron was worth that much once she knew enough to ask for it.


    Agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 02:45:08 PM EST
    While both are enormously capable and talented actors, in terms of raw "star power," Jennifer Lawrence is light years ahead of Jeremy Renner. There is no logical reason why Renner was paid more than Lawrence for American Hustle, other than at the very least, latent Hollywood sexism.

    Gender equity in salaries and pay grades has always been a nagging issue with me, ever since I learned in high school that as a school principal, my mother received a little less than 80% of the compensation enjoyed by her male counterparts in the district, even those with less seniority.

    When Mom found out about it and complained to the school board, she was told that these men had families to support -- as though she, with three children still at home, did not -- and further, she had wealthy parents she could rely upon, so why should she even worry about it?

    In direct response to the board's patronizing, Mom took a job with Hewlett-Packard the following year for twice the salary, and the Pasadena school district lost a very good administrator and teacher. But not all women have such options.



    Do you think she did not ask for more (none / 0) (#112)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 02:16:39 PM EST
    during the first negotiations?

    the problem is (none / 0) (#108)
    by CST on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 02:11:26 PM EST
    those who made those decisions made it based on the gender of the character rather than who they chose to play the character.  That much is very clear.

    OK. (none / 0) (#111)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 02:15:26 PM EST
    I saw (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 03:17:31 PM EST
    that movie and Theron was the one who carried the movie. So in a lot of ways Hollywood is just like the rest of the country in that women are expected to do 2x the work for less money.

    To quote the late cartoonist Bob Thaves ... (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 03:31:36 PM EST
    from his comic strip Frank and Ernest (1982):

    "Sure, [Fred Astaire] was great, but don't forget that Ginger Rogers did everything he did -- backwards and in high heels."

    (NOTE: While others have been credited with this line, most notably the late Ann Richards in her keynote address at the 1988 Democratic Convention, Thaves is the person who first wrote it 33 years ago.)



    well (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by CST on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 01:28:45 PM EST
    I don't work in the industry, and most of that information isn't public - but I know that the Sony leaks indicated the exact opposite of that, which is the only hard information I have to go on.  That applies to both the employees that work directly for Sony, and on the films.

    And the fact remains that actors as a whole are paid significantly more than actresses.  So I'm sorry, but given that all the public information is telling me something else, I have a hard time just taking your word for it.

    And I'm sure a lot of it is based on perceived star power, but considering they aren't doing too many polls of people going to the movies - I wouldn't doubt if a significant portion of that is based more in bias than actual cinematic results - with Jennifer Lawrence being the prime example.


    The exact opposite of what? (none / 0) (#98)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 01:45:27 PM EST
    Maybe 99.99% is an exaggeration, but most "hired" below the line positions are union.

    Those very few employees who can negotiate their salary do so and generally take the best offer they can leverage.

    Many (most?) times salary is not at all the only factor involve. Billing, exposure, opportunity to work with a particular director, etc., etc., all play into it.

    That said, it is somewhat of a circle, if, say, handsome/pretty actors who bring in more movie-goers than character actors, they get paid more. So the more in-demand actors continually get salary increases which makes their salaries continually higher than less in-demand actors.

    That said again, the higher salaries gained by the in-demand actors also has some "trickle down" effect on the salaries of the less in-demand.

    That said another time, the vast majority of industry employees are not box-office actors.


    in those leaks (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by CST on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 01:52:47 PM EST
    there was rampant gender pay inequality for people working at Sony pictures.  Which I would consider "in the industry" even though they aren't box-office actors.  Then there was the information about high-profile actors which we've also been discussing.

    That's the information I have - and it's the "exact opposite" of gender pay equality.  Even for the people who work for the studio and aren't box-office actors.

    Maybe Sony is the only bad actor here and operating alone, but absent concrete data I have a hard time believing that, because otherwise no women would bother working for Sony.


    Again, the Sony execs (none / 0) (#102)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 01:58:56 PM EST
    (and other studio execs) are in the minority of employees in the industry who generally are able to negotiate their salaries.

    I think (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 03:20:17 PM EST
    what SUO is saying is that the union jobs in the industry don't have the pay differential that other jobs do. According to a friend of mine who's husband is in the industry that is true but here's the clincher: the further you go up the ladder the bigger the pay difference. For example SAG has some kind of minimum. So if you're working as an extra the pay is the same for males and females.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by sj on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 02:06:54 PM EST
    Those ... employees who can negotiate their salary do so and generally take the best offer they can leverage.
    The point is that the "best offer" is lower for women than it is for men.

    Notice the word "offer"? It is the money men making those offers. This isn't exactly controversial, I'm not sure why you are resisting it so strongly.


    Please go back to my original comment, #80.

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by sj on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 02:34:54 PM EST
    Not necessary to put words in your mouth. I highlighted and quoted your very own self. And your comment #80 that you keep wanting to go back to is, in its essence, the same as all the other comments that you made.

    Again, I don't understand your zeal to defend the status quo.


    I Understadn Your Arguement but... (none / 0) (#124)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 03:50:35 PM EST
    ...what are you saying, it's men's fault women take significantly lower pay and only demand what they are worth when emails are exposed.

    It's hardly anyone's fault Renner gets more than Laurence except who they decided to have as agents.  If Theron can negotiate $10M more, why didn't she at the time of the original offer.

    I am failing to see how this is anyone's fault other than the actors getting paid less then their counterparts.

    Are you suggesting some sort of standardization for pay that is anything but standardized.  I agree it's a problem but since men aren't being cast into female roles, there is only one group at fault for taking less dollars.  Competition pay is unknown, and to me any business is going to low-ball the people they think will take the offers.

    How is it not Theron's fault she didn't demand $10M more originally ?  They would have given it to her, as they did.

    Now this is not the same as the normal workplace where there is, more or less, standardized pay scales.  Figuring out where you sit, is as easy as going to a website, for me being a tax accountant I use one of the temp service guidelines to see where I sit every year.  It also aids in determining raises.

    But in Hollywood where most salaries are not known and where pay scales are not standardized for lead and supporting roles, there is not table to check, so they are really dependent on what they think they are worth, and unfortunately, at least to me, women seems to under value themselves.

    It's not some conspiracy when an actress asks for $10M and gets it, why didn't she negotiate it at the time, why did she only realize she was worth $10M after getting the inside track.  Because she though she was worth the negotiated amount, probably happy as hell with the pay, only upset when she discovers she could have negotiated more.  So to answer the Renner/Lawrence issue, either Renner values his talent more than Lawrence, or he has a better agent.  Because she should be getting paid more than Renner, even though I think he is a superior actor, he is not getting the superior actor roles and she is.

    I would also imagine, younger actors probably across the board generally take lower pay as lower pay is still a big fat check.  And it probably takes years for some of the very talented to realize what they are really worth and having the fortitude to demand it.  It would seem that getting an agent who knows what they are worth would be be worth their weight in gold.

    Here, we are almost pathological in sticking to the pay scales.  We just hired two people.  One had, more or less, negotiated a salary with my boss in the interview.  The offer letter was for about 10% more because that is where we placed her worth at using the scales.  I can say without a doubt, I have never undervalued myself in regards to pay.  She did not counter offer, there is no way I would not have counter offered.  That is what a negotiation is.

    Anecdotal of course, but there is a good chance that if we were both hired and our credentials identical, I would be getting paid more.  Not because I am a man, but because I negotiated for more.  Not much, but that spread over time would only increase and because we use the scales, the odds of me getting promoted over her would be greater as promoting the person making less when everything else is equal would not be a decision that could be defended easily as pay is suppose to be based on value.


    You're kidding yourself (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by sj on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:01:31 PM EST
    Now this is not the same as the normal workplace where there is, more or less, standardized pay scales.  
    Anecdotal of course, but there is a good chance that if we were both hired and our credentials identical, I would be getting paid more.  Not because I am a man, but because I negotiated for more.
    Pay scales and ranges shown on a web-site have a high and a low end. And while you congratulate yourself for your superior negotiating skills you appear to be completely blind to the fact that you, as a man, have a built in advantage in that negotiation.

    There can only be "demands" for equal pay where there is transparency.


    So true... (none / 0) (#131)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:16:44 PM EST
    ...but if you think there aren't an underpaid men you are crazy.

    I will except that I am in a better situation to negotiate.  But it still blow my mind that people don't, nor do they ask for raises.  And by people I mean all people.


    There are always going to be underpaid ... (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 06:08:20 PM EST
    ... and underappreciated people of either sex, Scott. But I think we should really strive to avoid sniping at one another over who has the biggest gripe, and cease fighting with one another over measly table scraps.

    That's exactly the sort of self-immolating resentment within working class ranks which management just loves, and will always try to foster in its labor relations and negotiations.

    When working people stand together, working people eventually win.


    In my field (none / 0) (#144)
    by sj on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:49:15 PM EST
    asking for a raise is good way to get replaced. A certain percentage is allocated for raises period. For the last 10 years or so that amount is a paltry 3% for payroll across the board. Essentially giving one employee 4% means that others will suffer for it. And frankly 4% is still paltry.

    Getting the raise you ask for may very well be hurting someone else.

    And where did I write that there are no underpaid men? Nice red herring you threw in there.


    it's pretty clear (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by CST on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:10:11 PM EST
    that the ability of female actresses to demand more money does not increase with age the same way it does for men.

    But That is the Fault of Mother Nature... (2.00 / 2) (#134)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:27:38 PM EST
    ...who for some reason ages us better.  But, roles for leading women after a certain do disappear, but is that the fault of anyone other than the viewers.

    A business is only putting out what sells.  At some point viewers in general don't want a leading woman role of a certain age.  That sucks, but it's not the execs in Hollywood fault.

    Not sure if this OK, but in mind when ever I see a seasoned an older actress, I always think, it must just be hard for a woman to go from the cute desired girl to the mother and with a few the grandmother roles.

    But I never think that about male actors like that.  And I always wonder if that is because I am biased or if its because I know time is more of a struggle with women.


    OUCH!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by vml68 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 06:28:34 PM EST
    But That is the Fault of Mother Nature who for some reason ages us better.

    I am going to have to disagree with you on this. It is not that Mother Nature ages males better but that we are conditioned to see the salt/pepper hair, laugh lines, eye crinkles, etc., on older men as attractive and distinguished. On women, not so much. Wrinkles and gray hair on us just makes us old hags!

    Women are held to much higher standards of beauty than men.


    It does not make you old hags! (none / 0) (#152)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 07:31:00 PM EST
    Rather, wrinkles and grey hair merely make you look dowdy and matronly, like Grandma. Throw on some gray, lilac and burgundy threads, then you're a likely candidate for Leisure World, and some older men, like my "good friend" (cough!) Hawaii State Sen. Sam Slom, will trade you in for a newer model. Sam's presently working on Model No. 5, and once she hits 40, the clock will once again start ticking.

    Ha! Thanks! (none / 0) (#154)
    by vml68 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 08:21:13 PM EST
    I don't do gray or lilac but I do look good in burgundy, if I do say so myself.
    My husband turned 40 and I have been threatening to trade him in for a younger model. It's too bad that I am rather fond of him because I quite like the thought of being a "cougar".

    I think I can answer that (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by sj on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 06:34:47 PM EST
    And I always wonder if that is because I am biased or if its because I know time is more of a struggle with women.
    Because I just read your entire comment.

    Biased? (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:22:48 PM EST
    or delusional.

    I have a feeling (none / 0) (#136)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:31:27 PM EST
     you are going to get answers  to that last question.

    Yup, on that we agree. (none / 0) (#129)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:12:33 PM EST
    Why do you suppose that is?

    well I would assume (none / 0) (#132)
    by CST on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:25:00 PM EST
    studio execs think it's because people won't watch those movies.

    I'm gonna go ahead and say it's because they don't really get made to begin with.

    There are numbers to support the case that the studio executives are wrong about the draw of female storylines to an audience.  And while this doesn't tell the whole story, it's pretty clear in recent years that the female-led films are more than capable of making an absolute killing at the box office.


    Well Neither of Us Know... (none / 0) (#138)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:36:11 PM EST
    ...I am going with executives who pay is tied into making the company money are going to go with the $$$ before the sexism.  Now if people aren't writing the scripts, I could buy that a little more easily.  But I don't know and cannot back it up.

    I will say that in the certain genres, like action films, there are not many females leads.  I wouldn't mind seeing one, but the problem for me is I don't like a woman being hit, even on film and even if it's another woman doing it.  I have noticed it more and more, fight scenes with real punching, and it bothers me.

    I would like to see a Borne movie with a rogue female agent, but then again, all the stuff they did to Rener and Damon would not sit well with me.  It would have to be more about her wit then the violence, which would probably move it out of the genre entirely.


    female led action movies (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by CST on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:44:05 PM EST
    like lucy or the hunger games or divergent - seem to do just fine at the box office.  But they are still incredibly rare.

    Gravity - which features a 50 year old woman as pretty much the only character - made a killing.

    So I'd also say those executives are maybe not as smart as they think they are - kind of like CEO's on wall street who are so much smarter than everyone but somehow managed to completely tank the global economy.


    and is proven to be correct.

    Scott (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by ZtoA on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 01:35:25 AM EST
    Your comment #124 is not easily addressed. And it is one that cannot be directly responded to with charts, and polls, and facts and figures on some piece of paper.

    Pay/valuation for females in the arts is different than males (and movies is a pop/popular form of the arts). A bit of knowledge about the history of females in the western workplace is handy. In the visual arts it is well known that males draw more money than females. It is partly because the powerful collectors - the ones with the most money to 'invest'spend - are men. There are actually more female collectors in numbers, but they are not the richest collectors. The most highly valued (in $$$) artists are all male and have been for decades, actually for many centuries.

    Females have been artists for centuries, but their work has often been attributed (or even stolen) by male artists. The recent movie "Big Eyes" is about this happening in the modern world. I did not see the movie but I'm well familiar with the true story that it is based on. It is not that unusual. The most powerful male, and female dealers know that the most powerful collectors (male mostly, but also female) and the promoters of work (who do not care about gender - only valuation$$) do not want to promote or collect the work of a female artist.

    So if some female - any female - at the top can start to compete with those other top males it has a ripple effect. Not just 'trickle down' but 'trickle around'.

    Notice that it is not #askherthesequestionsonly, but is #askhermore. Males are often judged on their abs or buffness. But they are not asked to show their abs on camera at the red carpet. Male abs look great in their 20s but are deemed effective in their 70s - but male abs do not look the same at those ages. I suspect most females love to talk about their manicures and fingers and their outfits. But they want to have more included in their questions, just like the males do. These female artists are actually no different than the male artists, but they are treated differently. Many people (male and female) want to see stories/movies that feature female action heroes just as much as male action movie heroes.

    Not all people are uncomfortable, like you are, at seeing a female doing battle and getting punched back. But actually females are a lot like male human animals. Violence (and not just passive aggressive violence) is part of female humans like it is for male human animals. Many people understand this and if it is reflected in pop culture (movies in this case) that is not such a bad thing.

    It is not a bad thing when people like, what?, "14 year old girls" like (as you disparaged about what 14 year old girls) like as half time entertainment. Hey when I was a young girl I liked the Beatles, Stevie Wonder, Chuck Berry, all Mowtown music - and yes, I was a 'stupid girl' but these loves of mine also had staying power. Females, young and old, can and do drive ratings and cultural trends. I remember when the older males in the 60s tried to dismiss the likes of the young females (Bob Dylan, Rolling Stones, etc etc etc) in the most arrogant self assured ways. We said "whatever" then and you might not want to relegate yourself to the 'older dude' status since other people will say "whatever" still to this day.

    BTW I have not added any italics, but in the preview of this comment some sections are italicized. I did not do that. Just the program.


    Stop... (none / 0) (#193)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 02:54:03 PM EST
    ...I did not disparage 14 year old girls, my point, which I could not reply because it filled up and I didn't want to bring it in another post, was:

    They are not a key demographic for the NFL, yet for the Superbowl, they, and every other demographic that doesn't watch football is courted.  I find it unreasonable that the biggest game in land has become a commercial for demographics that, for the most part, do not watch football.

    Is to much to ask that they actually cater to the demographic that has kept them in business for 50 some years.  I mean seriously, I had a problem with the NFL choosing KP, not her fan base or whatever else you are trying to attribute to me.  Again, my issue was with the NFL.

    Shameful to make up stuff to make your point about me.  You don't know me and you read what you wanted into that statement and decided to bring it up a month later.  Really ?

    If you want to discuss particular points above, then go ahead, but bringing up something unrelated and making into something else is why it's not allowed here.

    I am malleable, nothing I type is set in stone and I think with discussions like this it's important to be honest so that if there are flaws in my thinking, they can be addressed.  Like the person who mentioned I am in a better situation to ask for a raise, I agree and never really though about it from that view.  But if you need to bring up past unrelated discussions to make your point, you are on thin ice and reaching for a way to paint me as something you think I am.

    My Comment (I believe there is no rule against quoting yourself):

    I meant her fans, as in the 14 year old girls who think she is phenom.  Probably the single largest segment of the population that is least likely to watch the NFL, except for 30 mins a year, an commercial breaks.  I would imagine, many are just taping it to blab about the commercials.

    No disrespect meant for the 714 teenage girls who dig football and Katy Perry, worldwide.

    It irks me to no end that the a sports event is convoluted and rearranged for the half 'show'.  It can't be good for players to go 15mins half time all year, then all of sudden their biggest game, 30mins.  And that one year, in the Superdome, there was so much smoke from the fireworks, you hardly see the field for several minutes. Link to thread

    Scott re#193, How do you know that teenage girls (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by ZtoA on Fri Feb 27, 2015 at 09:53:59 PM EST
    do not watch football? Or that a they are not starting to? Every last teenage girl I know loves all sports - watch them and watch the ads. Teen boys also listen to KP, along with the girls, tho many will not admit it (or they jokingly want to be seen as being above that). But somehow they know her songs and moves and can be quite conversant with the girls about that. Girls can be conversant with the boys about football even tho they are not allowed to play that sport in school. That does not mean young girls do not play friendly games of FB with their dads, brothers and neighborhood kids (boys and girls).

    Teen boys and girls can communicate about many other things too. They tweet, or read tweets. They have smart phones. They all are very interested in fashion. They're interested in movies and TV shows and all other cultural phenom. 30-40 years ago it was expected that the genders would have different interests after reaching puberty. That is changing and broadening. Girls are interested in business and boys in children. My black belt teen nephew loves to cook with me and we can talk opera (a bit) and he likes that. So do I. He likes teaching me about sports and I like to teach him about cooking. We both get a lot out of it all.

    Of course all sports can cater to the demographics that have supported the sport for the last 50 years. Evidently they also want to cater to demographics that will broaden the support for the sport for the next 50 years. The NFL is not stupid, they know who has watched and what their growing audiences are. I'm sure they picked KP in part because of her fan base - which is one the NFL is trying to court. I'm certain advertisers would be thrilled to have TV audiences "blab" about their ads....and their products.


    Both of my nieces are sports fanatics (none / 0) (#196)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 28, 2015 at 09:30:40 AM EST
    But they played every sport in high school that they could.  They workout ferociously, the oldest is a crossfit instructor and a girl's baseball team coach.  The oldest knows nothing about art.  The youngest is not as into fitness, loves fashion (high fashion...spensive), interested in art, gourmet food, etc.  I was talking to them on the phone once, they were in Vermont, and during the call they informed me that Alabama had won the NCAA championship.  They were watching the game.  They knew before I did.

    Ha! that's very cool (none / 0) (#197)
    by ZtoA on Sat Feb 28, 2015 at 11:51:58 AM EST
    Two 19 year olds wanted to come by and visit me and hang out for several hours this week. One girl and one boy. I was curious so I asked "do either of you like fashion?". It was the guy who chimed up with a smile and said he really liked Hawaiian shirts and has many of them. Team hats, sneakers, and Hawaiian shirts are his fashion. He's very proud of them and he then went on to tell me some stories about some of his shirts. He told me they look good on him since he is a bigger guy (line backer in HS) and he is Filipino. He is also never very talkative around adults. :)

    Easy... (none / 0) (#199)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 02, 2015 at 04:28:42 PM EST
    ...I Goggled it.  

    Females make up 42% of the fan base, yet they don't even have a demographic for people under 18.  Granted this is old, but 18-24 year old only make up 12%, so that would make the female 18-24 year old demographic roughly 5%.

    The problem is because they aren't consumers, no one is tracking them.  But considering the demographic they will eventually hit is 5%, I feel confident is stating that that teenage girls are a demographic that is in the strong minority.

    This is who watches football, not who can discuss it, or who has a fantasy team or a jersey.  The rest I never said, and attributing it to me is non-sense.  And I am pretty sure, if they are like me, they can not avoid KP.  Christ I know the words to her some of the songs because they play them like 4 times an hour, they are in commercials even more, and the news has deemed her life details worthy of publication.  Not sure what any of that has to do with anything in this conversation.

    I get the feeling you think I am whatever it is you keep trying to paint me as.  I didn't know girls learned how to do anything but cook or clean.*  Thanks professor for the lesson on gender, but the fact remains the teenage girls are the smallest demographic the NFL has.

    Now you are trying to introduce a new topic, the NFL trying to expand their fan base.  Yeah, thanks, I didn't realize for profit companies like selling to a larger audience.

    My whole point was they were catering to the smallest demographic while ignoring the largest, which in politics would be considered their base.  If you feel like discussing that, let's talk, but otherwise I don't have time for the lessons about what girls and boys like to do.

    I get where your going and where you are trying to put me, if that makes you feel better... just too bad those teenage girls you are defending won't cooperate and watch more football.  Then you won't have to read my rants about the NFL dissing their base to pander to a demographic they want increased.

     *That was a joke, before you decide to attribute something I said in jest, in another post, in another month.


    That post rates a 10, ZtoA (none / 0) (#198)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 28, 2015 at 08:46:19 PM EST
    wow. (none / 0) (#96)
    by nycstray on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 01:34:00 PM EST
    Women are paid less because women (none / 0) (#173)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 01:23:08 PM EST
    usually play characters who think.  Hey, that's my observation, which may be skewed, perhaps, because I don't burn my time on junk cinema.  Life's too short.

    That reminds me of an aphorism (none / 0) (#182)
    by sj on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 03:00:46 PM EST
    I heard years ago:

    "Most women desire beauty rather than brains because most men can see better than they can think".

    I always thought it was kind of amusing; it's not so amusing when the underlying truth is limned as clearly as it has been here.


    Interesting take (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 11:49:31 PM EST
    My Mom's sole criterion for judging movies was whether it has a happy ending....



    Neil Patrick Harris (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 09:44:40 AM EST
    was annoying.   There, I said it.  The tightie whites did not make up for it.  I (sort of) agree about his comments about  the documentary win.   And there was other things.  I thought singing the Farmers Insurance theme after the supporting actor win was equally uncalled for.
     This is a big thing for the winners he might has considered being at least gracious enough to let the have their moment.

    He was annoying.  I hope he is not back next year.

    He was smug and demeaning, which (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:47:58 AM EST
    means he apparently confused this awards show with a roast.

    Sure, put Oscar-winner Octavia Spencer "in charge" of the locked briefcase, ask her if her bladder's full.  After an Oscar win by Laura Poitras, and a moving acceptance speech about the importance of transparency in government, snark that Edward Snowden couldn't be there for some "treason."  At least that fell flat, as it should have.

    Hum the Farmer's Insurance jingle as J.K. Simmons is walking off the stage after winning an Oscar.

    Snide, smug, not funny.  Don't let the door hit you on your tightie-whitied butt, Doogie.


    The Farmers jingle thing (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:52:36 AM EST
    really rubbed my rhubarb.  Simmons is has been doing great work for decades.  He really deserved a moment.  

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#153)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 07:37:54 PM EST
    That was really tacky.

    Perhaps I'm being too charitable, (none / 0) (#75)
    by dk on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 11:25:15 AM EST
    but I found him less "smug and demeaning" as I did "nervous and uncomfortable".  This came as a surprise (to me, anyway) since NPH has developed quite a resume at hosting these kinds of shows, but then again he has never hosted the Oscars specifically, and maybe he just let his nerves get the better of him (plus, given that he is not a stand-up comic, I'm assuming he probably had very little input into the "jokes" he told throughout the night - most of which were lame (IMO)).  I'd blame the writers for those.

    Anyway, my conclusion is the same as both of yours.  He wasn't good, I hope he doesn't ever do it again.


    Yeah, I mostly agreed - did not really (none / 0) (#83)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 12:09:00 PM EST
    find his comments amusing. But I can see where he thought he had to do something since his scripted material was so god-awful with horrible puns.

    happy (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 12:11:09 PM EST
    Looking around the web I see some shock (none / 0) (#85)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 12:16:00 PM EST
    and tossing around of the word 'travesty' about Boyhood not getting best picture. I know everyone has their favorites, but that seems a little extreme.

    I don't consider it a travesty. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 03:11:00 PM EST
    Personally, I liked Boyhood better than Birdman, but that certainly doesn't therefore mean that it was the better picture of the two. I can't and won't begrudge Birdman its due, because it's an outstanding movie in its own right.

    I'm one of those who consider the Oscar nomination, rather than the Academy Award itself, to be the true measure of success as regarded by one's peers in the industry. In that regard, with Boyhood having earned six nominations with one win (Patricia Arquette as best supporting actress), director / producer Richard Linklater certainly has nothing to be ashamed of.

    With her recent nomination as supporting actress for Into the Woods, Meryl Streep now has a record nineteen Oscar nominations to her credit, yet she's been given the actual Academy Award only three times. Does that render her a 16-time loser, or should the sum total of all those nominations be considered a measure of the high esteem in which her fellow actors regard her?



    I agree...especially now with the (none / 0) (#139)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:36:54 PM EST
    expanded number of nominations for Best Picture. Comparing so many disparate films at that high level of achievement is mostly a matter of taste.

    Similarly with Meryl Streep, out of all those nominations I only remember one time when I strongly felt that she should have won and didn't, and that was for "One True Thing". Not one of her flashier parts, so maybe got overlooked aside from the, as the joke last night went, statutorily required nomination. I don't remember at all who did win that year, but I'm sure a good argument could be made for it!

    It is just a good chance for movie lovers to think about all the good movies and relive them a little bit. I'll be renting the ones I missed in the next few months.


    We also have to remember that ... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 07:08:43 PM EST
    ... Academy voters sometimes do not get it right, and what appeared to be a great or even worthy selection at a particular point in time later becomes a compelling case of cinematic dotage with the passage of years. That Academy voters would prefer George Cukor's dated My Fair Lady over Stanley Kubrick's daring Dr. Strangelove (Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb) in the spring of 1965 is a case in point.

    Citizen Kane is generally recognized by critics as one of the best films ever made in the history of cinema. Yet it was shut out at the 1942 Academy Awards, as voters were nudged toward How Green Was My Valley at the urging of RKO Studios owner William Randolph Hearst, who did not take kindly to Orson Welles' thinly veiled onscreen depiction of his life and career.

    Similarly, most knowledgeable film critics today consider it an absolute travesty that Andy Griffith's ferocious and now-legendary performance as "Lonesome" Rhoads in A Face in the Crowd was passed over completely for Academy Award consideration. That was likely because voters were so eager to take a swipe at director Elia Kazan for his McCarthyite snitching to Congress, that Griffith became collateral damage in the process. But what appeared to be a resolute stand for free speech and association in 1958, now looks in retrospect to have been entirely petty and self-demeaning.

    And I honestly don't know what Academy voters were thinking in 1980, when they chose Kramer vs. Kramer as the previous year's best picture over Francis Ford Coppola's epic séance on Vienam, Apocalypse Now!. Or in 1995, when they preferred Forrest Gump to Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption.

    Or especially in 1999, when they fell for the flighty and quickly forgettable Shakespeare in Love, rather than honor Terrence Malik's operatic magnum opus about the Battle of Guadalcanal, The Thin Red Line.

    I imagine there are more than a few members who wish they could submit new ballots for those years.



    OMG! We turned on TCM ... (none / 0) (#189)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 12:18:17 AM EST
    ... and the upcoming movie is Kramer vs. Kramer. I wonder if it's still as cloying and manipulative as I remember it to be?

    Who gets to decide... (none / 0) (#191)
    by unitron on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 06:57:09 PM EST
    ...whether Academy voters get it right or not?

    (and how soon after the vote do they have to call it?)

    The general public, almost all of which have no experience whatsoever in working in the movie industry?

    Some self-appointed subset thereof?


    Let's not forget 1995 (none / 0) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 09:02:26 PM EST
    when they picked Babe the wretched pig over Apollo 13 for the effects Oscar, there was only two nominees that particular year.
    And only because they never explained how much work went into the effects and almost everyone thought they were using stock footage.  Every promotional effort about the effects for Apollo 13 was about the stupid vomit comet and the weightless photography.  No one even knew hundreds of people worked for over a year on the launch sequences.

    Agreed... (none / 0) (#130)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:13:18 PM EST
    ...Boyhood should get 10 awards for concept originality.  But the movie itself while good, was nothing special.  It was the filming over years that really fascinated me, I would even go as far as calling it genius or revolutionary.

    But had it been filmed like any other movie, it would not have received any nominations, IMO.

    Have not seen Birdman, but I am really surprised Rudderless was not nominated.


    Not sure I would go so far as (none / 0) (#135)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:29:36 PM EST
    calling it "genius or revolutionary."

    It used to be referred to as home movies.


    That view would certainly be valid, ... (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 12:38:33 PM EST
    ... provided that your own family's home movies show the incident when your drunken and belligerent father hurled a drink glass in your direction while you were seated at the dinner table, or that time when you were caught in bed with your teenaged girlfriend by your sister's roommate.

    Did you even see the film?


    Now it is referred to as a TV series! (none / 0) (#141)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:39:30 PM EST
    I still want to see the Mad Men supercut about the girlhood of Sally Draper. I am re-watching Mad Men in prep for the final 8 episodes, and I am convinced that would be an excellent film!

    is out of date. The theater is now the Dolby Theater (2012).

    thanks, I didn't know that (none / 0) (#158)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 01:28:21 AM EST
    It's the same photo I've used for years. It was made for TalkLeft, I like it. Maybe next year I'll use a different one.

    The past 15 years or so of "digital"'s entry and Kodak's (and Fuji's) exit has really been a change of almost biblical proportion within the industry.

    iow, Kodak's name on the "Oscars" (none / 0) (#168)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 12:44:47 PM EST
    location, and it's subsequent removal, means a lot to many in the industry.

    Interesting... (none / 0) (#200)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 03, 2015 at 08:27:07 AM EST
    Arquette is getting some blow-back (none / 0) (#178)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 02:24:02 PM EST
    ::shrug:: (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by sj on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 03:43:35 PM EST
    Some people are always looking to be offended. If mis-hearing and then misinterpreting is the way to make that happen it will.

    And anyway, I expect blowback is no surprise to her. I really hate to say this, but when working on behalf of women, there is always a core bit of women who will find a way to get offended.

    Then again that's probably true of other groups, too, now that I think on it.


    I became aware of the blow-back (none / 0) (#185)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 03:51:21 PM EST
    by a FB message from a black female writer on whose TV show I worked many years ago.

    "It's time for all the women in America" (none / 0) (#180)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 02:50:45 PM EST
    It's time for all the women in America, and all the men that love women and all the gay people and all the people of color that we've all fought for -- to fight for us now!

    From the little I read about the blowback (none / 0) (#194)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 27, 2015 at 12:05:04 PM EST
    before sighing in exasperation it seems like people are choosing to believe that she wants people to stop fighting for those other causes and help rich white women. That is clearly not what she meant.

    thread now closed (none / 0) (#201)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 03, 2015 at 11:49:40 PM EST
    Thanks to all for your comments.