CCBC-Net Archives
[CCBC-Net] today's youth and Hitler youth
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Mekerr13 at aol.com <Mekerr13>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:12:53 EST
Not one mention of war during Academy Awards, and this is an interesting view of George Clooney's little speech about Hollywood's contribution to our Americn way of life. Doesn't anyone see parallels in what we're feeding our youngsters & Hitler youth were fed? See below. mekerr March 08, 2006 George Clooney Wins Sanctimonious Hypocrite of the Year Award for Shamefully Ironic Hattie McDaniel Remark
>>Posted to Celebrity Profundity | Culture
One of the most notable and replayed events of Sunday?s Academy Awards presentation was George Clooney?s acceptance speech, in which he expressed pride in being out of touch with mainstream America. Being out of touch, Clooney implied, means that Hollywood is on the cutting edge of social/cultural evolution. But as it turns out, Clooney?s entire diatribe ? factually speaking ? was a giant stinking pile of sanctimonious hypocritical crap. Here?s what Clooney said after receiving the award for Best Supporting Actor:
? And finally, I would say that, you know, we are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while. I think it's probably a good thing. We're the ones who talk about AIDS when it was just being whispered, and we talked about civil rights when it wasn't really popular. And we, you know, we bring up subjects. This Academy, this group of people gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I'm proud to be a part of this Academy, proud to be part of this community, and proud to be out of touch. My knee-jerk reaction to this self-congratulatory spew was anger over the AIDS remark, because big-studio Hollywood did not address the AIDS epidemic until 1993 with Philadelphia ? seven years after Reagan-appointed Surgeon General C. Everett Koop issued the first comprehensive report on the disease, and thirteen years after it ?was just being whispered.? And I truly believe that the tragic delay in national attention to the AIDS epidemic ? both by the government and the media ? cost tens of thousands of lives. But then I saw Village Voice columnist Michael Musto report on MSNBC that, in fact, the Hattie McDaniel boast was perhaps even more egregiously fraudulent. And George Clooney in his speech I thought went overboard when he ? gave credit to the Academy for giving an Oscar to Hattie McDaniel in 1939 when blacks had to sit in the back of the theater. What he left out, true story, Keith, is Hattie had to sit in the back of the Oscar theater the night of her triumph. It?s a disgrace. What?! It can?t be true. How could a guy as smart as Clooney deliver a totally bogus speech to hundreds of millions of people? Is he so ?out of touch? that he failed to do any fact-checking whatsoever? The prospect that Clooney would have lavished praise on the Academy for awarding a black woman ?when blacks were still sitting in backs of theatres? when the Academy itself forced said black woman to sit in the back of the very theatre in which she received the award seemed impossibly ironic. Musto offered no sources for his claim, so I did a little checking myself. And sure enough, an April 2000 Ebony magazine article reports: The first Black performer to win the coveted Oscar statuette was Hattie McDaniel, who played a "mammy" in Gone with the Wind, and who received the best supporting actress award in 1939, beating her co-star Olivia de Havilland. The film, which has been criticized for whitewashing slavery and racism, raised the ire of the NAACP at the time it was being shot. Certain concessions reportedly were made to appease the civil rights organization, such as taking the N-word out of the dialogue. When the film premiered in Atlanta, not a single Black cast member was invited to the three days of festivities. The Academy Award ceremony was held in those days at Los Angeles hotels, and when Oscar-winner [Hattie] McDaniel and her escort arrived, they were shown to a special table for two in the rear of the hotel's Coconut Grove. So what the hell was that speech all about? Was he sabotaged? Did one of his people feed him that line with either malicious negligence or malicious intent? Or is he just as intellectually lazy as the targets of his criticism? In any case, he should have been challenged by at least some of the reporters covering the event. But he wasn?t. He was, in fact, celebrated by the fawning media for his courage. And why? Probably because ? as the women staff writers of the Daily News claim ? he?s ?one sexy-looking hunk o' man,? naturally immune from serious scrutiny. As Clooney demonstrated in spectacularly disgraceful fashion, Hollywood is not out of touch because it is thoughtfully liberal ? it is out of touch because its ambassadors rarely know what the hell they are talking about.
Received on Tue 14 Mar 2006 02:12:53 PM CST
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:12:53 EST
Not one mention of war during Academy Awards, and this is an interesting view of George Clooney's little speech about Hollywood's contribution to our Americn way of life. Doesn't anyone see parallels in what we're feeding our youngsters & Hitler youth were fed? See below. mekerr March 08, 2006 George Clooney Wins Sanctimonious Hypocrite of the Year Award for Shamefully Ironic Hattie McDaniel Remark
>>Posted to Celebrity Profundity | Culture
One of the most notable and replayed events of Sunday?s Academy Awards presentation was George Clooney?s acceptance speech, in which he expressed pride in being out of touch with mainstream America. Being out of touch, Clooney implied, means that Hollywood is on the cutting edge of social/cultural evolution. But as it turns out, Clooney?s entire diatribe ? factually speaking ? was a giant stinking pile of sanctimonious hypocritical crap. Here?s what Clooney said after receiving the award for Best Supporting Actor:
? And finally, I would say that, you know, we are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while. I think it's probably a good thing. We're the ones who talk about AIDS when it was just being whispered, and we talked about civil rights when it wasn't really popular. And we, you know, we bring up subjects. This Academy, this group of people gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I'm proud to be a part of this Academy, proud to be part of this community, and proud to be out of touch. My knee-jerk reaction to this self-congratulatory spew was anger over the AIDS remark, because big-studio Hollywood did not address the AIDS epidemic until 1993 with Philadelphia ? seven years after Reagan-appointed Surgeon General C. Everett Koop issued the first comprehensive report on the disease, and thirteen years after it ?was just being whispered.? And I truly believe that the tragic delay in national attention to the AIDS epidemic ? both by the government and the media ? cost tens of thousands of lives. But then I saw Village Voice columnist Michael Musto report on MSNBC that, in fact, the Hattie McDaniel boast was perhaps even more egregiously fraudulent. And George Clooney in his speech I thought went overboard when he ? gave credit to the Academy for giving an Oscar to Hattie McDaniel in 1939 when blacks had to sit in the back of the theater. What he left out, true story, Keith, is Hattie had to sit in the back of the Oscar theater the night of her triumph. It?s a disgrace. What?! It can?t be true. How could a guy as smart as Clooney deliver a totally bogus speech to hundreds of millions of people? Is he so ?out of touch? that he failed to do any fact-checking whatsoever? The prospect that Clooney would have lavished praise on the Academy for awarding a black woman ?when blacks were still sitting in backs of theatres? when the Academy itself forced said black woman to sit in the back of the very theatre in which she received the award seemed impossibly ironic. Musto offered no sources for his claim, so I did a little checking myself. And sure enough, an April 2000 Ebony magazine article reports: The first Black performer to win the coveted Oscar statuette was Hattie McDaniel, who played a "mammy" in Gone with the Wind, and who received the best supporting actress award in 1939, beating her co-star Olivia de Havilland. The film, which has been criticized for whitewashing slavery and racism, raised the ire of the NAACP at the time it was being shot. Certain concessions reportedly were made to appease the civil rights organization, such as taking the N-word out of the dialogue. When the film premiered in Atlanta, not a single Black cast member was invited to the three days of festivities. The Academy Award ceremony was held in those days at Los Angeles hotels, and when Oscar-winner [Hattie] McDaniel and her escort arrived, they were shown to a special table for two in the rear of the hotel's Coconut Grove. So what the hell was that speech all about? Was he sabotaged? Did one of his people feed him that line with either malicious negligence or malicious intent? Or is he just as intellectually lazy as the targets of his criticism? In any case, he should have been challenged by at least some of the reporters covering the event. But he wasn?t. He was, in fact, celebrated by the fawning media for his courage. And why? Probably because ? as the women staff writers of the Daily News claim ? he?s ?one sexy-looking hunk o' man,? naturally immune from serious scrutiny. As Clooney demonstrated in spectacularly disgraceful fashion, Hollywood is not out of touch because it is thoughtfully liberal ? it is out of touch because its ambassadors rarely know what the hell they are talking about.
Received on Tue 14 Mar 2006 02:12:53 PM CST
