[supercaffeinated]

Could it be that the Jewish Academy doesn't appreciate the light in which Jews were presented in Gibson's Passion of the Christ?

[balding_ape]

Could it also be that it just wasn't oscar-worthy?

I say that purely as a joke because I haven't seen it, have little interest in seeing it, and so am no judge.

BTW, the top-grossing film of 2004 was Shrek 2, followed by Spider Man 2.

[supercaffeinated]

Ok, you're right, but it's number 9 on the list of highest grossing films of all time.

I didn't see it either But it's still interesting that it was only nominated in 3 categories, whereas Aviator was nominated in 11.

I'm not sure what "oscar worthy" means. There are about 5800 members of "The Academy". They vote. It'd be interesting to study the demographic of those 5800 people. They clearly have significant influence on the film industry that public pays all those billons of dollars to see. It's pretty obvious that the demographic of the Academy does not represent the demographic of their audience, and that's what I'm trying to make a point about here.

[nolan]

Quote

It's pretty obvious that the demographic of the Academy does not represent the demographic of their audience, and that's what I'm trying to make a point about here.

It's pretty obvious that you're anti-semetic. And that's the important point to make here.

[balding_ape]

supercaffeinated, on Mar 2 2005, 09:51 AM, said:

Ok, you're right, but it's number 9 on the list of highest grossing films of all time.

I didn't see it either   But it's still interesting that it was only nominated in 3 categories, whereas Aviator was nominated in 11.

Didn't see Aviator either, so maybe I'm just no judge at all. But more to the point, I don't really correlate earnings to Oscars (and I would hope that "The Academy" does not, either, considering that atrocious garbage like Star Wars: Episode I garners vast piles of cash).

Quote

I'm not sure what "oscar worthy" means.  There are about 5800 members of "The Academy".  They vote.  It'd be interesting to study the demographic of those 5800 people.  They clearly have significant influence on the film industry that public pays all those billons of dollars to see.  It's pretty obvious that the demographic of the Academy does not represent the demographic of their audience, and that's what I'm trying to make a point about here.

I myself have some abivalence towards the phrase I used. The determinations of 5800 people who are insiders of various kinds probably cannot be called "fair," but that is the state of things. In this particular context, I simply meant that the movie may or may not have had many outstanding performances or production qualities, since that is ostensibly what the Oscars are about.

Quote

It's pretty obvious that you're anti-semetic. And that's the important point to make here.

It's only "obvious" if you're looking too hard for it. Nothing SuperC said is in itself "anti-semitic." It would be like calling a person a KKK member because they observed that a black jury is far less likely to convict a black man than a white jury. Furthermore, in accusing someone like SuperC of being anti-semitic for his quite harmless comment, you do a disservice to the jewish community's attempts to fight very real anti-semitism in other cases.

[supercaffeinated]

nolan, on Mar 2 2005, 11:15 AM, said:

Quote

It's pretty obvious that the demographic of the Academy does not represent the demographic of their audience, and that's what I'm trying to make a point about here.

It's pretty obvious that you're anti-semetic. And that's the important point to make here.

First of all, I'm not "religious" in the classical sense at all. I've taken the "online religion selector" quiz, and it deemed me a "secular humanist". My Mom was catholic, and my Dad's family is Episcopal, but they converted from Judaism after fleeing Germany just before WWII to avoid persecution. One of my best friends is Jewish... and I've dated Jewish girls. I'm hardly anti-semitic. In fact, I don't think you even know what "anti-semitic" means. You didn't even spell it right.
Semitic:
"Of, relating to, or constituting a subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic language group that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, and Aramaic. "

My girlfriend is Lebanese, although her family back in Lebanon is Maronite Christian. She went to Catholic School here in The States though.

And I barely understand what it means to be Jewish, so I don't see how I could be "Anti-Jewish", if that's what you meant. Is "Jewish" a religious affiliation, Is it an Ethnicity? Is it a nationality? Is it a "Race"? I doubt you could tell me either.

I'm merely pointing out what I think is a case where an (aruguably) predominately "Jewish" organization has apparently expressed an anti-Christian bias, or at least a bias against the way that Gibson chose to portray the Jews in The Passion.

What's ironic is that the justification for giving Million Dollar Baby the best picture award was that it was more "Artistic" than say, the Aviator. That emphasis on Art vs. the political message clearly wasn't applied to The Passion. It seems that maybe the Academy approves of Million Dollar Baby's treatment of euthanasia but perhaps they disapprove of Gibson's portrayal of the Jews as evil in The Passion.

What all this boils down to is that it appears that The Academy wields a profound amount of political power by giving or not giving these awards to people in the film industry based on the political or idealogical message portrayed in the film, and I think that bears note.

[nolan]

Quote

It's only "obvious" if you're looking too hard for it. Nothing SuperC said is in itself "anti-semitic."

What's this "Jewish Academy" he mentioned? There's no such thing as far as I know. When I hear people use pharses such as "the International Jewish Conspiracy", "the Black Plague", "the Yellow Menace" (or "the Jewish Academy"), etc., it immediately sets off alarms in my mind. Wrongly or rightly, I question what this persons agenda might be. If those types of pharases don't put you on guard than you're a "better man than me, Gunga Din." Or completely naive. Take your pick.

Quote

There are about 5800 members of "The Academy".  They vote.  It'd be interesting to study the demographic of those 5800 people.

Quote

The determinations of 5800 people who are insiders of various kinds probably cannot be called "fair," but that is the state of things.

The only demographic that matters in this case is that the Academy is made up of professionals from different specialties whose job(s) it is, is to understand, appreciate, and make films. To imply that this group is somehow "special" and to link it to his opening statement doesn't take a lot of looking.

And what's not fair about being judged by your (insider) peers? Who better to judge the quality or worth of a work, which is, after all, what the awards are all about. It's a celebration of their craft/profession by members of that craft/profession. The public just gets caught up in the glitz and the glamor. Too bad that you think that joe blow on the street should have a vote just because he has an opinion. Why should he have a vote? He has no expertise in the subject nor is he a member of the group.

I get a sense that a large number of the members here, if not most, are computer specialists of some sort....It Pros, programmers, etc.. The British Computer Society has an awards program, the BCS IT Professional Awards. Perhaps you're aware of it. Maybe the US or Europe has similar programs. I don't know as I'm not an IT pro or a programmer. (I did a google search to find something that might elicit a sense of "groupness". ) My point is, how would the members of that group feel if joe blow on the street thought he should have a vote on who the "programmer of the year" should be. I bet the reaction would be, "Get lost, buddy. You don't know squat about programming. You don't even belong to the society." Use the same scenario with ANY professional organization. Why should joe mechanic have a vote on the best chemical/mechanical/structual engineer in the country? Just because he has an opionion? Give me a break.

I also find it interesting that neither of you saw the film you're talking about. How can you talk about merit or quality or anything else about something you never saw? So it made a lot of money. Big deal. That in no way implies quality or worth. Remember the pet rock? Made tons and tons of money. It should be voted the "Best Toy of All Time", right? Or to put it another way...I've read megabytes worth of griping about Microsoft on this site. But they make billions of dollars on their products. Seems to me that Microsoft should be acclaimed "the Best Software Ever" since they make more money, by far, than any other software company. At least by the standards implied here. (No, I'm not serious. I'm making a point.)

By the way, I didn't see the movie being discussed, either. But I'm not making any judgements about it, either. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't have been nominated more or won more. I don't have an opinion because I didn't see it.

[nolan]

Quote

You didn't even spell it right.

Yeah, I noticed that just as I hit the Add Reply button. Can't find an edit function here.
You'll also note that in my haste I mispelled "phrase" twice in my last post.
I guess that means that, just like most people, I'm stuck with my ignorance.

[tolyngee]

supercaffeinated, on Mar 2 2005, 01:18 PM, said:

after fleeing Germany just before WWII to avoid persecution.

What a shame...

Personally, I'm only concerned with the anti-sodomites of the world...

Hate sucks... period. But to think people seem genuinely offended and disgusted with me when I sincerely suggest they "blow me" and put their mouths to a more productive use...

You might be a smart-ass and note your message was typed, not spoken... Need I suggest what you could do with your hands?

[balding_ape]

nolan, on Mar 2 2005, 02:30 PM, said:

Quote

It's only "obvious" if you're looking too hard for it. Nothing SuperC said is in itself "anti-semitic."

What's this "Jewish Academy" he mentioned? There's no such thing as far as I know. When I hear people use pharses such as "the International Jewish Conspiracy", "the Black Plague", "the Yellow Menace" (or "the Jewish Academy"), etc., it immediately sets off alarms in my mind. Wrongly or rightly, I question what this persons agenda might be. If those types of pharases don't put you on guard than you're a "better man than me, Gunga Din." Or completely naive. Take your pick.

The "Jewish Academy" is referring the "the Academy," as in "Academy Awards" (aka "Oscars"), which he is describing as having a significantly larger percentage of Jewish members than is reflected in the general populace. I certainly question SuperC's abuse of stereotypes (that all Jews are somehow a monolithic solidarity that watch out for Jewish interests, etc.), but that doesn't make him anti-semitic. I took issue with your idea that he was "obviously" anti-semitic, when the fact of his antipathy towards Jews was anything but obvious.

Quote

And what's not fair about being judged by your (insider) peers?  Who better to judge the quality or worth of a work, which is, after all, what the awards are all about.  It's a celebration of their craft/profession by members of that craft/profession.  The public just gets caught up in the glitz and the glamor.  Too bad that you think that joe blow on the street should have a vote just because he has an opinion.  Why should he have a vote?  He has no expertise in the subject nor is he a member of the group.

Make no mistake, I think peer judgment is really the only way here. But unfortunately, there is a tremendous amount of politics that goes along with this. That is the unfair part. I don't mean to suggest that the idea of "peers" was a problem, but rather the politics were. My bad, I wasn't clear.

Quote

I also find it interesting that neither of you saw the film you're talking about.  How can you talk about merit or quality or anything else about something you never saw?  So it made a lot of money.  Big deal.  That in no way implies quality or worth.  Remember the pet rock?  Made tons and tons of money.  It should be voted the "Best  Toy of All Time", right?  Or to put it another way...I've read megabytes worth of griping about Microsoft on this site.  But they make billions of dollars on their products.  Seems to me that Microsoft should be acclaimed "the Best Software Ever" since they make more money, by far, than any other software company.  At least by the standards implied here.  (No, I'm not serious.  I'm making a point.)

I did not pass any judgment on the movie whatsoever (and in fact stated so).