He has a future in British Steel
Jan. 18th, 2006 09:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vovatOn last night's American Idol season premiere, some guy sang a little bit of XTC's "Making Plans For Nigel." Really badly.
In other news,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
slfcllednowhere had a link on her journal to this article. It's basically another one of those stories about Religious Right groups who think that the existence of movies about gay people is going to turn everyone in the country gay. Here's one choice quote from Janice Crouse:
"If America isn't watching these films, why are they winning the awards?"
The Golden Globes aren't chosen by "America," but by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Indeed, most awards have nothing whatsoever to do with "America"; they're all about industry insiders rewarding other industry insiders. So who cares, really? I get the feeling that these ultra-fundamentalists are among very few people outside the entertainment industry who even give a crap about the Golden Globes.
The whole idea of Hollywood (because apparently Hollywood is a collective entity controlled by some kind of Overmind) having an "agenda" is nonsense anyway. I'm sure individual filmmakers might have their own agendas, but so what? It's not like the fact a movie about something exists is going to change the opinions and attitudes of the American people as a whole, right? But if you look at the people who make the claims about Hollywood being "too liberal," like the "family values" crowd (who hardly represent all Christians, regardless of what they want you to think, and how they're identified by The Times) and Fox News (who had an entire special on this topic), they're often the ones who prey on the gullible to promote their own agenda. If viewed this way, perhaps it's no wonder that they think Hollywood filmmakers are doing the same thing from the opposite perspective.
On my first read of the article, I thought that the sentence beginning, "Religious groups also pointed to the alleged political agenda of winners including George Clooney, who won for his supporting role in Syriana, a film about the ethical pitfalls of the oil business" was implying that they thought attacking the oil industry was a bad thing. On closer inspection, it seems like they're simply criticizing the "alleged political agenda" of Clooney himself, rather than the actual movie. Still, it makes me think of another criticism that people have been known to throw at Hollywood, which is that there are too many movies where corporations or the government are portrayed as evil. I remember Newt Gingrich, when appearing on Fox News (because they love washed-up politicians whom nobody liked when they WERE in office, almost as much as they love washed-up talk show hosts like Geraldo, and washed-up political criminals like Oliver North) saying something about the CIA being "the bad guy" in every movie. Honestly, I haven't seen very many movies where the CIA or a corporation are the villains, so I think this says more about the kind of movie that Newt and his ilk choose to watch than anything else. Nonetheless, I can see why filmmakers might want to make such groups villainous, without there being anything overtly political about it. I think it's typical for films to present "the little guy" as someone to root for. A huge corporation obviously can't be "the little guy." They already HAVE the power, after all. As for the CIA, not only is a government organization, but it's one that, by its very nature, operates in secrecy. And people tend to be fascinated, and usually somewhat frightened, by secret organizations. So I don't see any of this as evidence of a political agenda.
Believe me, I'm no fan of the entertainment industry in general. And, as I hinted earlier on, televising awards shows is largely an exercise in industry indulgence. It just really annoys me when people try to act like ANYTHING they don't like is a sign of some kind of political conspiracy. And believe it or not, I'm not particularly fond of bigotry either. "A mission to homosexualize America," my ass.
In other news,
slfcllednowhere had a link on her journal to this article. It's basically another one of those stories about Religious Right groups who think that the existence of movies about gay people is going to turn everyone in the country gay. Here's one choice quote from Janice Crouse:"If America isn't watching these films, why are they winning the awards?"
The Golden Globes aren't chosen by "America," but by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Indeed, most awards have nothing whatsoever to do with "America"; they're all about industry insiders rewarding other industry insiders. So who cares, really? I get the feeling that these ultra-fundamentalists are among very few people outside the entertainment industry who even give a crap about the Golden Globes.
The whole idea of Hollywood (because apparently Hollywood is a collective entity controlled by some kind of Overmind) having an "agenda" is nonsense anyway. I'm sure individual filmmakers might have their own agendas, but so what? It's not like the fact a movie about something exists is going to change the opinions and attitudes of the American people as a whole, right? But if you look at the people who make the claims about Hollywood being "too liberal," like the "family values" crowd (who hardly represent all Christians, regardless of what they want you to think, and how they're identified by The Times) and Fox News (who had an entire special on this topic), they're often the ones who prey on the gullible to promote their own agenda. If viewed this way, perhaps it's no wonder that they think Hollywood filmmakers are doing the same thing from the opposite perspective.
On my first read of the article, I thought that the sentence beginning, "Religious groups also pointed to the alleged political agenda of winners including George Clooney, who won for his supporting role in Syriana, a film about the ethical pitfalls of the oil business" was implying that they thought attacking the oil industry was a bad thing. On closer inspection, it seems like they're simply criticizing the "alleged political agenda" of Clooney himself, rather than the actual movie. Still, it makes me think of another criticism that people have been known to throw at Hollywood, which is that there are too many movies where corporations or the government are portrayed as evil. I remember Newt Gingrich, when appearing on Fox News (because they love washed-up politicians whom nobody liked when they WERE in office, almost as much as they love washed-up talk show hosts like Geraldo, and washed-up political criminals like Oliver North) saying something about the CIA being "the bad guy" in every movie. Honestly, I haven't seen very many movies where the CIA or a corporation are the villains, so I think this says more about the kind of movie that Newt and his ilk choose to watch than anything else. Nonetheless, I can see why filmmakers might want to make such groups villainous, without there being anything overtly political about it. I think it's typical for films to present "the little guy" as someone to root for. A huge corporation obviously can't be "the little guy." They already HAVE the power, after all. As for the CIA, not only is a government organization, but it's one that, by its very nature, operates in secrecy. And people tend to be fascinated, and usually somewhat frightened, by secret organizations. So I don't see any of this as evidence of a political agenda.
Believe me, I'm no fan of the entertainment industry in general. And, as I hinted earlier on, televising awards shows is largely an exercise in industry indulgence. It just really annoys me when people try to act like ANYTHING they don't like is a sign of some kind of political conspiracy. And believe it or not, I'm not particularly fond of bigotry either. "A mission to homosexualize America," my ass.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-18 03:07 pm (UTC)>>In other news, I found a link to this article on slfcllednowhere's journal.<<
heh, i thought you meant the article was about the journal. i need to learn how to read.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-18 03:17 pm (UTC)I seem to recall reading that Robbie Williams did a cover of "Nigel." I've never heard it, and I don't want to, but I think even that is hardly current pop music. This guy looked a little on the older side, though.
>>In other news, I found a link to this article on slfcllednowhere's journal.<<
heh, i thought you meant the article was about the journal. i need to learn how to read.
I edited the sentence to make it more obvious what I meant. {g}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-18 06:30 pm (UTC)have you heard nouvelle vague's cover of MPFN? actually.. i think i might have put it on that cd i made for you. i need to get to the post office one of these days. bad, ADD, bad.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-18 11:43 pm (UTC)Yeah, it sounded kind of insulting, as if they were saying, "Who would have ever heard that song in this day and age?" It seemed like Randy might have actually known the song, though, which is something, I guess.
have you heard nouvelle vague's cover of MPFN?
No, I never have. I believe the only covers of that song I've heard were the one by the Rembrandts and Loser's Lounge.
Speaking of CD's, have you listened to the one I made for you yet? There's no hurry, mind you. I'm just curious. {g}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-18 04:04 pm (UTC)I was hoping someone else would mention that. I thought I was imagining things for a second.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-18 11:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-18 04:54 pm (UTC)Yay! I appreciate you pointing this out. I'm reading Madeleine L'Engle again right now. The fundamentalists can't stand her, and yet she's got such a strong, active Christian faith. Actually it's funny, I just read last night (it's A Ring of Endless Light), there's this part where the main character's grandfather, who's a minister, is talking about this book he's reading, and he says something like, "There are some points I'd like to argue with him, especially the places he talks about 'what Christians think,' which is for the most part far from what I think." I often wonder how much of my own religious views I've absorbed from Madeleine, or how much were ALWAYS my views and that's why I love her so much!
I sometimes wonder how homophobes have gotten along so long without ever getting to know a gay person. I mean, obviously they haven't, or they wouldn't be so dumb about it. But, like, two of my closest friends are gay (not with each other, one's a girl and one's a guy, though they have stated that it might be fun to marry each other just for the heck of it), and it's not like I set out and said, "I'm going to go find a gay friend now!" in fact I became good friends with both of them before they'd even managed to come out to themselves... so my question is, has this REALLY never happened to these people? Have they really never met anybody? Or would they honestly stop being friends with a person because they came out? And if they WOULD, how can they honestly call themselves Christian, when Jesus himself was known to make friends with sinners and the scum of the earth?
no subject
Date: 2006-01-19 12:07 am (UTC)I've never read A Ring of Endless Light. Is that connected to the Wrinkle in Time series? (And did I already ask you that before? {g})
I sometimes wonder how homophobes have gotten along so long without ever getting to know a gay person.
Actually, it's disturbing how many times I've heard people preface a homophobic comment with "I have gay friends, but..."
Have they really never met anybody? Or would they honestly stop being friends with a person because they came out? And if they WOULD, how can they honestly call themselves Christian, when Jesus himself was known to make friends with sinners and the scum of the earth?
Well, if you were to ask them, I would imagine a lot of them (but by no means all) would say they subscribe to the "hate the sin, love the sinner" philosophy. I have to wonder what kind of love it is where you're okay with denying civil rights to the object of that love, though. The way I see it, if someone believes that God views homosexuality as a sin, then it's for Him to judge, right? I don't see how attempts to outlaw and/or contain homosexuality on Earth benefit ANYONE, regardless of their religious beliefs.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-19 04:50 pm (UTC)Very distantly. Ring is from the Austin family series, separate from the Time series, BUT, one of the main characters in Ring is a cross-over character that once worked for a grown-up Calvin (from Wrinkle in another book, and occasionally mentions it here. And no, you never asked that before.
I have to wonder what kind of love it is where you're okay with denying civil rights to the object of that love, though.
The way I see it, homosexuality (the act, not the being) IS a sin, but only because all sex outside marriage is a sin, which begs the question, then, why not have gay marriage? And the answer usually given to that is Because marriage is for having babies, which brings you back to So what about old and infertile people? And the answer is, well, that's okay, because you're still loving and supporting each other and that's important, which brings us back to, WHY not gay marriage? Ah well. If only people would accept that BEING gay is NOT a choice....
no subject
Date: 2006-01-19 09:21 pm (UTC)Ah, so it's a different series, but from the same universe, so to speak. Sort of like The Sea Fairies and Sky Island to the Oz series, although you probably have no idea what I'm talking about there. {g}
And no, you never asked that before.
Oh, okay. Maybe I asked it about some other book of hers? I'm not sure.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-19 05:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-19 04:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-21 04:37 am (UTC)