Friday, March 10, 2006
Thoughts on the Oscars
The Oscars were given out this week,
weren't they? Since I didn't watch the
ceremony (I don't have cable/satellite/
antenna (well, actually I do have an
antenna somewhere, but I don't have it
hooked up to my TV)) and I have no
idea who/what won, except that a movie
on race relations (I think that's what
someone said Crash was about)
was voted Best Picture by approximately
5,000 performers, directors, costume
makers, and professional ego fluffers,
instead of a movie about a love story
between two cowboys (which seems to be
what Brokeback Mountain was about,
at least based on the random bits of
information that I've been unable to
avoid.), I hereby nominate myself as
the perfect person to comment on the
hulla-balloo (sp?). Many people seem to
be in a tizzy over this, convinced that
this event has greater meaning beyond
the fact that more of the 5,000 voters
liked Crash than liked Brokeback
Mountain; I, personally, haven't seen
either movie so I am being completely
impartial when I say that I don't give
a rat's ass about the Oscars, Hollywood,
actors, directors, costume makers, or
professional ego fluffers (I'm not sure
what a professional ego fluffer is, but
the phrase popped into my head as I was
writing this and I like the way it sounds.)
In fact, I'm almost ready to give up
listening to the news on the radio, since
they don't seem to bother with fact-checking
anymore and it's hard to tell the difference
between the news and "entertainment", they
all seem to be in the throes of some sort
of incessantly incestuous cross-breeding
experiment. Basically, my point is that if
some inbred, insular community in Southern
California wants to hand out trophies to
people, then they should give the trophies
to whomever they want. Perhaps I can make
my point clearer by touching on another
recent controversy of which I've been unable
to remain ignorant: Barry Bonds and steroids.
The problem isn't that baseball players
haven't been living up to their responsibilities
as role models for young people, the problem
is that they're held up as role models for
young people. Has anyone heard the radio
commercial that talks about how the prices of
cable, movies, etc. have all gone up in recent
years while radio is still free? Anyway, these
things are described as "entertainment needs".
Yes, that's right: NEEDS. What, are we becoming
a society of feudal nobility, a bunch of pansy-
assed aristocrats who NEED to be entertained?
C'mon people, lay off the glass teat for a while,
get out and do something rather than trying to
fill the holes in your lives with "entertainment."
"Oh but I just watch PBS/Discovery/the History
Channel." Meh, "edutainment" is the most
addictive of all.
Anyway, I'm boring myself, time to get ready to go bowling.
weren't they? Since I didn't watch the
ceremony (I don't have cable/satellite/
antenna (well, actually I do have an
antenna somewhere, but I don't have it
hooked up to my TV)) and I have no
idea who/what won, except that a movie
on race relations (I think that's what
someone said Crash was about)
was voted Best Picture by approximately
5,000 performers, directors, costume
makers, and professional ego fluffers,
instead of a movie about a love story
between two cowboys (which seems to be
what Brokeback Mountain was about,
at least based on the random bits of
information that I've been unable to
avoid.), I hereby nominate myself as
the perfect person to comment on the
hulla-balloo (sp?). Many people seem to
be in a tizzy over this, convinced that
this event has greater meaning beyond
the fact that more of the 5,000 voters
liked Crash than liked Brokeback
Mountain; I, personally, haven't seen
either movie so I am being completely
impartial when I say that I don't give
a rat's ass about the Oscars, Hollywood,
actors, directors, costume makers, or
professional ego fluffers (I'm not sure
what a professional ego fluffer is, but
the phrase popped into my head as I was
writing this and I like the way it sounds.)
In fact, I'm almost ready to give up
listening to the news on the radio, since
they don't seem to bother with fact-checking
anymore and it's hard to tell the difference
between the news and "entertainment", they
all seem to be in the throes of some sort
of incessantly incestuous cross-breeding
experiment. Basically, my point is that if
some inbred, insular community in Southern
California wants to hand out trophies to
people, then they should give the trophies
to whomever they want. Perhaps I can make
my point clearer by touching on another
recent controversy of which I've been unable
to remain ignorant: Barry Bonds and steroids.
The problem isn't that baseball players
haven't been living up to their responsibilities
as role models for young people, the problem
is that they're held up as role models for
young people. Has anyone heard the radio
commercial that talks about how the prices of
cable, movies, etc. have all gone up in recent
years while radio is still free? Anyway, these
things are described as "entertainment needs".
Yes, that's right: NEEDS. What, are we becoming
a society of feudal nobility, a bunch of pansy-
assed aristocrats who NEED to be entertained?
C'mon people, lay off the glass teat for a while,
get out and do something rather than trying to
fill the holes in your lives with "entertainment."
"Oh but I just watch PBS/Discovery/the History
Channel." Meh, "edutainment" is the most
addictive of all.
Anyway, I'm boring myself, time to get ready to go bowling.
