2017 Oscar Nominations

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 7914
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Postby Reza » Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:05 am

Uri wrote:
Reza wrote:
Uri wrote:(As you see, I left out Gandhi, since I have a hunch Reza may not share the romanticized Western take on him).


Dude your hunch here is very wrong. Do not share that dewey-eyed take on Gandhi at all.


This is exactly what I've said. I think. I said I believed you probably DON'T share the romanticized Western take on Gandhi, didn't I?


Yes you did. I understood it the other way round. Old age etc etc.

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3955
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Postby ITALIANO » Wed Feb 14, 2018 5:39 pm

Uri wrote:Ok, Marco. Let’s talk sex. Or the lack of it. Or the fear of it. Your approach is very enviable. You celebrate sex – conceptually as well as actively. You seem to find its complexity, if not always easy than mostly satisfyingly challengeable. So you are, apparently, rather resilient. And that’s great. I wish I was too, but I’m not. And while I believe we both agree there shouldn’t be any limitations on consenting adults to pursue sexual gratification, I think you think we don’t agree on any of the definitions of each of the words I just used. Any, limitations, consenting, adults, pursue, sexual, gratification. And, at times, be, on and to as well. But whatever the difference in our actual willingness to deal with other people bodily fluids is, I insist we do share some kind of theoretical liberal view on this issue. But yes, our take on how it should be implemented into the real world is at times vastly different and it has everything to do with who we are and whatever inhibitions we have or not. Because people do have them. Inhibitions, that is. And fears, and religious/social/cultural prohibitions people willingly or unwillingly adapt, and personal fucked-up histories – familial dynamics, relationships, variety of neurosis, pathologies - you name it. And we all share the same public domain and we all expect, or at least wish, to be respected in it and have our very personal concept of it to be the one ruling it. Which is, of course, impossible. Yet, a society has to come up with a certain code, or benchmark which appeals, or serve as wide array of individuals as possible. And in doing so, in my very personal view, the norms should be set not to accommodate the standards of the mighty members of society but to defend the more meeker ones. It’s should be true with tax laws, and it should be true when it comes to personal (yes, sexual) conduct.

Marco, your take on the politics (as in power dynamics) of sex is a male one. Straight or gay. When two (let’s limit the discussion) people have sex, it’s hardly ever a case of two perfectly equal individuals. There’re all kinds of hierarchies relevant. Age is a factor (an encounter between a 17 yo and a 24 yo is not the same as one between a 24 yo and a 60 yo). Beauty. Social background. Wealth. Beauty. Body size. Intellect. Mental state. Endowment. Race. Beauty. All these factors, or rather the lack of balance in them, effect the sexual arena. It’s true to both men and women. But when it comes to sexual interaction (or any other interaction) between a man and a woman, there’s an added factor, one which is usually more prominent than any of the other factors mentioned above, and that it is the gender hierarchy. And since men are the beneficiaries of this particular hierarchy, they are more often than not oblivious of it. Women hardly ever are. So yes, women take on sex is “different” (assuming, naturally, that the male one is the norm), since they are far more inclined to project on it a wider array of non-sexual gender issues. So, what a man sees as particular, individual incident – bad sex per se, that is - his female counterpart might see it as misuse of male domination. Fundamentally, #MeToo is about bringing into the forefront this exclusively female take. And it’s totally subjective and unfortunately there is no “objective” forum or method, such as any existing law enforcement system, which can address this decade, if not centuries, long accumulated sensation. Does this lack of known tools means this sensation should be repressed? I don’t think so.

(And yes, there are women who don’t feel comfortable with #MeToo. I guess the majority of them are conservative, or traditionalist women. But their voice is hardly ever heard, and anyway, they are not really part of this rather privileged debate of ours. Far more accentuated is the voice of liberal, strong and famous women who question this movement. Again, these are women known for their social status, talent, intellect (Margaret Atwood), beauty (Katherine Deneuve) or sharp tongue (Neri Liveneh – an Israeli columnist, whose involvement with #MeToo is fascinating, google her), which make them either stronger and in a much better position the “average” women and or having more to lose by not conforming to what male dominated society perceives as strong.)

So, Marco – was this enough? I know you’ll find it too analytic, too impersonal. Sorry, this is what I’m capable of. Sometime the absence is more present that the present, I’d say.



You are GREAT. I may not agree with (or, like in this case, only partly agree), but you are great.

No, I am honest - I don't agree at all :D

But you are STILL great... :wink:

Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1086
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Postby Uri » Wed Feb 14, 2018 5:35 am

Ok, Marco. Let’s talk sex. Or the lack of it. Or the fear of it. Your approach is very enviable. You celebrate sex – conceptually as well as actively. You seem to find its complexity, if not always easy than mostly satisfyingly challengeable. So you are, apparently, rather resilient. And that’s great. I wish I was too, but I’m not. And while I believe we both agree there shouldn’t be any limitations on consenting adults to pursue sexual gratification, I think you think we don’t agree on any of the definitions of each of the words I just used. Any, limitations, consenting, adults, pursue, sexual, gratification. And, at times, be, on and to as well. But whatever the difference in our actual willingness to deal with other people bodily fluids is, I insist we do share some kind of theoretical liberal view on this issue. But yes, our take on how it should be implemented into the real world is at times vastly different and it has everything to do with who we are and whatever inhibitions we have or not. Because people do have them. Inhibitions, that is. And fears, and religious/social/cultural prohibitions people willingly or unwillingly adapt, and personal fucked-up histories – familial dynamics, relationships, variety of neurosis, pathologies - you name it. And we all share the same public domain and we all expect, or at least wish, to be respected in it and have our very personal concept of it to be the one ruling it. Which is, of course, impossible. Yet, a society has to come up with a certain code, or benchmark which appeals, or serve as wide array of individuals as possible. And in doing so, in my very personal view, the norms should be set not to accommodate the standards of the mighty members of society but to defend the more meeker ones. It’s should be true with tax laws, and it should be true when it comes to personal (yes, sexual) conduct.

Marco, your take on the politics (as in power dynamics) of sex is a male one. Straight or gay. When two (let’s limit the discussion) people have sex, it’s hardly ever a case of two perfectly equal individuals. There’re all kinds of hierarchies relevant. Age is a factor (an encounter between a 17 yo and a 24 yo is not the same as one between a 24 yo and a 60 yo). Beauty. Social background. Wealth. Beauty. Body size. Intellect. Mental state. Endowment. Race. Beauty. All these factors, or rather the lack of balance in them, effect the sexual arena. It’s true to both men and women. But when it comes to sexual interaction (or any other interaction) between a man and a woman, there’s an added factor, one which is usually more prominent than any of the other factors mentioned above, and that it is the gender hierarchy. And since men are the beneficiaries of this particular hierarchy, they are more often than not oblivious of it. Women hardly ever are. So yes, women take on sex is “different” (assuming, naturally, that the male one is the norm), since they are far more inclined to project on it a wider array of non-sexual gender issues. So, what a man sees as particular, individual incident – bad sex per se, that is - his female counterpart might see it as misuse of male domination. Fundamentally, #MeToo is about bringing into the forefront this exclusively female take. And it’s totally subjective and unfortunately there is no “objective” forum or method, such as any existing law enforcement system, which can address this decade, if not centuries, long accumulated sensation. Does this lack of known tools means this sensation should be repressed? I don’t think so.

(And yes, there are women who don’t feel comfortable with #MeToo. I guess the majority of them are conservative, or traditionalist women. But their voice is hardly ever heard, and anyway, they are not really part of this rather privileged debate of ours. Far more accentuated is the voice of liberal, strong and famous women who question this movement. Again, these are women known for their social status, talent, intellect (Margaret Atwood), beauty (Katherine Deneuve) or sharp tongue (Neri Liveneh – an Israeli columnist, whose involvement with #MeToo is fascinating, google her), which make them either stronger and in a much better position the “average” women and or having more to lose by not conforming to what male dominated society perceives as strong.)

So, Marco – was this enough? I know you’ll find it too analytic, too impersonal. Sorry, this is what I’m capable of. Sometime the absence is more present that the present, I’d say.

Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1086
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Postby Uri » Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:36 am

Reza wrote:
Uri wrote:(As you see, I left out Gandhi, since I have a hunch Reza may not share the romanticized Western take on him).


Dude your hunch here is very wrong. Do not share that dewey-eyed take on Gandhi at all.


This is exactly what I've said. I think. I said I believed you probably DON'T share the romanticized Western take on Gandhi, didn't I?

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 7914
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Postby Reza » Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:44 pm

Big Magilla wrote:The witch hunt aspect of it is in finding everyone guilty as charged without knowing the facts and burning them in the fire of public opinion.


Yes that's what I meant too.

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 7914
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Postby Reza » Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:41 pm

Uri wrote:(As you see, I left out Gandhi, since I have a hunch Reza may not share the romanticized Western take on him).


Dude your hunch here is very wrong. Do not share that dewey-eyed take on Gandhi at all.

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3955
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Postby ITALIANO » Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:32 am

Uri wrote:One is allowed to criticize #MeToo. One is allowed to use historical analogies while doing it. But compering it to McCarthyism or calling it a witch hunt, two historical phenomenon which, along the Inquisition, were about a mighty institution coming after relatively powerless individuals or particular groups of people, is basically wrong and at times rather mean-spirited. #MeToo is a popular movement aims at changing a well established social structure. It might go too far in one point or another – maybe in some cases it's already had. But implying it’s motivated by this hidden, evil centralized agenda, like there’s some feminine version of the Elders of Zion, renders the one who makes these implications with unpleasant shades.

So - Uri, be positive, what historical analogies are you allowing? - I hear the masses desperately calling. Well – the French Revolution comes to mind with its Danton vs. Robespierre clash, or suggesting, as a role model, Nelson Mandela’s take on abolishing Apartheid, with his Truth and Reconciliation Commission system as opposed to Robert Mugabe attack on the colonialist establishment in the neighboring Zimbabwe. (As you see, I left out Gandhi, since I have a hunch Reza may not share the romanticized Western take on him).


Why, Uri?

Why are you always silent - at least I hope unconfortably silent - when a movement, or an ideology, get so obviously ridiculous (and potentially dangerous) in some - I'd say many - of their actions and consequences? Why don't you apply one of your penetrating - if at times a bit too cerebral - analysises to facts like this foolish petition or others? The Uri I knew would have had a field day - combining group thinking with American-ness with hysteria etc...

But nothing. All you can say is that it's not a witch-hunt. Well, of course it still isn't. Not yet. And you know that things start slowly - but one must be intelligent enough to see the early signs. And it's even too obvious - come on - that the analogy isn't about a "hidden, centralized agenda" exactly (that would be too easy to contradict, and this is why you choose to deal with that). It's rather about how certain SEXUAL accusations (and sex, believe me, is a wide and complex and ambiguous target, not the clear enemy you and others seem to think it is) from persons or from groups of persons can so easily become general, messy, unfair, hysterlcal and, in the end, often ruinous (to individuals, but also the cause itself, which is certainly a right one). Why can't you separate - and it really seems that you can't - the (again: right) principles from their effects? It's so evident. Is your inner hatred so powerful that it can make you - an intelligent man like you - so blind? Do you really believe that a movement - especially a movement like this, my God - is the answer? That's it so simple? That the good are on one side and the bad - like me - on the other side? This is not an American movie, Uri. American, yes, but not a movie.

I can understand this silence from, say, Oscar Guy or Sonic Youth. Remember when I was viciously attacked by them for expressing balanced views on this subject and predicting what's happening now? No apology from them, public or private - but that's America. And no apology from you, either - but we are friends, it's different, I don't expect apologies of course. But a honest and unprejudiced analysis of certain facts, yes, I'd expect it from you.

Oh, and before Oscar Guy says it - I am not pro-rape. With him it's better to repeat it :)

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15614
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Postby Big Magilla » Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:48 am

The witch hunt aspect of it is in finding everyone guilty as charged without knowing the facts and burning them in the fire of public opinion.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” - Voltaire

Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1086
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Postby Uri » Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:29 am

One is allowed to criticize #MeToo. One is allowed to use historical analogies while doing it. But compering it to McCarthyism or calling it a witch hunt, two historical phenomenon which, along the Inquisition, were about a mighty institution coming after relatively powerless individuals or particular groups of people, is basically wrong and at times rather mean-spirited. #MeToo is a popular movement aims at changing a well established social structure. It might go too far in one point or another – maybe in some cases it's already had. But implying it’s motivated by this hidden, evil centralized agenda, like there’s some feminine version of the Elders of Zion, renders the one who makes these implications with unpleasant shades.

So - Uri, be positive, what historical analogies are you allowing? - I hear the masses desperately calling. Well – the French Revolution comes to mind with its Danton vs. Robespierre clash, or suggesting, as a role model, Nelson Mandela’s take on abolishing Apartheid, with his Truth and Reconciliation Commission system as opposed to Robert Mugabe attack on the colonialist establishment in the neighboring Zimbabwe. (As you see, I left out Gandhi, since I have a hunch Reza may not share the romanticized Western take on him).

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 7914
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Postby Reza » Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:53 pm

Mister Tee wrote:
Greg wrote:
Sabin wrote:Oh really? Michael Haneke is complaining that someone has taken something too far???


I'm not familiar enough with Haneke to really understand what you mean with this.

Watch Funny Games or The Piano Teacher, and you'll have your answer.


Just variations of all the American B slasher films that reach the top of the boxoffice in the United States. Only Haneke does it with a bit of "sophistication" and with A-list stars. The Americans subject kids to all the mayhem while this Frenchman concentrates on adults :)

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6394
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Postby Mister Tee » Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:27 pm

Greg wrote:
Sabin wrote:Oh really? Michael Haneke is complaining that someone has taken something too far???


I'm not familiar enough with Haneke to really understand what you mean with this.

Watch Funny Games or The Piano Teacher, and you'll have your answer.

Greg
Tenured
Posts: 2706
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Postby Greg » Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:01 pm

Sabin wrote:Oh really? Michael Haneke is complaining that someone has taken something too far???


I'm not familiar enough with Haneke to really understand what you mean with this.
You can resist an invading army; you cannot resist an idea whose time has come.

Victor Hugo

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7339
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Postby Sabin » Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:53 pm

Reze wrote
The French have also compared this hysteria to the McCarthy witch hunt as well as the much earlier Salem witch hunt trials accusing Americans of acting puritanical. Here's the link:

Oh really? Michael Haneke is complaining that someone has taken something too far???

I really do love this place. Whenever I get anxiety about the #MeToo movement, I just come here and I feel better.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

Okri
Tenured
Posts: 2587
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Postby Okri » Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:33 pm

Mister Tee wrote:
Okri wrote:
Franz Ferdinand wrote:We briefly mentioned Kobe Bryant as nominee. This recent development to rescind his nomination has been below the radar (my first time hearing about it), but that's a sizeable petition.

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/awards/13000 ... 56230.html


It's an interesting question, though. I hadn't heard about Bryant's history either.


I'm surprised you didn't hear about it. It was heavily covered by all the tabloids here.

Here, by the way, is a rather more dispassionate take on the events around the trial:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Brya ... sault_case

Fans in LA obviously chose to believe-or-forgive Bryant -- when he retired, he got a hero's send-off.

I have to say, I'm very uncomfortable with recent attempts to recast historical outcomes to suit current political climates. If these matters had been raised leading up to the nominations and voters chose to leave Bryant's film off because of the accusations, that would be one thing. But declaring the Academy must rescind nominations to suit someone's individual idea of justice is way beyond the pale.


a) I didn't know he retired.

b) Not sure I agree with that it is beyond the pale, exactly, though I understand why one would.

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 7914
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Postby Reza » Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:27 pm

Reza wrote:
flipp525 wrote:That comparison is very problematic, Reza, and you’ve made it (with some suspect frequency, I might add) in several threads.


Dude the world does not thankfully view the shenenigans in your country through American eyes. There can be a different perspective as well. Not as cut and dry as the perpetual hysteria in your country always indicates.


The French have also compared this hysteria to the McCarthy witch hunt as well as the much earlier Salem witch hunt trials accusing Americans of acting puritanical. Here's the link:

http://www.worldofreel.com/2018/02/meto ... e.html?m=1


Return to “90th Nominations and Winners”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest