2012 Oscar Nominations

[criddic3]

To me killing is always bad. Some killing is morally wrong, like individual acts of homicide or execution, or widespread killing from war or genocide. Other killing is morally right, like killing someone in self-defense or doctor-assisted suicide. I would never call it a "good" thing, though. It is never something I would be happy about. I know if someone tried to seriously harm me or someone else, I would do everything in my power to protect myself or the other person...including killing. However, if I started bragging about how I killed someone or the police found me dancing and cheering around my attacker's corpse, there would seriously be something wrong with me.

I just do not have that part of the brain that takes pleasure in death. Perhaps that is why movies like DJANGO UNCHAINED or INGLORIOUS BASTERDS bother me. During both movies, the audience cheered, laughed, and applauded the many killings on screen. It made me feel ill to my stomach because I figure that type of reaction to killing comes from the same part of the brain which leads to acts of murder, whether they are individual killings or the mass shootings we have been seeing lately. While many people react this way to violence in movies, it is not what I would call normal behavior.

Which is why I loved ZERO DARK THIRTY. The theatre I saw it in was more than 2/3 full, and the audience was a mixture of young and old. I was certain the group of 8 frat guys who came in together and sit in the row behind me were going to respond to the torture and killing in this movie the same way the audience did during DJANGO UNCHAINED. However, they and everyone else in the audience were incredibly quiet and still. Some folks shifted uncomfortably in their seat during the torture scenes, and many folks jumped in fright during the terrorist attacks. When we finally got to the big moment, the reason this entire film existed, the tension in the audience was palatable. Even though we all knew how it was going to end, the whole attack on the Bin Laden compound was incredibly suspenseful. Not a single person cheered, applauded, or laughed during any scenes of violence. They did cheer, applaud, and laugh during the purposefully funny moments (of which there were surprisingly many) in the movie. Maybe the reaction was different in other theatres, but thankfully not in mine.

With movies, as in real life, I think death should always be treated as a negative. Just because a death is justified (and we can certainly argue about when that is), it should never be something that gives you pleasure. Relief, certainly, but never pleasure. If you are deriving pleasure from seeing people die, you need professional help.

I think you'd have a big disagreement with me on "assisted suicide," which I consider morally wrong. But there is a difference in the kind of killing we see in the Tarantino movies and the actions we see taken in the Bigelow film. The purpose and tone of the situations are completely separate. People laugh and carry on during the Tarantino scenes, because they get that it's, in some ways, a live-action cartoon. It isn't the kind of realistic violence that would be more appropriately approached with a serious attitude. It's action-comedy. Zero Dark Thirty is a story about real-life events. The "enhanced interrogations" we see during the film are not funny, because they have the weight of reality infused in them. Which is also different from cheering the demise of a hated terrorist leader. Those people weren't thinking about just anyone being killed, but the leader of a murderous act that horribly killed innocent lives. It was more out of relief than out of the any happiness at the thought of death. I didn't jump up and down cheering, but I understood that reaction. To be sad for Usama Bin Laden is a little warped. It's like having sympathy for the devil.

[rolotomasi99]

I remember watching Obama on TV late at night announcing the death of Bin Laden. After he was done, the channel eventually cut to people outside the White House cheering, laughing, and chanting U.S.A.! I remember feeling disgusted with their behavior, and not at all sharing the joy most of my fellow citizens seemed to feel about this horrendous act.

This disturbs me. While, yes, we should value human life...should we forget that this was a man who ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent people, including children? This wasn't an attack on military people or a strategic target with collateral damage. It was an attack intended to kill thousands of people. An attack he claimed credit for. We cannot be so politically correct to say that it is wrong to eliminate that kind of terrorist with or without a trial. First of all, a trial would have become a circus and would have certainly led to execution anyway. It would have been a waste of time (and money). There was no question of his guilt, which is what trials are meant to determine. To call the mission to kill him a "horrendous act" is going too far, I think.

To me killing is always bad. Some killing is morally wrong, like individual acts of homicide or execution, or widespread killing from war or genocide. Other killing is morally right, like killing someone in self-defense or doctor-assisted suicide. I would never call it a "good" thing, though. It is never something I would be happy about. I know if someone tried to seriously harm me or someone else, I would do everything in my power to protect myself or the other person...including killing. However, if I started bragging about how I killed someone or the police found me dancing and cheering around my attacker's corpse, there would seriously be something wrong with me.

I just do not have that part of the brain that takes pleasure in death. Perhaps that is why movies like DJANGO UNCHAINED or INGLORIOUS BASTERDS bother me. During both movies, the audience cheered, laughed, and applauded the many killings on screen. It made me feel ill to my stomach because I figure that type of reaction to killing comes from the same part of the brain which leads to acts of murder, whether they are individual killings or the mass shootings we have been seeing lately. While many people react this way to violence in movies, it is not what I would call normal behavior.

Which is why I loved ZERO DARK THIRTY. The theatre I saw it in was more than 2/3 full, and the audience was a mixture of young and old. I was certain the group of 8 frat guys who came in together and sit in the row behind me were going to respond to the torture and killing in this movie the same way the audience did during DJANGO UNCHAINED. However, they and everyone else in the audience were incredibly quiet and still. Some folks shifted uncomfortably in their seat during the torture scenes, and many folks jumped in fright during the terrorist attacks. When we finally got to the big moment, the reason this entire film existed, the tension in the audience was palatable. Even though we all knew how it was going to end, the whole attack on the Bin Laden compound was incredibly suspenseful. Not a single person cheered, applauded, or laughed during any scenes of violence. They did cheer, applaud, and laugh during the purposefully funny moments (of which there were surprisingly many) in the movie. Maybe the reaction was different in other theatres, but thankfully not in mine.

With movies, as in real life, I think death should always be treated as a negative. Just because a death is justified (and we can certainly argue about when that is), it should never be something that gives you pleasure. Relief, certainly, but never pleasure. If you are deriving pleasure from seeing people die, you need professional help.

[Big Magilla]

I don't think you can blame that one on the Bush administration.

The U.S. captured Saddam, but did not try or execute him. He was was sentenced to death by hanging after being found guilty and convicted of crimes against humanity by the by the Iraqi Special Tribunal for the murder of 148 Iraqi Shi'ite in the town of Dujail in 1982, in retaliation for an assassination attempt against him. The Iraqui government released a videotape of him being led to his execution ending with the hangman's noose being tied around his neck. One of the guards took an unauthorized cell phone video of his actual hanging. The guard was later arrested. Another video later surfaced showing a large gash in Saddam's neck. The source of that video could not be traced.

The U.S. government went to great pains to insure that Bin Laden's death would not be treated as disrespectfully, partially out of religious respect, partly because they wanted to avoid making a martyr of him. He was buried at sea so that his supporters would not have a burial site on which they could build a shrine to him.

[OscarGuy]

I'm not taking sides in the argument, but Reza...there's a difference in the situations you cite. Hussein was killed during the Bush administration and bin Laden was killed during the Obama administration, thus why the two situations were handled differently w/r/t the pasting of images of the dead man's head.

[Big Magilla]

On a much lighter note, here's a link to an interesting article on the 100 oldest living Osar nominees and winners. Emmanuelle riva, who will be 86 the day of teh Oscars, is only number 64.

http://thefilmexperience.net/blog/2013/ ... ng-os.html

[ITALIANO]

I was one of those people outside the White House that night. And it was a great moment.

And this is the difference between being a barbarian and being a civilized person.

Plus, honestly, any time I've gone outside our President's residence was to PROTEST against something, to show - and vocally - my DISAGREEMENT over something, NEVER my approval. This is what we shoud do if we are human beings with a brain.

[Big Magilla]

Unless one should pay more careful attention to some key words, namely “Milan” and “Italy”, with might seem closer to some people than to others, and that might at last teach them not to throw stones while living in a glass house.

That was my not too subtle point.

[ITALIANO]

Isn't it fascinating, the way us human find ways to make barbaric actions we believe are necessary or morally justifiable appear aesthetically acceptable. Having to apply some kind of moral hierarchy, I find the way the Chauceskos or Kaddafi were demised to be far more acceptable than the seemingly more “cultured” way Saddam Hussain was “legally” exterminated by an American sponsored tribunal. And comparing the way a dictator of Mussolini magnitude was killed by partisans of his own long oppressed people, in the midst of the most chaotic time this pathetic civilization of ours has ever known, to the “surgical” elimination of a foreign person who was responsible for an act of violence toward a country which had done its share of acts which caused far more devastation while promoting its agendas, well, this comparison I find a little bit, well, problematic.

Unless one should pay more careful attentions to some key words, namely “Milan” and “Italy”, with might seem closer to some people more than to other, and that might at last teach them not to throw stones while living in a glass house.

Yes. And that's the problem of thodse who don't know - because they dont study it at school - history. It's very sad.

[Uri]

Isn't it fascinating, the way us human find ways to make barbaric actions we believe are necessary or morally justifiable appear aesthetically acceptable. Having to apply some kind of moral hierarchy, I find the way the Chauceskos or Kaddafi were demised to be far more acceptable than the seemingly more “cultured” way Saddam Hussain was “legally” exterminated by an American sponsored tribunal. And comparing the way a dictator of Mussolini magnitude was killed by partisans of his own long oppressed people, in the midst of the most chaotic time this pathetic civilization of ours has ever known, to the “surgical” elimination of a foreign person who was responsible for an act of violence toward a country which had done its share of acts which caused far more devastation while promoting its agendas, well, this comparison I find a little bit, well, problematic.

Unless one should pay more careful attention to some key words, namely “Milan” and “Italy”, with might seem closer to some people than to others, and that might at last teach them not to throw stones while living in a glass house.

[Reza]

I remember watching Obama on TV late at night announcing the death of Bin Laden. After he was done, the channel eventually cut to people outside the White House cheering, laughing, and chanting U.S.A.! I remember feeling disgusted with their behavior, and not at all sharing the joy most of my fellow citizens seemed to feel about this horrendous act.

This disturbs me. While, yes, we should value human life...should we forget that this was a man who ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent people, including children? This wasn't an attack on military people or a strategic target with collateral damage. It was an attack intended to kill thousands of people. An attack he claimed credit for. We cannot be so politically correct to say that it is wrong to eliminate that kind of terrorist with or without a trial. First of all, a trial would have become a circus and would have certainly led to execution anyway. It would have been a waste of time (and money). There was no question of his guilt, which is what trials are meant to determine. To call the mission to kill him a "horrendous act" is going too far, I think.

I thought the mission was "capture or kill" not "assassinate". And let's not forget he was given a dignified burial at sea. His body wasn't kicked, spat upon and hung upside down on meathooks from the roof of an Esso gas station in New York for people to stone as Mussolini's body was in Milan at the end of World War II in Italy.

Wonder why his face was kept in ''purdah'' after the deed was done? Yet the dead Saddam Hussain's face was flashed on every news channel around the world.

[Big Magilla]

I remember watching Obama on TV late at night announcing the death of Bin Laden. After he was done, the channel eventually cut to people outside the White House cheering, laughing, and chanting U.S.A.! I remember feeling disgusted with their behavior, and not at all sharing the joy most of my fellow citizens seemed to feel about this horrendous act.

This disturbs me. While, yes, we should value human life...should we forget that this was a man who ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent people, including children? This wasn't an attack on military people or a strategic target with collateral damage. It was an attack intended to kill thousands of people. An attack he claimed credit for. We cannot be so politically correct to say that it is wrong to eliminate that kind of terrorist with or without a trial. First of all, a trial would have become a circus and would have certainly led to execution anyway. It would have been a waste of time (and money). There was no question of his guilt, which is what trials are meant to determine. To call the mission to kill him a "horrendous act" is going too far, I think.

I thought the mission was "capture or kill" not "assassinate". And let's not forget he was given a dignified burial at sea. His body wasn't kicked, spat upon and hung upside down on meathooks from the roof of an Esso gas station in New York for people to stone as Mussolini's body was in Milan at the end of World War II in Italy.

[flipp525]

I remember watching Obama on TV late at night announcing the death of Bin Laden. After he was done, the channel eventually cut to people outside the White House cheering, laughing, and chanting U.S.A.! I remember feeling disgusted with their behavior, and not at all sharing the joy most of my fellow citizens seemed to feel about this horrendous act.

I was one of those people outside the White House that night. And it was a great moment.

[criddic3]

I remember watching Obama on TV late at night announcing the death of Bin Laden. After he was done, the channel eventually cut to people outside the White House cheering, laughing, and chanting U.S.A.! I remember feeling disgusted with their behavior, and not at all sharing the joy most of my fellow citizens seemed to feel about this horrendous act.

This disturbs me. While, yes, we should value human life...should we forget that this was a man who ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent people, including children? This wasn't an attack on military people or a strategic target with collateral damage. It was an attack intended to kill thousands of people. An attack he claimed credit for. We cannot be so politically correct to say that it is wrong to eliminate that kind of terrorist with or without a trial. First of all, a trial would have become a circus and would have certainly led to execution anyway. It would have been a waste of time (and money). There was no question of his guilt, which is what trials are meant to determine. To call the mission to kill him a "horrendous act" is going too far, I think.

[ITALIANO]

I remember getting into a heated argument with a friend who said she disliked THE PIANIST because it showed how some Jews worked with the Nazis to enforce order in the ghettos. She felt Roman Polanski did not depict the men in the police force as villainous enough. I tried explaining to her it did not make sense why Polanski had to condemn these men when just showing their actions seem bad enough. She felt depicting something without explicitly condemning it is dangerous. I did not understand that thinking then, and I do not understand it now.

My first advise: change friends.

My second advise: see better movies. Some of those made in the last century, for example.

As for Zero Dark Thirty, I always say: IF I found it pro-torture, I would act a certain way. For example, I wouldn't vote for it. And rolotomasi, let's face it: I still have the freedom to base MY votes on my values. Ah, but of course I DO have values.

...But I have seen (unfortunately) Bigelow's other movies, so I have my opinion on her as a director. And no, rolotomasi, she's not great and her movies - those made before Zero Dark Thirty - aren't great either. Realize this once for all and relax.

Wait...you hate THE PIANIST as well? Why?

As for what you think about ZERO DARK THIRTY, I apologize if I took out my rage on you. I just feel passionately about judging a film based on its artistic merit. It is fine to condemn a movie for its political agenda, but in my mind that should be separate from the discussion of its artistic merit. Clearly we disagree on this matter, and it looks like neither one of us is going to change their position any time soon.

If you do ever see ZERO DARK THIRTY, I would be genuinely interested in reading your thoughts on the film as a piece of cinema as well as any political point of views it may pushing. Lost in this whole debate about torture is the bigger picture about whether the U.S. had the moral right to execute/murder a human being without a trial (I think it is wrong to execute someone even with a trial). I remember watching Obama on TV late at night announcing the death of Bin Laden. After he was done, the channel eventually cut to people outside the White House cheering, laughing, and chanting U.S.A.! I remember feeling disgusted with their behavior, and not at all sharing the joy most of my fellow citizens seemed to feel about this horrendous act.

I think Bigelow/Boal did any amazing job not turning this film into a film that people could feel pumped up about. This is not a movie that you leave thinking "America is fucking awesome!" The closing shot of the movie is particularly haunting.

Finally, I know my defense of THE HURT LOCKER and ZERO DARK THIRTY have been, shall we say, passionate. However, I have never called Bigelow's previous films great. I think she has consistently shown a strong eye as a director and is very good with finding the proper rhythm of each of her movies. POINT BREAK is still good fun, and deserves to be favorably compared to other strong action films like DIE HARD and LETHAL WEAPON. NEAR DARK, BLUE STEEL, and K-19: THE WIDOWMAKER are also good fun, while STRANGE DAYS is disturbing but powerful. The only one of her films I actually dislike is THE WEIGHT OF WATER, but that has to do with the ridiculous story. THE HURT LOCKER to me was a huge leap forward in her overall skillcraft as a director.

Bigelow's progression as a director was for me very similar to David Fincher. I admired all of his films and enjoyed many of them, but I feel he truly matured as an artist with the release of ZODIAC. All of Fincher's talent was finally coming together in support of a truly amazing film. I am just as angry about Fincher being snubbed for ZODIAC as I am about Bigelow's snub. I do not think Fincher's or Bigelow's other films should have any bearing on assessing the quality of their best films. Why you insist on doing that Italiano is beyond me, but so far Bigelow has directed two great films and I think she deserves fair recognition of that -- free from attacks on the perceived politics of the films or what films she as a female director should be making.

THE HURT LOCKER, ZERO DARK THIRTY, ZODIAC, THE PIANIST, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, GOMORRAH, THE WHITE RIBBON...these are movies I love for their interesting stories, their strong characterizations, and their simple-yet-gorgeous visuals. This is the type of filmmaking I enjoy. I am sorry you cannot share in my joy Italiano. I am also sorry many of these films were not fully appreciated by the Academy. I need to stop taking it so personally.

Don't worry - I like passion and I even like YOUR passion usually - except when you call me dishonest, because I am not.

I think that it's very, very difficult to ignore a movie's politics or philosophy while considering its artistic value. Someone who hates gays will probably never really like Broleback Mountain. I would probably never like a pro-Nazi movie - even if it has a gorgeous cinematography or a brilliant editing. But most importantly - since this is what we are talking about - I would never VOTE for it, certainly not if I were a member of the Academy, whose awards, like any other major film award, have a big responsability: like it or not, they convey strong political messages, they are "interpreted", and they will be interpreted even in the future years. And I would never want America to be represented by a pro-torture movie, or by a pro-death penalty movie, if I were American. This is why I said that I understand David Clennon.

And then maybe I will see Zero Dark Thirty and will consider it as an anti-war, anti-torture movie, and in this case I will admit it. But I have seen The Hurt Locker, and no, sorry, that's not my approach to war.

[Big Magilla]

IMO Bigelow's pre-Hurt Locker films were nothing special although I do have a soft spot for Point Break. It's Mark Boal's writing that seems to have turned her from a fair to middling director into a first rate one.

Boal also wrote the story for In the Valley fo Elah, another good film about the Iraq war for which Tommy Lee Jones received his sole Best Actor Oscar nomination.