Sunday, March 05, 2006

The stupidest Oscar win ever

I was already nursing a very bad headache, and it grew worse when that "song" started playing. It's "hard out there fo' a pimp"? Why should I have any sympathy for ghetto rejects that prey on women and hold them in virtual slavery?

Then that idiotic "song" won. What. A. Piece. Of. Trash!

Good lord. But let's be careful: if we dare to call this the most nonsensical Oscars ever, next year will be even worse. Tonight just demonstrated, once again, how meaningless the award has become, and for only one reason the Academy, the "stars" and the media will never admit: Hollywood ultra-liberalism. What adjective could possibly describe it?

"Brokeback Mountain" is obviously going to win Best Picture, but let's be perfectly clear about something. It's not a movie about love in any form. It's a movie about adultery and deception. Whether or not the two men love each other, they nevertheless married women and proceeded to have secret trysts. That's fraud, yet it's celebrated as "beautiful."

Update: I have been known to be wrong. I wonder what got into the Academy. "Yeah, everybody knows we're ultra-liberals with an agenda, but maybe we'd better hold off. Otherwise we can no longer pretend we're mainstream."

8 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Song of the Year goes to the song featured in a movie that best captures the essence and feeling of that movie. Hence the win for "It's hard out there fo'a pimp." If you have seen the movie, which im 100 percent sure you haven't, you wouldn't be so quick to judge the decision of the academy. Just because you do not appreciate hip hop music does not mean that other people did not enjoy the song.

I for one applaud the academy for loosening up their heavily starched collars, and recognizing a movie that a large portion of the movie going public actually paid to see and enjoyed.

The movie is about music and therefore the music was intrumental in making the movie come to life.

Monday, March 06, 2006 3:32:00 PM  
Blogger Perry Eidelbus said...

First, because you are so quick to presume, I can tell that my musical tastes are more eclectic than yours. Having done my share of clubbing when younger, I can assure you that that "song" isn't even comparable to good hip-hop. The problem with hip-hop and R&B today is the same thing with the "boy bands" debuting in the late 1990s, and while we're at it, U2 for the last several years: a lack of originality. Nowadays it's come down to generously sprinkling words like "niggaz," "pimp," "ho" and "b______" throughout, copying the same beat as a hundred predecessors, and releasing this musical goulash as a new "song." That, my anonymous acquaintance, is not good music. HOTFAP is just not a good "song" by any standard, unless, I suppose, you're one of those ghetto rejects that likes to grind against "your woman" while engaging in that absurd sexual roleplay. HOTFAP not even at the level of the tripe that Wendy Williams likes to play (over and over and over and over).

Second, the musical categories are not for what best exemplifies the movie, nor is the award called "Song of the Year." You should check the Oscars website and get your facts straight, and then you'd find the awards are "For achievements in music written for motion pictures." Any of the other songs were far, far better than that piece of trash.

As an aside, I agreed with last year's "Best Song" award, though I didn't particularly care for the subject matter. It was actually a good song, in and of itself. Not at the same level of "Fame," "For All We Know," "Arthur's Theme" or any of the old greats, but it was pretty good, and I agreed it was the best of the nominated songs.

Third, you'd have to pay me quite a large sum to tolerate viewing such a movie. Did you bother to see "Gigli"? By your standard, anyone who didn't has no right to call it a turkey.

Fourth, you talk about "a large portion of the movie public," but popularity never means quality. That's what the Academy Awards are about -- ostensibly.

Monday, March 06, 2006 4:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just don't you are grasping the point here - music like most things creative is subjective. You can't just say "it's hard fo a pimp" is trash because YOU compare it to other hip hop songs and YOU like other hip hop songs more.
The song is a huge part of the movie and works together with the movie. If someone likes the song it doesn't make them a ghetto reject. I think that is an ignorant and racist comment.

What does "For achievements in music written for motion pictures," actually mean to you? So if the song "Fame" which you think is so great, was thrown into another movie in 1980, say the Shining, do you think the academy would actually recognize it? The song would be out of place and ridiculous in any other movie. No one is saying that "it's hard fo a pimp" actually can stand alone. Though many people might think that. Just like "Fame" it will probably not be nominated for a grammy award.

The reason why Hustle and Flow was popular was because many people actually felt it was a great movie. Even the academy nominated Terrence Howard for his performance in the leading actor category. So I think a movie with such a great performance is actually worth checking out and I recommend you do so before trashing it. And yes, if you havent seen Gigli, why would you say it's a bad movie? Maybe someone out there actually liked it and who is to say they are wrong for feeling that way? When did critics become the be all and say all in our lives?

Tuesday, March 07, 2006 12:40:00 PM  
Blogger Perry Eidelbus said...

I just don't you are grasping the point here - music like most things creative is subjective. You can't just say "it's hard fo a pimp" is trash because YOU compare it to other hip hop songs and YOU like other hip hop songs more.
The song is a huge part of the movie and works together with the movie. If someone likes the song it doesn't make them a ghetto reject. I think that is an ignorant and racist comment.


I knew it wouldn't be long until you accused me of being racist. My term of "ghetto reject" is just that: someone that even ghetto trash would reject. If you're so offended by terms like "ghetto reject," "ghetto trash" or "white trash" (which I use from time to time as appropriate), I suggest you evaluate your "cultural sensibilities" and how far your Sisqo-esque knickers are riding up your butt. But if that "singing group" that dirtied up the Oscar stage is what you embrace, so be it.

You should also evaluate your standard of subjectivity in what Andy Warhol said, after he threw animal droppings onto a canvas, then fooled a museum into displaying it as art. In this world there IS black and white, good and bad, beautiful and ugly, well-made and shoddy. Saying HOTFAP can't be bad because of "subjectivity" is like DMX claiming he's just as good as in the late 1990s: to anyone with a discerning ear, it's a laughable claim.

What does "For achievements in music written for motion pictures," actually mean to you? So if the song "Fame" which you think is so great, was thrown into another movie in 1980, say the Shining, do you think the academy would actually recognize it? The song would be out of place and ridiculous in any other movie. No one is saying that "it's hard fo a pimp" actually can stand alone. Though many people might think that. Just like "Fame" it will probably not be nominated for a grammy award.

"Music written for motion pictures" means literally that: the song had to have been written specifically for a movie. Why do you take it further than what even the Academy states, or is this a John Kerry style of "nuance"?

We could talk about how "When You Wish Upon a Star" and "Gigi" would have been inappropriate for "Braveheart" and "Gladiator" -- but that's irrelevant. The songs are evaluated on their own merits, not what they add to the movie. "Fame" itself is a great song and deserved to win. Ditto for "You'll Be In My Heart", "Three Coins in the Fountain" or my favorite song ever, "Windmills of Your Mind". Great songs period.

The reason why Hustle and Flow was popular was because many people actually felt it was a great movie. Even the academy nominated Terrence Howard for his performance in the leading actor category. So I think a movie with such a great performance is actually worth checking out and I recommend you do so before trashing it.

HAF was hardly the popular movie you claim, so I'm afraid out the door goes your standard of "popularity." A mere $22 mil in box office revenues is NOT that much, particularly for how MTV overhyped the flick. Moreover, while I said nothing about Howard's nomination, a good performance does not make a movie "good," and cinema history shows that rave reviews of only one actor, when the rest of the movie sounds so-so, are not enough to bring in the crowds. Why else do you think we hear, from time to time, that some big name still wasn't enough to carry a mediocre movie?

Then again, I'm just waiting for you to claim HAF didn't do well because Americans were just "racist" -- that they didn't want to bother seeing a movie about less-than-savory blacks who were fictional but nonetheless realistic.

An aside for you to think about: someone made a curious point that this was the year of less popular movies receiving most of the nominations. Check out the biggest box office hits of 2005, and you'll see what he meant.

And yes, if you havent seen Gigli, why would you say it's a bad movie? Maybe someone out there actually liked it and who is to say they are wrong for feeling that way? When did critics become the be all and say all in our lives?"

Ah yes, now you must put words into my mouth. I never said that about critics. But if you listen to what EVERY critic and just about EVERY reviewer said about that Bennifer disaster, I'm glad I didn't waste my time.

I disagree a lot with critics, but it's their job to be more discerning than the rest of us. If you examine, say, critics reviews versus Yahoo users' reviews, critics tend to give lower (and more accurate) ratings than everyday. That isn't to say that every critic is right or more accurate, but they're more discerning.

So how about I'll release a hip-hop album of my own, and though the critics and everyone will think it's crap, by your standard NOBODY can judge it until they've heard it?

Perhaps you should think a bit on the old saying, "There's no accounting for taste." After all, there are still guys who wear loafers and light socks (or worse, no socks at all) with suits.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006 1:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You exhaust me Perry Eidelbus, but you're a good guy no matter what they say. I think we can agree that although we feel the song isnt very good, if others like it then so be it. They can listen to it while wearing their sockless loafers and watching Gigli. If you ever make a rap album, I would love to listen to it. But I have a feeling you are more of a crooner...Sinatra perhaps?

Tuesday, March 07, 2006 3:23:00 PM  
Blogger Perry Eidelbus said...

Even had I not mentioned on my blog what some of my musical preferences are, I know you have already known for a long time what my style is.

Steven Tomer, one of my best friends who occasionally comments here, and I actually did write an anti-Saddam rap when in 9th grade. We took second place in school.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006 3:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damn you meddling kids and your investigative work...Now i'm not going to be able to have fun with you anymore...

Tuesday, March 07, 2006 5:24:00 PM  
Blogger Perry Eidelbus said...

I happened to notice a particular domain in my visitor log, and that it was referred by a very specific search engine query. Then I tied that to the time a certain comment was made.

Can I call you DL?

Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:02:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home