Disqualified from the Oscars?

Rubbish.

It is bad enough that the Oscars have a skewed perception on movies, but this, this is something else. You're right John..what next, pull out movies about gay cowboys and controversial subjects because a particular subsect of people do not agree??

It is hardly GLORIFYING the attacks. Its an artistic perception of a very human and current affair. Look at Munich, that did not portray the Israeli government too well, and it got its fair share of political bashing from them.

If this movie gets pulled out, expect an absolute avalance of political influence on movies (thats not to say it does not exist right now).

VERY well said. I totally agree with your opinion on this.

First of all, I agree that everyone should have a voice...

However...

"The Oscars is a society of art... not a body for world politics."

Are you sure?

I just read that the director of this film said that he would be a suicide bomber if HE lived in the territories. He thinks its ok to blow up pizza parlors and bus stops full of civilians and that he would actually do it himself if he lived there.

He should be free to make his movie, but that doesn't mean we have to award him for it, or even give him a nomination. I agree with those who think he should be out of the Oscars.

Hey Jonesy...

Why do you want him out? Because you don't think the movie is good enough? Or because you don't like him?

Ditto. Oscar is so political he should run for office. John mentions right-leaning films. I believe Oscar automatically disqualifies those.

Plus, how long are we going to believe that Hollywood actually tackles controversial subjects. Gay cowboys? Been there, done with "Midnight Cowboy." Race relations? "In the Heat of the Night" - a far superior film to "Crash".

Oscar has lost it's luster. It'll soon lose its audience.

As for "Paradise Now", the Israeli families have every right to speak out. Their argument is that Hollywood should not be promoting this film by giving it worldwide attention. Remember, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. The petition organizers are not wrong when they say films such as this are propaganda and encourage those who would do us harm.

John,

Because I dont like him. I don't like anybody thats for suicide bombings, especially to the point where he'd do it himself. I havent seen his movie, but from what I understand its not that great anyhow. So I have to wonder how he even got a nomination. Its probably an attempt to seem tolerant and understanding, etc... This latest quote from him though may make the people that nominated him have second thoughts.

From what I've read, the movie does not glorify the bombers, but rather looks at their lives and the people influencing them either way.

I really understand why Israeli people would want it out, but I don't think it should be.

However, I must take exception with one assertion:

"Everyone deserves a voice, even those we disagree with the most."

These families called for the movie to be disbarred from the Oscars, not every copy of the film be destroyed. Big difference.

There's also a huge difference between giving someone a voice (if he were, in fact, openly advocating suicide bombing Israelis, I would have no problem protesting its inclusion), and giving someone a nomination to the Oscars.

It's a mediocre film that is certainly sympathetic to the Palestinian point-of-view but that should not be the reason for its disqualification. I don't give a damn about what the director has said in interview, the AMPAS isn't judging a magazine/newspaper.

"John mentions right-leaning films. I believe Oscar automatically disqualifies those."

Yeah, Oscar surely is hostile to right-wing politics. Obviously that's why a documentary about that noted anti-Communist Ayn Rand got a best documentary nomination ten years ago. Not to mention that one about Barry Goldwater's speechwriter that actually won the Oscar in 1980. That famous Hollywood conservative and occasional bigot John Wayne also seemed to do OK scoring nominations and even winning once from an organisation so hostile to his professed beliefs. And however many complaints may have been made about it, the Academy still gave that award a few years ago to HUAC snitch Elia Kazan. Somehow having been the Republican mayor of Carmel hasn't stopped Clint Eastwood being nominated for nine Oscars and winning five of those since leaving office. And "The Passion of the Christ" was REALLY calculated to appeal to secular left-leaning viewers, which must be why it got three nominations last year.

"The Oscars is a society of ART"

Funniest thing said on the Internet so far this year.

James, I don't think "left or right" concerns voting. Also, I should point out that for those supporters of "Passion" were both left and right. I actually think Oscar made a huge statement that year with not only "Passion"'s shutout, but also Michael Moore's em, 'documentary'-although the latter not getting noms was Moore's fault, not the Academy's.

Also, Clint Eastwood went against the "convervative" norm, in a matter of speaking in regards to the end of "Million Dollar Baby". It does not make him less conservative; his response to it was this "It is what the character did, not what he himself believes or would do" It is why it is called acting.

Now, while I did a quick comment in regards to the Audio Edition, let me elaborate on this:

Yes, the film is political. When the filmmakers come right out and say they support the killings, it gives the "art" a whole new spin. Is it wrong to ask the film to be pulled from the nominations? Yes. Let the nominees stand. If Oscar made an exception o this rule then every category is suspect; we could slip in "Revenge Of The Sith" back in the FX category if we want and boot "King Kong", or instead of "Syriana" as best pic nomination, we nominate "Cinderella Man" in its place. When the awards are given out there will still be some voice in the wilderness saying "They (nominee so and so) was robbed!"

You can't please everyone.

Still, I just can't but think of a Best Picture Oscar winner of the Academy's yesteryear, DW Griffith's "Birth Of A Nation", which was propagandic and racist, but was 'honored' for the art and still is to this day. The same will happen to this film "Paradise Now"- subject matter of a story which is not only contreversial but flat out bias, but will be seen as 'art' (as the Indy Spirit awards did-and if you really, really, REALLY want to see L-E-F-T, look no further than there) and that it was what the judges will base it on.

It should not be removed from the nominees, but the film isn't being 'silenced'.

But there was that one time when the Academy honored Elia Kazan for Lifetime Achievement. I saw the camera turn on Ed Harris and his wife Amy Madigan- who protested silently by not applauding (due to Kazan's history with the Hollywood Blacklist). That's when I applauded. Glad to see someone had common sense.

I think that's what should be done if "Paradise Now" should win. Someone should not applaud. Maybe a lot of people shouldn't. When I watch at home, I would not- and I am free to boo and throw popcorn kernels at the television.

-Sealer says make peace in Israel or PLO pack your bags.