Redhawke
50p63 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0
14 years ago @ Breitbart.tv - Maher To Limbaugh: I C... · 0 replies · +5 points
http://www.hbo.com/about/index.html?title=Real%20...
14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - 'Act of Valor': 'Paren... · 0 replies · +3 points
14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - 'Broadcast News' Predi... · 0 replies · +2 points
Neither my parents nor I could see much moral distance between Brooks' manipulation (done purely to make the story more "punchy"), and Hurt's (done merely because the subject AND the cameraman thought Hurt was about to cry when the camera was on the subject, so he recreated his near-reaction).
Now, admittedly, the message (Director James) Brooks seemed to want to convey (the danger of flash winning in the end over substance) is one that should be paid attention to. But the simple fact, in my opinion, was that Brooks' character was already a "salesman," just one selling things with a little more subtlety. That Brooks (and, to a lesser extent, Hunter) was so aggressively pompous about his point (and, it seemed to me, also sabotaging Hurt out of jealousy over Hunter's and Hurt's relationship, and envy of Hurt's success, not to register some important message), again, in my opinion, fatally undermines any moral high ground Brooks wants his character to stand on. FWIW. IMOO. YMMV.
14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - 'Broadcast News' Predi... · 1 reply · +4 points
***SPOILERS***
The opening scene showed Brooks doing an on- scene report on South American guerillas, with the movie showing Brooks' (IIRC) behind-the-scenes manipulation of the frame (the frame and his voiceover focusing on the boots shipped to the guerillas, to add pathos to the segment). That story was not called out by the film as anything but good journalism. Meanwhile, what infuriated Brooks and Hunter (and which the film condemned) was Hurt's false tear in a segment (conjured up as a later-filmed reaction shot to the "heartrending" story Hurt's character was reporting on), despite the fact that everyone in the segment agreed that, while false, it was pretty much an accurate recreation of Hurt's true reaction.
PART ONE
14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Oscars: Baron Cohen’... · 1 reply · +1 points
14 years ago @ Big Government - 'Equal Justice Under t... · 0 replies · +3 points
14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Comedy Cowards: ‘SNL... · 0 replies · +1 points
I can dream...
14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Something Gays & Musli... · 0 replies · +1 points
14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Something Gays & Musli... · 0 replies · +1 points
14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Something Gays & Musli... · 0 replies · +1 points
1. No matter what Minaj's "appeal" may be (to whomever that may be), her presence on the Grammies is arguably broader for its incorporation into the Grammies production. Unless you sincerely believe that (a) the Grammies producrers told Minaj "hey, we love your work, so do what you want. We aren't even particularly interested in seeing it beforehand," Minaj's message was endorsed by a broader "speaker," namely the Grammies producers. I sincerely doubt THEY were hoping for laughs. I saw absolutely nothing to suggest that it was put on for comedy (nor, for that matter, do I honestly believe that the Grammies producers have a working comprehension of "humor," but I digress). Absent that, the only really "absurdist" commentary I can foresee is that of the Grammies producers, and it ain't the one I believe you think it is.