 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Just finished part of the bio on Bravo. Redford personifies all that is great in the American spirit. Integrity, genius, independence, a no compromise individual with an ideal. With a purpose beyond the bourgouise ideal. In other words, not a piggie. A mensch.My favorite movie? Three Days of the Condor.
Follow Ups:
he plays himself.Gene Hackman gives a brilliant albeit brief performance that saves an otherwise incomprehensible film.
too bad Hollywood got the final edit...would have been nice to see it as a pure independent work.
I like Redford. He to me is a mellow Clint Eastwood. I particularly liked his part in The Horse Whisperer. -bolt-
...was completely stolen by Kristin Scott Thomas. Her presense was so strong that one could very well remove Robert and replace with a doll - the effect would not be diminished.She did the same merciless kharakiri act in Random Hearts, where she reduced another "American Legend" - Ford - to a mere sketch.
And yet another scalp on her belt - Bitter Moon. This time Peter Coyote became the backdrop.
The irony is - all those three films are incredibly weak and silly.
It is also quite funny that before you made that post I was thinking about Redford vs. Eastwood myself.
The difference is I believe rather significant. Where Eastwood managed to create a strong, sympathetic and immediately recognizable character, Redford did none of that. He forever remained a piece of good looking clay with no shape of his own. In that sense he quickly fell behind Paul Neuman who just kept growing and growing into a true master, while RObert stayed locked in his looks and blue jeans.
Well, not really (one TAFKA to another).
So what did you think of her in "The English Patient"?I fell in love with the book (the only reading material
I had during a extended train trip between Munich and
Vienna) -- but didn't personally think Kristin Scott-
Thomas portrayed the woman two men gave their lives for.Still pondering which actress could have played her
better though...John
I think you are right. She had some nice and sexy moments, but the whole movie was too fakish to my taste, and she was somewhat lost in it. However, the funny part is, looking back, I think she was still more interesting than the main character - don't you think so? He always seemed so unsure of himself that she looked like his mother next to him. I haven't read the book. An interesting question: did you read it before or after seeing the film?
Victor --I'd read the book first -- about three or so years before
the movie came out. I was totally jazzed anticipating
the film -- my girlfriend at the time kept calling it "THE
movie" as we waited for its release.The book, after its first 30 pages, is stunningly lyrical.
Much of its magic is the mystery of who "the English
Patient" lying in that bed in the Italian Monastery is.
In the book you get small fragments of his memories to
piece together, pieces of greek and roman history about
egypt and libya, all of which gradually come together.The second half of the book -- about the nurse and the
sikh soldier, eventually has its own lyricism. It was one
of my favorite books -- the movie kind of took away from
that in my opinion.I've heard people say they hated the book too -- maybe there
is no middle ground.On reflection, maybe Ingrid Bergman would have made a
better Katherine.John
After you saw the film - did you reread the book? The films are always direct and powerful in the way they color our reading impressions.I have never been a fan of Ingrid, always found her lacking SEVERELY in the female sex appeal area, much like Joanne Woodward, both sexless creature, I think. and by sex I don't mean just the raw drive, but the subtle one as well, even more so perhaps.
I completely agree with your assessment of Redford. The Sting is one of my all time favorite films-you can name any actor that Redford appears with in that film-Newman, Robert Shaw, Charles Durning, Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Ray Walston..all of them act circles around Redford. Hell, the woman who is hired to seduce/kill his character outacts him, and I've never seen her in anything else!
I have to agree with the (Eastwood/Redford) comparison. I agree also what you wrote about Kristin Scott Thomas, however the scenery in the movie was awesome and outdid her ;)
-bolt-
Great American? Perhaps.Great actor? Well... no.
Redford reminds me of a male version of Streisand. The movies they each done later in their lives make them the "center of attention". The movies seem to cry out "Look at me!" "Feel sorry for me!"
Wit: Horse Whisperer and Prince of Tides. Both great books...horrible movies.
Perhaps they should do a movie together. It would probably be an orgasmic trip for each.
Regards,
AS
One of the most shallow, wooden and insignificant actors in the American movie history.
Perhaps you would not agree that Woody Guthrie was an American either. There is more to America than G.W. Bush's corporate AMERIKA, in case you may not have noticed from your CIA perspective. You're not still on the payroll are you?Shallow and wooden as compared to whom? Who would be your utter idealistic AMERIKAN? John Wayne? That ultimate draft dodger?
He wore a dress, you know. Have to consult Repo Man for that one hehe!
***Perhaps you would not agree that Woody Guthrie was an American either. There is more to America than G.W. Bush's corporate AMERIKA, in case you may not have noticed from your CIA perspective. You're not still on the payroll are you?Wow! Talk about hot button! I didn't know G. Bush made movies - how did you make THAT connection? But back to the subject.
***Shallow and wooden as compared to whom?Compared to many. America managed to produce quite a few good actors. Jimmy Stewart. Cary Grant. Walter Matthau. Paul Newman. Kevin Spacey. Danny DeVito. Jack Nicholson. Many more. What's the point?
***Who would be your utter idealistic AMERIKAN? John Wayne? That ultimate draft dodger?***He wore a dress, you know. Have to consult Repo Man for that one hehe!
He he indeed. What doesn John Wayne has to do with Redford?
Victor, since you listed both Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito as some of the better American actors, I wonder what you thought of "The Big Kahuna", if you've seen it.I liked this movie a lot, predominantly because of the two actors mentioned above, but also that it dealt with human relationships and emotions in a very honest, no Hollywood bullshit way.
The big question mark for me is wether it was truly that good of a movie, or am I just so tired of poor movies that I latch on to even a halfway decent one out of desparation. Since you seem to be well versed in international films, you may be able to enlighten me somewhat.
BTW, I'm a Woody fan as well, so I think that we may share some tastes in movies.
No, I haven't seen that one, sorry. I shall probably check it out. Looks like its director has not done anything else... how come?
and a theatre director. Which I guess makes sense, since this was adapted from a play.
Hi Vic,
mind if I take a middle path? He did a few good films; then settled comfortably into his role as a minor Deity. He actually is pretty good at being a deity, you know....
His acting and presence are most reminiscent of same of the "great" female ones: Marilyn Monroe and Cindy Crawford. I would not call that Deity. Male Bimbo is more like it.It is ironic that just the last night I saw a good work of a truly good American actor, much underrated, unfortunately, but incredibly honest and with tons of charisma, and ahem... no blue eyes either.
It was the naive commedy Renaissance Man - saw it for the second or third time and still loved it. Danny DeVito is *true* actor.
And an intelligent Actor...what an exception.I caught only the first half hour of the "Live At Actors Studio" with Alan Alda.
What an Egomaniac!
He had me charmed the first 30minutes or so, with his exceptional intelligence vis. Acting...but then he blew it...BIG TIME!
The question was...when discussing his role as "Hawk Eye" in M*A*S*H
...what do you think made your character so popular and loved ?Alda pauses a moment and says...words to this effect...I think it was when I started speaking out publically for the Equal Rights Amendment.
That did it, and it confirms for me all of the pre-conceived things one associates with those out of touch, Left Coast, Dumb Actors, who actually believes in their own press releases. A truly embarassing moment for Alda, and I will remember it now when I watch his Tv performances in M*A*S*H.
Redford is sincere about his feelings on a number of public issues, but he always has had Class...and never let with his passions got out of control...at least publically.
... into a political statement? Whether one likes or dislikes Alan Alda, you chose to express a personal POLITICAL opinion (i.e., one which I happen to vigorously disagree with) that's out of place as well as out of touch, at least in this forum! If you want to discuss whether the ERA should've been ratified or get down and dirty about which actors speaking out on issues are "DUMB" because they don't happen to hold your "intellectually superior" armchair political insight, then well I'll be glad to oblige, ...over in the Outside Asylum.If you want to discuss movies, television, DVDs or acting, I'll be glad to discuss that with you over here. Otherwise, please keep your political philosophies to yourself or if you must discuss politics in the context of cinema, do it in the context of cinema which contains political themes, okay?
Regards,
AuPh
I didn't see the show (we don't get Bravo since we moved : <),
but my read on it was that Alda appeared to be an:"Intelligent Guy, Gifted Actor,"
Then:
"So impressed with self and own idealism that he imagines that most who
like iconoclastic Hawkeye would automatically share Alda's utopian
ideals - this seems to be a common Lefty viewpoint, and
therefore 'Left Coast' is apt."However, the real thrust here is self-absorbed actors.
If Heston had been asked why people identified strongly with Ben Hur, and he
had said "because of my support for 2nd Amendment Rights", the same
criticism would apply - except the label woudn't be Left Coast.Perhaps Right Wing or Arch Conservative,
or Fascist (in the 60's anarcho-appropriation).
Heston's activity with NRA and the conservative movement is constantly mentioned, and I have no problem with that whatsoever. It completes the actor's personality sketch.So I am still rather annoyed by AuPh's insistance that he has right to mandate what side of actor's personality can or can not be covered here. I think that is simply improper and he should just read or ignore posts or posters he finds annoying to him.
As I said before, anything having to do with movie personalities is fair game for discussion - in my view, which I am not seeking to impose on anyone. If the discussion of Heston's political views took ten pages then I would say - enough already, but to jump like AuPh did at the small mention of Alda's silly statement was completely out of place.
So I don't see your point about Heston changing anything.
Now, this is a privately owned forum, and the owners can certainly step in and enforce the rules any way they see fit, but lacking that step I would say - just keep going: filmographies, divorces, extramarital affairs, education, background, political affiliations, families, commercial activities - all are of interest and can be covered.
... of using an actor's support for a cause as a thinly veiled excuse to turn the forum into a political soapbox.What was stated about Alda didn't present his affiliation with certain causes in a fair and impartial manner, but rather condemned him to the point of ridicule for supporting womens' rights (i.e., the Equal Rights Amendment). The fact that Mr. Alda felt that his support of the Amendment had a great deal to do with his popularity during the run of M*A*S*H was simply his belief. Why did Mike choose to make an issue out of it, demeaning the actor for responding honestly to a question asked during an interview? His response had nothing to do with the actor or his talent, but rather Mike's own political perspective. How does that fit in with a discussion of the arts?
Answer that, if you can.
Audiophilander
***Answer that, if you can.Did already. Several times. What - are you trying to bore me to death by repeating the same whine again and again and again? I really don't care what you say about other people's posts or mine. But I find your attemps at silencing people arrogant. You are not the boss here, as far as I know.
Boy, I am getting out of this "discussion".
... without using your points as a podium from which to preach off topic political philosophies.It's difficult gauging Mr. Alda's intent in the interview, but I would agree that when actors rely upon their name recognition solely for political purpose they open themselves up to criticism. My take on Alan Alda is that he may have simply been responding in an honest fashion to a question about his popularity in the role of Hawkeye. IMHO, there's absolutely nothing wrong with his belief that taking a position on certain hot-button political issues coincided with an upsurge in his popularity on the program. I don't have a problem with that, and for all we know it might very well be the case, dependent upon the fan mail he received at the time.
Interestingly, your mention of Charltan Heston is an excellent example of an actor employing name recognition to promote his political views. Although I tend to think his "Moses" role in The Ten Commandments is the one that excites folks on the right. My biggest problem with any polemic take on Alda has to do with taking a simple comment made in an interview and exploiting it with sound bites about the "left-coast, Dumb actors" which are directed more at the Liberal viewpoint than as an objective criticism of the actor's statements.
Since the author of that original controversial post got the last word at the bottom of this thread (i.e., actually, four of 'em: "See...I told you!"), he should be rather pleased.
Cheers,
Audiophilander
***My biggest problem with any polemic take on Alda has to do with taking a simple comment made in an interview and exploiting it with sound bites about the "left-coast, Dumb actors" which are directed more at the Liberal viewpoint than as an objective criticism of the actor's statements.I would be more inclined to think that it offended you because it demonstrated the stupidity of most of the Hollywood left. On which there are tons of evidence everywhere.
If you had any reason to doubt the validity of Alda's statemnt analysis, you could have just provided some evidence, but instead you simply hysterically jumped in trying to squash any discussion of "left-cost Dumb actors" of which there are many, many, many, as we all know.
If you deny the simple fact that that left ideology has been coloring the American movie industry in more than one way, then you should simply take closer look and the films produced in the last twenty years or so.
I think to be fair, if the left wing actors would only stop shoving their agendas into our faces, then we all would most likely forget about their immature points of view and happily moved on, but for as long as the larger and larger portion of drek produced by Hollywood in addition to being sloppy is also driven by agendas, it is THEY who set the tone of the discussion.
How would you consider all those idiotic ribbons at the ceremonies? Apparently that is OK with you. Because you agree with those views? Or have you once spoken for them to stop that display? If it is OK for them to stick it to us, it is OK for us to ridicule them for doing so.
Otherwise you would like to have your cake and eat it too. You want to applaud the "masterpieces" like T&L and Philadelphia, but keep the truth hidden, to pretend that those are the products of purely artistic inclinations and not some political agenda of today.
Sorry, no go.
> > > "I would be more inclined toto think that it offended you because it demonstrated the stupidity of most of the Hollywood left." < < <I was offended by the politicizing of a non-political forum with an
off-topic comment against Liberals in general; Mike's comment went beyond a critical examination of the actor or the actor's Liberal beliefs to insult everyone with a Liberal viewpoint. People like you further complicate the matter by throwing fuel on the fire. Your insinuation about the "Hollywood left" being stupid is a prime example. If I said that Chatlton Heston was "stupid" because he reflected the narrow-minded views of the Hollywood "wrong"-wingers I'm sure that folks like you would get on my case about dragging politics into the film forum. The "H" word is what comes to mind, and I'm not refering to Hollywood! ;^)> > > "If you had any reason to doubt the validity of Alda's statemnt analysis, you could have provided some evidence, but instead you simply hysterically jumped in trying to squash any discussion of 'left-coast Dumb actors' of which there are many, many, many, as we all know." < < <
Two points:
First of all, the burdon of proof of Alda's intent to promote a political agenda in the interview on Inside the Actor's Studio" rested with Mike who simply used his interpretation of events to vent his political views on this forum. If his intent was to convince myself and others of Alda's intent to turn Inside the Actor's Studio into a platform for Liberal political views, Mike failed to convince me.
Secondly, THAT TYPE OF DISCUSSION HAS NO PLACE IN THIS FORUM as I've stated repeatedly, but you apparently refuse to acknowledge this.
> > > "If you deny the simple fact that that left ideology has been coloring the American movie industry in more than one way, then you should simply take a closer look and the films produced in the last twenty years or so." < < <
How? Left-wing movie plots? Which one's? Provide examples! Perhaps you're impressions are the result of not seeing as much right-wing propaganda coming out of Hollywood as used to permiate the silver screen! FYI, I recall more right-wing preachiness in the film industry prior to 1975; there was very little emphasis on progressive social issues prior to that time with the possible exception of a few
highly regarded counter-culture movies and a slew of pop-culture films that are hopelessly dated. Of course, many of the gung-ho Hollywood war flicks from the 50's & 60's are hopelessly dated as are the "red-scare" propaganda films of that era; these tended to pander to the narrow world-view of the Conservative right. To make a long story short, yes, I do deny that the left ideology has been coloring the American movie industry; if anything the movies themselves seem
pretty balanced overall and much more reflective of real life. Insrad of John Wayne in the abysmal "Green Berets", we have Tom Hanks in "Saving Private Ryan" ....of course there'll always be "Pearl Harbor" for those who prefer a lightweight Conservative Hollywoodized viewpoint. ;^D> > > "I think to be fair, if the left wing actors would only stop shoving their agendas into our faces, then we all would most likely forget about their immature points of view and happily moved on, ..." < < <
This is typical of the right-wing prattle which has no place on this forum! What are you trying to say here, dude? That the movies aren't reflecting YOUR OWN agenda enough? That the actors don't have a right to express their opinions publicly? The key comment you made here is about "...immature points of view..." which is just another example of
the wrong-headed polemic rhetoric which right-wingers try to push down everyone's throat. So, explain to us Victor, how does this comment belong on a board about films and DVDs???> > > "How would you consider all those idiotic ribbons at the ceremonies? Apparently that is OK with you. Because you agree with those views? Or have you spoken for them to stop that display? If it is okay for them to stick it to us, it is OK for us to ridicule them for doing so." < < <
Fair questions. I consider ribbons as a popular means of expressing solidarity for causes, not all of which are Liberal causes by the way, and a reflection of compassion. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't wear them? Are you in support of a universal ban on ribbons which often reflect patriotic values or do you just want to ban them for actors who speak out publicly for Liberal causes?
> > > "You want to applaud the "masterpieces" like T&L and Philadelphia, but keep the truth hidden, to pretend that those are the products of purely artistic inclinations and not some political agenda of today." < < <
WOW! Talk about political rhetoric! I never said that Thelma and Louise was a masterpiece, nor did I say it was without an agenda, although not necessarily as strong a political one as you're implying. Philadelphia was a film I don't recall discussing in our earlier posts, but since you've chosen to bring it up, how do you perceive it as a politically leftist movie? I think that you're lost in the woods finding fault with the premise of Philadelphia and I suggest you consult some of your Log Cabin Republican buddies before getting stuck out there permanently!
Cheers,
Audiophilander
***If I said that Chatlton Heston was "stupid" because he reflected the narrow-minded views of the Hollywood "wrong"-wingers I'm sure that folks like you would get on my case about dragging politics into the film forum.You are simply starting to invent the facts now. Show me where I got on your case for discussing Heston, or just drop that silly presumptive tone. That H word is all yours.
***Two points:
***First of all, the burdon of proof of Alda's intent to promote a political agenda in the interview on Inside the Actor's Studio" rested with Mike who simply used his interpretation of events to vent his political views on this forum. If his intent was to convince myself and others of Alda's intent to turn Inside the Actor's Studio into a platform for Liberal political views, Mike failed to convince me.
First - I think it would be fair to request the abstanance on both sides, if the said actors only stopped to shove their idiotic agendas in our faces.
As we all know - they can't control themselves, they wear it one every sleeve of their Gucci cloth. So there, for as long as they do it, we have the right to include that in our discussion.
***Secondly, THAT TYPE OF DISCUSSION HAS NO PLACE IN THIS FORUM as I've stated repeatedly, but you apparently refuse to acknowledge this.
I already stated that this is not your right to dictate to the rest of inhabitants what they are allowed to say. When and if you are appointed a moderator then we shall start listening... or running away. Until then - I see no reason to listen to your demands.
***How? Left-wing movie plots? Which one's?
I provided you with two, and could dump many more, but see no reason.
And as I stated before, all comments about films and their makers belong here, I think. But this is getting really boring. You are not getting anywhere with your childish demands and you are getting angrier. If you really feel that offended, then go to the moderators, solicit their opinion and if they agree with you, then as I said, we shall make our decisions. Until then - keep complaining if you want.
Regarding the ribbons - you seem to be missing my point entirely. Wear them any place you want, on any part of yoru body, that is perfectly fine with me.
BUT... then shut up and don't get upset when people discuss your ribbons.
You make statement - listen to the reaction. But that notion is completely alien to the liberals.
However - unlike you I am not demanding that anyone stays away from some discussion simply because I may not like the subject or the direction.
***WOW! Talk about political rhetoric! I never said that Thelma and Louise was a masterpiece, nor did I say it was without an agenda, although not necessarily as strong a political one as you're implying. Philadelphia was a film I don't recall discussing in our earlier posts, but since you've chosen to bring it up, how do you perceive it as a politically leftist movie? I think that you're lost in the woods finding fault with the premise of Philadelphia and I suggest you consult some of your Log Cabin Republican buddies before getting stuck out there permanently!
I think you are refusing to think while reading. I really don't care whether you discuss their agendas - do it all you want. You yourself brought the T&L plot up as something of a social value - did I request you stopped talking about it?
But your tone is getting sillier and more capricious. Why don't you simply just read the posts that don't offend you, and let the others say and listen to other things? As it is now you are displaying the perfect case of New Wave Liberal McCarthyism.
Just teasin'!My statement: *** "If I said that Charlton Heston was "stupid" because he reflected the narrow-minded views of the Hollywood "wrong"-wingers I'm sure that folks like you would get on my case about dragging politics into the film forum." ***
Your response: > > > "You are simply starting to invent the facts now. Show me where I got on your case for discussing Heston, or simply drop the silly presumptive tone. That H word is all yours." < < <
My first comment was an obvious speculation (i.e., as exemplified by my use of the word "If"), but not without just cause as those of us with a more Liberal perspective are often asked to take our views "Outside" the moment any controversy developes on one of the linked AA boards. Those with a more Conservative bent can get away with spewing anti-Liberal venom because they feel comfortable in the belief that they're preaching to the choir.
For you to say "Show me where I..." when I stated "folks like you..." (i.e., indicating like-minded people; not you in particular) is a bit disingenuous on your part unless you really didn't understand the context of my message.
The next two points we differed on had to do with actor's who speak out publicly on issues (i.e., "wear it on every sleeve of their Gucci cloth" as you put it) and my contention that the political debate has no place in this forum. My response to the former is that actors are entiled to be spokesmen for whatever cause they choose (i.e., even hammy has-beens like Charlton Heston) as an aspect of their private lives, and it shouldn't reflect either negatively or positively on their careers, their abilities to perform various roles and the profession itself.
The second point was simply my restating the opinion that contentuous political debate doesn't really belong in this forum even when the debate rises out of a thinly veiled reference to an actor's comments in an interview. Obviously you differ with that opinion, as you are entitled to do, but the other stuff about my making "demands" is simply unnecessary hyperbole. You need to learn the difference between a request and a demand.
I stated: *** "How? Left-wing movie plots? Which ones?" ***
Your response: > > > "I provided two, and could dump many more, but see no reason." < < <
Obviously, we see these plots entirely differently. I'm actually quite shocked that you view "Philadelphia" as a Liberal movie plot. If that's the case, then so much for "compassionate Conservatism", right? What provided you with the perspective of the film having a pro-Liberal point-of-view? The fact that the Tom Hanks character developed AIDS and was then discriminated against by the law firm which employed him? The fact that it even dealt with the subject of AIDS and homosexuality? The fact that it concluded with the little guy beating a system that was heavily weighted against him?
You see, I didn't get the impression that the film promoted alternative lifestyles or preached left-wing propaganda. Of course, it's been awhile since I last saw the movie (i.e., having viewed it only when it was in theaters), but my impression was that the film didn't carry an obvious Liberal message. So, perhaps you'll enlighten us as to how this "Philadelphia" is an example of a left-wing movie plot.
I won't pursue another discussion of T&L because you obviously have a problem with it's depiction of women rebeling against authority. Messages aside, I don't think this film was ever intended as high art. I'll give you this: if "Thelma and Louise" is viewed as a feminist assault on male supremacy in our society, rather than as a violent albeit groundbreaking farce with an anti-abuse message, it could be interpretted as having a Liberal bent.
> > > "Regarding the ribbons - you seem to be missing the point entirely. Wear them any place you want, on any part of yoru body, that is perfectly fine with me." < < <
I don't especially care for ribbons (i.e., it's a bit overdone and risks becoming cliche`), but I respect other's rights to wear them without contempt. I detest the idea of making the wearing of ribbons a personal issue and a cause celebe` for denouncing actors who are merely expressing compassion for others and solidarity for their causes. Again, I say it's a personal issue, one of choice, and not a suitable subject for ridicule except perhaps from the lowest form of anti-intellectual hate monger. Note: So we're crystal clear on this point, that assessment may or may not apply to you; only YOU would know that.
> > > "I think you are refusing to think while reading. I don't really care whether you discuss their agendas - do it all you want. You yourself brought the T&L plot up as something of social value - did I request you stopped talking about it?" < < <
Talk about twisting the facts. As I recall, you pretty much dropped out of the discussion in the original thread, which in effect ended debate since you were the film's harshest critic. As for the politics involved, you are only making my point about what SHOULD BE and what SHOULDN'T BE fair game for discussions on this board. Politics in the context of a film, studio agenda, or even an actor who is portraying his own beliefs through his film and television work is gristle for the talk mill, AFAIC (i.e., as long as the remarks aren't stated in such a way as to insult the personal politics of other inmates). However, once you cross the line into displaying contempt for an actor's personal views or how he conducts his/her private life, you get into tabloid country and, worse yet, risk offending the personally held beliefs of other inmates. I reiterate, isn't that what Outside is for?
> > > "But your tone is getting sillier and more capricious. Why don't you simply just read the posts that don't offend you, and let others say and listen to other things." < < <
The simple reason is that Mike made the issue personal by showing contempt for the actor's beliefs rather than just stating that Mr. Alda's political views shouldn't have been expressed on Inside the Actor's Studio. In other words, it wasn't really about Alan Alda's political views, it was about Mike's political views. That's not what this forum is intended for, now is it?
Respectfully,
Audiophilander
AuPh,I suggest you go to this link to refresh your memory about conduct in this forum.
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/142058.html
You need a refresher course!
... I was also polite in my response to you (i.e., never called you names or allowed my personal feelings about your right-wing political views to reach a level of personal invective). BTW, I felt that it would be rude to point out those forum policies to you even though they seem much more applicable to your posts than mine based on the political bias you expressed in your initial post.> > > "You need a refresher course!" < < <
I'll politely ignore the condescension implicit in that remark. Do we need this kind of board-involved intervention in order to achieve resolution to this and continue enjoying this forum? I certainly hope not! I made a friendly suggestion which you've yet to address (i.e., about taking the personal politics Outside).
Respectfully,
AuPh
Quite disingenuous coming from you. I think anything having to do with actors and other film industry insiders is a fair subject for discussion here.Don't like the post - don't read... okay?
... OKAY?He used Alan Alda's response to a question on Inside the Actor's Studio as an excuse to parade his personal political viewpoint, and that doesn't belong here, IMHO.
His quote regarding Alda's politics: > > > "He had me charmed the first 30minutes or so with his exceptional intelligence vis. Acting...but then he blew it...BIG TIME! -- (he, Alda, said in regard to Hawk Eye's becoming a popular and well loved character) ...words to the effect... 'I think it was when I started speaking out publicly for the Equal Rights Amendment.' That did it and it confirms for me all the pre-conceived things one associates with those out of touch, Left Coast, Dumb Actors, who actually believes in their own press releases." < < <
If he thought that Alan Alda had been an inept public speaker, he would've said so, but in fact he pointed to having been charmed by Mr. Alda's intelligence up until that point. Clearly it was the politics of the actor which offended him. However, instead of simply saying that he disagreed with those views he attacked the viewpoint viciously and labeling Hollywood Liberal as if THAT were something to be ashamed of! IMHO, if either Mike or you, want to parade such views there is a place for it, ...it's called Outside Asylum (as YOU well know)!
No offense Victor, but your mirror crack's aside you might consider reflecting on the best place for such debates yourself.
AuPh
As I said - disingenuous, and you are not giving us anything different to chew on. Look at your previous posts if you forgot. You often bring political issues into discussions of films.That to me is not objectionable, as - as I said - anything related to the actors, films, stories can be discussed here. My only concern with your posts was in treating the political subjects as if it were the element of art.
The way I see it, a political aspect of a film story is fair game. A political affiliations and passions, the character and history of the makers of films - by all means. These all help us in understanding why and how.
So I really don't understand what makes you so sensitive all of a sudden. And especially playing the role of a forum cop - did I miss anyone appointing you?
I have not seem anyone abuse that yet here, to me some minor deviations from just the "straight movies" talk are OK and make this place more fun.
I thought that bit on Alda and ERA was interesting and fit well with my view of him.
> > > "You often bring political issues into discussions of films." < < <Not out of context; if you can find any, post them for rebuttal; I'll be glad to oblige.
As I stated before, political discussion IN THE CONTEXT of film(s) is fine, even desirable. My problem was the cheap use of an actor's public statements in an interview as a personal soapbox to disrespect the actor and the political viewpoint he expressed; THAT doesn't belong here, IMO.
> > > "So I really don't understand what makes you so sensitive all of a sudden." < < <
It isn't a matter of my being sensitive. To the contrary, it's a matter of the post's author appearing insensitive to the personally held political viewpoint of anyone sharing similar views to those of actor Alan Alda. What do such polarizing personal insertions have to do with politics expressed through film and/or television scripts? Do we want to start using this forum as a political dump by simply inserting a reference to actor ______________ (fill in the blank) who's personal views happen to be a grist for discussion? We already have a great place for that, don't we?
If you want to discuss politics & acting from the standpoint of comparing the political subtext of various films an actor or actress works on with aspects of an actor's lifestyle, that's fine; it fits the criteria! What doesn't fit the criteria is the open dissing of an actor and his/her political views just because certain remarks were made in an interview that didn't mesh with the author's. Is that clear enough?
AuPh
Dear AuPh,Regarding my comments on Alan Alda...and I guess Robert Redford...I suggest that you forward your comments directly to Mr. Alda and Mr. Redford, and not to me. I feel they are more qualified to speak on that subject, and I'm sure they will answer any questions you have. They seem to be most proud of the views they express, and have no problem talking about it.
I'm sure you will find the address and telephone number of their Agent Representatives from the Screen Actors Guild and the Directors Guild of America.
Remember, it is they who have chosen to make their opinions public, regarding any number of public issues, and it is part of their well known and much public, persona. It is as much part of them, and as famous, as the acting roles they play and have played. In fact, it is interwined, and indistinguishable from their work.
They are happy with it and proud of it...so why aren't you ????
Please excuse the alternate moniker; I'm working from a new computer without e-mail up and running yet and the moniker registration safeguards are preventing my posting under Audiophilander.Now for the subject at hand:
> > > "I suggest that you forward your comments to to Mr. Alda and Mr. Redford and not to me. I feel they are more qualified to speak on that subject... -- They seem most proud of the views they express and have no problem talking about it. -- They are happy with it and proud of it...so why aren't you?" < < <
Mike, with all due respect it wasn't THEIR views, public or private, which concerned me here. YOUR political commentary is what was out of place as I see it. By expressing an opinion about their politics, whether some may feel it was an informed opinion or not, you were trying to elicit a favorable response from other like-minded Conservatives that had nothing to do with films or DVDs. You weren't really interested in the actor or his work, just dissing his politics in a manner that insulted anyone with a Liberal perspective.
IMHO, that sort of stuff belongs over in the Outside Asylum! FTR, personal opinions, including those expressed by actors, are discussed over there all the time. However, Outside isn't for the weakhearted; folks over ther give as good as they get and you won't be preaching to the choir.
AuPh
Auph,You are embarassing yourself, and I genuinely feel sorry for you.
For your own good and future credibility, I'm saying..."Goodnight Gracie !" !
(I dare you not to respond to my post. Let's see how long he can hold out, fellow members!)
> > > "You are embarassing yourself..." < < <How? By speaking the truth?
> > > "... and I genuinely feel sorry for you." < < <
I think the pity you're feeling may be a bit closer to home.
> > > "For your own good and future credibility, I'm saying "Goodnight Gracie!"!" < < <
My position is very credible even if you disagree with it. As for your "Goodnight Gracie" crack, I doubt that you'll sign off there, but for the sake of argument, if you really meant that, you wouldn't have posted the additional insult, which is carefully worded, but condescending nonetheless.
> > > "(I dare you not to respond to my post. Let's see how long he can hold out, fellow members!)" < < <
FTR, I don't care for dares. Those who post indefensible arguments may find it a convenient way to limit debate, but I refuse to fall into such traps. I provided a very reasonable alternative for redirecting your political views where they would be welcomed. You refused to even acknowledge my polite suggestion.
The little "fellow members" notation is cute, but rather childish don't you think? Those who agree with you or your political views will concur and those who don't won't, even if they don't speak out on the topic. In either case, it doesn't alter the thrust of my argument and trying to make yourself appear "one of the gang" is ludicrous since internet forums don't function via a hive mentality. OTOH, if you're trying to find allies, I'd recommend following my suggestion and posting your political views Outside.
Respectfully,
AuPh
See...I told you !
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
