Golden Globe Awards

[W]

A) You don't live in the Bible Belt.
B) Who said Christianity = Racism?
C) We're talking about Southerners, not Missourians.
D) I highly doubt the MAJORITY of people in your area are that way.
E) 1850's morals? Let me know what you mean exactly, because I'm not sure you know exactly what you mean...

I would believe that most people are ethno-centric, but out and out racist? In all my time in the South, I haven't seen much of it at all.

[Buscemi]

Southern Missouri IS in the Bible Belt. Ask many natives and they would tell you the same thing. Also, most of the people that move to Southern Missouri come from states even farther South (such as Arkansas or Texas).

And most of the people in Southern Missouri are the same: narcisstic, racist, stereotypically redneck and worshippers of Sarah Palin's backward morals (such as the belief that animals are created solely to be killed).

As for 1850's morals, I refer to old Confederacy standards. The Confederates to believe that whites were the best, minorities deserved to be enslaved and that's why God or any supreme power wants. These morals survive in the Bible Belt and in most area megachurches (in fact Springfield is basically run by a Pentecostal church known as James River, which is basically a metaphorical Invasion Of The Body Snatchers but with hate and racism replacing alien invasion).

[W]

Actually, the North was just as racist as the South in the 1850's, but slavery really wasn't a business practice that helped the North. And practically every ethnicity from the beginning of time thought they were the best.

I like to think I've spent a good amount of time in the South (4 to 6 weeks a year the past 10 years) and for the most part, the people are hard-working and have little out and out racist principles. There are those that you see and they're mostly in their late 40's and older. They're stuck in the 1950's for the most part and not the 1850's. I won't say that racism is dying out, but it is waning.

Racists use pretty much the same thought pattern that you used on Southerners. It is wrong to say that a group of people is inherently bad... and that's what you just did.

[Buscemi]

It can take one person to make a group look bad. Unfortunately, that one person is the whole.

[undeadmonkey]

Trust me, I live in the Bible Belt. Most of the people there are either racist or pretend to be black as an excuse to be racist (these are called wiggers). The Blind Side correctly depicted a culture that looks somewhat modern but is stuck in 1850's morals. That culture is the South.

wow, that's just an ignorant thing to say. I've lived 21 years in Texas excluding 6 months that were lived in Canada. Now i've been in LA for 5 months and i've met about the same amount of racists in canada, LA or Texas. There are ignorant, bigot people living everywhere. it's not just in 'the bible belt'.

[Geezer]

[NSpan]

But why male models?

Are you serious? I just told you that a moment ago.








PS. I pretty much had to skip the last page-worth of responses.

[BanksIsDaFuture]

Whaaaa....where is that from?

[NSpan]

an obscure french art-film.............................. very obscure... you probably haven't seen it

[numbersix]

A few thoughts to add.

I don't know why you think The Godfather glamorises being a criminal. Sure, Vito is seen to be a nice man to his children, but I'm pretty sure a lot of gangsters were/are the same. And sure, he isn't interested in drugs but he sure as hell is interested in robbery and murder. And watching the film and how it progresses, surely any sense of glorification is negated by what happens... that the life of a gangster is full of double-crossing, betrayal, violence, and death. And this is especially evident in the character of Michael, who starts by contrasting himself against his father and his father's life, who wants to live an honest life, but ultimately is driven into cold-blooded murder. I mean the film goes out of its way to portray that as a tragedy. So where's the glorification in that?

But anyway, back to objectivity and film. I still lean towards subjectivity in the most part, and I'm going to expand on something Geez said earlier. NSpan, you showed a picture of the Mona Lisa, which is a very good example of the problem. Again, I feel that due to a variety of conditions (the Renaissance equivalent of hype... let's call it "ye old hype") it became popular, but does that make it inherently good? The only quality we can all agree on is that it is painted well. And to take that to a level of film, surely the only objectivity we can agree on is whether a film is 'made' well, and by that I mean solid production values (eg. believable sets, apt framing, convincing performances). But every blockbuster has soild production values, but a lot of us hate a lot of them, so I'm not sure if that type of objectivity works in appreciating a film.

[NSpan]

I dunno.. Being able to admit that any given film was OBJECTIVELY "made well" sure seems like a big step in my direction.

[numbersix]

But only in terms of production values, essentially differentiating between a Hollywood movie with lots of money to put into sets and an amateur movie made by a bunch of kids. When it comes to story, narrative, characters, etc, I'm not sure how objective things can get.

[NSpan]

Looks like we disagree on this point...............but, for me, $$$$$ doesn't necessarily equal "made well"

[numbersix]

Well, that is true... as you can often have big blockbusters where the CGI looks awful (I remember hating the CGI in Troy, for example). but I guess what I'm getting at is the difference between craft and art. Craft is the ability to paint realistic faces, like Mona Lisa, or to shoot a scene in which the characters are framed well, the set looks real, there's no boom mics falling into shot, the lighting looks natural etc. But art is the something special, that thing tha moves and inspires you. And while it's easier to talk about craft objectively, I find it difficult to objectify the art side of things. Hope that makes sense!

[NSpan]

Well, as I've said many times now, my argument is simply that objectivity exists in the realm of art. It doesn't take anything away from the subjective side of things--but it exists. For all of our personal opinions, there still exists an objective value that is attributed to art that is creative, thoughtful, effective, moving, important, and influential.