In 1962 Gregory Peck won the Best Actor Award for “To Kill a Mockingbird” for his portrayal of Atticus Finch. Peck, in that role, embodied for many all that is noble and great in the American man. The roles celebrated by the Academy nowadays seem to be a little different.
1990 – Jeremy Irons – Claus Von Bulow who murdered his wife
1991 – Anthony Hopkins – Cannibalistic Hannibal Lecter
1993 – Tom Hanks – Gay lawyer with AIDS
1994 – Tom Hanks – Mentally challenged optimist Forrest Gump
1995 – Nicolas Cage – Drinks himself to death with hooker
1997 – Jack Nicholson – OCD racist
1999 – Kevin Spacey – Unemployed pedophile wanna-be
2001 – Denzel Washington – Crooked murderous cop
2005 – Philip Seymour Hoffman – Played Truman Capote.
2006 – Forest Whitaker – Murderous tyrant Idi Amin.
2007 – Daniel Day-Lewis – Murderous Amoral Capitalist
2008 – Sean Penn – Gay Activist Harvey Milk
I think this list says a lot more about how Hollywood sees America than it does America as a whole.
Everyone remembers the scene, when Scout, Atticus Finch’s daughter, was goaded by an African-American in the balcony to stand up in respect because her father was passing.
Out of those recent Oscar winning roles, which would make you stand up?
February 24, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I think we do agree that the award is for acting the role, however creepy the role might be and worthless or degenerate the subject matter of the movie. Perhaps a more relevant list would be the movies that win, or are nominated for Best Film? I recall being hugely disappointed that Silence of the Lambs won best film, exaclty because the subject matter was so nasty.
(No, I am not preparing the list; I have a job, still.)
February 24, 2009 at 3:21 pm
I think some of the commenters are missing the point. It is not a question of whether the actors in question gave great performances, most of them surely did. The point is about the type of movie that Hollywood chooses to make and the characters they choose to exalt.
They don’t really make movies about good folks who doing something good and noble, even if ostracized and criticized by some like Atticus in Mockingbird. The movies in question are mostly about varying levels of dysfunction and sociopathy.
Matthew’s question is where have good and noble characters like Atticus Finch gone in the Hollywood of today?
February 24, 2009 at 5:10 pm
CMPT:
I have a big money making offer for you. If I give you some coal, within a few weeks I am positive you can produce enough diamonds to make us both comfortably rich.
Please see: Ferris Bueller’s Day Off for details.
February 24, 2009 at 5:20 pm
I agree with Matthew
February 24, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Zummo – Let’s stick to debate instead of making it personal. Agree or disagree with him as your conscience requires, but do so with cheer and good humor.
CMPT is one of the faithful. He has something to add to the Body that we cannot.
February 24, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Matthew – besides Atticus Finch you could also cite St Thomas More… Paul Scofield won Best Actor in ’66 for “A Man for All Seasons” (which won best film).
February 24, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I think Christopher trolls all over the Fisheaters forum, as well.
February 24, 2009 at 9:09 pm
I think the post was limited to more recent awardees to make the point of the current moral decay that is evident in art modeling life.
If oldies are to be considered, I liked Charlton Heston in Ben Hur.
February 24, 2009 at 9:12 pm
but do so with cheer and good humor.
I kinda thought I was using humor. Okay.
February 24, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Paul Z – if I sound touchy myself I do apologize, but CMPT seems to attract a lot of that cutting sort of humor, and comments that are much more cutting without bothering to be humorous at all. It seems unfair to me. He’s a kid. One could fairly reply that his comments are often pretty pointed as well. I tend to think that he is much less a troll than he is zealous and young – possibly already prone to thinking of his position as the only position a “real” Catholic ought to take on things.
I just don’t want to see him be blunted and hardened by too much scorn; zeal is prone to see too sharp a criticism as persecution, which “proves I’ve been right all along.” That won’t help anyone. I’m not trying to dictate to anyone, just appealing to our sense of charity.
February 24, 2009 at 10:33 pm
NF:
I hear you, and my initial comment may have been a bit harsh. I was merely trying to lightheartedly address CMPT’s apparent lack of lightheartedness.
It’s (almost) Lent, so we could all do with taking a bit more time to reflect on the abrasiveness of our comments, me especially.
Have a good night, nightfly. No pun intended. Okay, maybe pun intended.
February 24, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Don’t you guys know it’s rude to talk about somebody in their presence? 😉 Guys, all I have attempted to point out is that Hollywood does not exault a character by awarding the best actor or actress Oscar to the actor or actress who portrayed that character. That is simply a fundamental misunderstanding of thespianism and of the Oscars. The personal opinion or motivations of the members of the Academy ought not to be conflated withe official nature of the prize.
Paul,
As your taste in movies and disgusting references make evident, you are quite crass. Try not to be.
Nightfly,
I appreciate your charity. However, I do not suffer under any such delusion as would convince me that mine is the only correct “Catholic” position. Where differences of opinion between men of good will are permissible, I respect them. Also, you speak of zeal as though it were a bad thing.
“For the zeal of thy house hath eaten me up.” Psalms lxix.x
~cmpt