I would hereby like to protest Million Dollar Baby’s win at the Oscars, for reasons fully elucidated at Two Trailer Park Moms.
And those reason are…?
Uh-huh. So, best actress in a film should be not be judged on their performance, but on political concerns?
Honestly, the mother character was in the movie in a very limited role - I think she could have been left out. But that doesn’t detract from Hilary Swank’s excellent acting - she deserved the award.
Susan
>So, best actress in a film should be not be judged on their performance, but on political concerns?
Yes!
I’d make exceptions for Heat, Man in the Moon, Truman Show, and other good ones.
Million $ Baby got Best Picture. Is it being too “political” to think that that shouldn’t go to a movie with a nasty message, one that exacerbates a real and actual prejudice against vulnerable people?
How is anything in that article relevant?
Seems like almost everybody feels that way about this movie. :smack:
FYI to anyone that hasn’t read the linked article yet - it discloses parts of the movie that I would have found more affecting had I not just read it.
Yes; pretty much.
You know, that website is not called Two Trailer Park Moms. Of course you know that because it is your personal site. Is that one of them blogs that I hear so much about? Is this some attempt to get people to visit your site?
After reading your ‘article’, you simple seem to be upset that Miss Swank’s real life mom was different from her character’s mother in the movie.
So?
How does that mean Swank doesn’t deserve the Oscar?
To expand on Aesiron’s “Yes; pretty much”, I’ll add this. Films are supposed to be art, not just entertainment. They’re supposed to tell us things about ourselves, our environment, and being human in general. And they’re supposed to be visually, aurally, and viscerally affecting to us. The best movies don’t just show us a sanitized version of reality, nor do they tell us only what we want to hear. Is every trailer-park mother like Swank’s character’s mother? Of course not. And no one is claiming such a thing. Academy Awards, as already discussed, are supposed to be for strength of performance, or direction, or writing, etc. Birth of a Nation has a morally repugnant underlying message (one that D.W. Griffith himself claimed not to be interested in or hold), but its power as a piece of art is undeniable. If you have some sort of axe to grind, fine. It’s a free country. But don’t presume to dictate what awards a film does or does not deserve based on any perceived “message” you, personally, glean from it.
>that website is not called Two Trailer Park Moms
Is this some attempt to suggest false advertising? That’d be qui–i--i–te a stretch.
It’s a webpage. I gave the title of the webpage.
I’d be willing to plea-bargain down to inviting people to my site.
And it’s NOT a “blog.” Please. But I do have an “‘article’” that might divert you, written, before blogs became so talked-about, to explain what blogs are: Our new blogosphere.
I honestly don’t get what the problem with the movie is supposed to be based on that article. If it’s just that Swank’s mother is not like the character in the movie, then so what? It’s not a biopic, and Swank never claimed it mirrored her life. So really, what’s the problem. As LindyHopper said so well, movies are art, and can show whatever they want.
>They’re supposed to tell us things about ourselves, our environment, and being human in general. And they’re supposed to be visually, aurally, and viscerally affecting to us… Is every trailer-park mother like Swank’s character’s mother? Of course not.
Well, I don’t think wisdom gets any more conventional than that.
The concept I’m pushing is really pretty easy. Imagine a visually, aurally, and viscerally affecting piece of propaganda that portrays blacks as inherently lazy and immoral.
But you won’t see that happening because it’s not politically correct. Blacks are off limits.
“Trailer trash” aren’t, however. They’re a free target for vilification through stupid stereotypes (which incidentally tells us less than nothing about our environment and being human) as in Eastwood’s movie.
Promoting bigotry does cause pain, harm, injustice. I call that ugly. That’s an aesthetic thing. And to my mind, it’s inconsistent with a “Best Picture” award.
Faye Dunaway in mommie Dearest
This is a thread about naming actresses who won Oscars for their performances of mean mothers, right?
I haven’t read the article and I’m not planning on it. The way the mother character was portrayed in MDB was stupid, shallow, offensive, stereotypical, bigoted and hurtful and by the end of her scenes I had a headache from rolling my eyes so much. I don’t see how any of that bears on Swank’s performance. It is a good reason why the film should not have won Best Picture (although not the only one), but it doesn’t say anything about the quality of the acting.
–Cliffy
Oh please. The movie is not propaganda, despite the attempts of so many to make it so. It’s telling a story, not spreading a message about a type of person. Maggie’s family is a bunch of crappy people. That’s not the same as generalizing that poor white people are all trailer trash.
Ummm … They live in a trailer.
This culture stereotypes people who live in trailers. (I recently saw a … trailer (also called preview) for a Sigourney Weaver flick where her character self-righteously bashes some other trailer trash.)
MDB reinforces this active stereotype.
I remember reading something a few years ago – was it a N.Y. Times piece? – about trailer park kids who get mistreated by peers because of their situation.
[Gotta go for now … will catch up later.]
DUH. Trailer trash is more than just living in a trailer. Would you have been happy if I’d said white trash?
That goes right back to what I already said: they’re not generalizing about poor white people, they just have some bad characters who are poor white people. If they were really generalizing, how do you explain Maggie herself? Sounds to me like the culture is responsible for the bad stereotype, not the movie in which these people are minor characters with two scenes. The people who made Million Dollar Baby aren’t obligated to make nice to everybody.
I assume, then, that Because of Winn Dixie is out of the running for next year’s Oscars, since it depicts white people living in trailers that are not portrayed in a stereotypical fashion.
And just what exactly the hell is that supposed to mean? :dubious:
Sigh. Here we go again with the “replace <x> with black” argument. It doesn’t hold water. The fact of the matter is that they had to make the mother someone. What if the mother had lived in an apartment, or in a small house? Or been homeless? Those are kind of the only choices if you’re going for the “overcome the humble/poor beginnings” type story. Or hell, what if she had been black, or Mexican, or Pakistani, or anything else? Are you saying that people who live in trailers should always be depicted in a positive light? Or just that only positive depictions should win awards?
I disagree. Both about it simply being “stupid stereotypes” and about negative depictions of people (even “trailer trash”) telling us nothing about being human. Part of being human is recognizing that there are good people and bad people in every group.
The simple fact is that negative portrayals often make for powerful storytelling. It’s a pretty standard story: girl has a difficult past, goes on to overcome. It’s about the oldest story there is. If a filmmaker can find a fresh way to bring us a story that’s been told so many times, then I say bravo.
So, again, no negative portrayals get to win Best Picture? Because every individual is also a member of a group. If it’s not trailer-park residents, it’s rich people, or foreigners, or religious people, or computer programmers, or something.
I’ll see your Faye Dunaway and raise you a Shelley Winters from A Patch of Blue. (Not only did her Oscar winning performance depict a mean mother, it was a cheap-whore mother so mean she beat up her blind daughter.)