Politics and Artistic Integrity

[Marky B]

I remember when Vanessa Redgrave made her acceptance speech for her Oscar for Julia,in which she made a controversial acknowledgement of some terrorist groups (I think - no doubt I will be corrected there) and recieved some booing from the audience.
As I said before,award ceremonies are a celebration of their field and should not be used to spout politics.
Ta Ta
Marky B

[GRAEME]

Originally Posted by Harleybloke Don't often see 'Politics' and 'Integrity' in the same sentence........ Kenneth Griffiths was a staunch left winger I'm told but I wasn't ever aware of it in his acting, nor Roger Moore as an arch Thatcherite.

Griffiths made a superb series of personal documentaries about British imperialism and warmongering. And turned in a brill performance in The Wild Geese! Excellent stuff.

[CaptainWaggett]

Originally Posted by Marky B I remember when Vanessa Redgrave made her acceptance speech for her Oscar for Julia,in which she made a controversial acknowledgement of some terrorist groups (I think - no doubt I will be corrected there) and recieved some booing from the audience. As I said before,award ceremonies are a celebration of their field and should not be used to spout politics. Ta Ta Marky B

What terrorist group? There were people (the Jewish Defense League?) picketting the ceremony to protest a known anti-Zionist winning an Oscar and she made a speech denouncing all totalitarianism and calling a protestors a bunch of Zionist hooligans who disgraced Jewish freedom-fighters. Obviously she could have ignored the protestors but why should she? If awards ceremonies are meant to be a celebration of their field, doesn't that apply to everyone?

[oxfam1uk]

I think Vanessa Redgrave stood up and spoke of her difficulties when making a documentary film "The Palestinians".

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by suzepulcheria And then of course there was John Wayne...

The John Wayne question is an interesting one. Speaking personally I have no problem admiring the movies he made for John Ford and Howard Hawks most of which deservedly have the reputation of being classics. However I have more of problem with his later films where his politics had become more overt and became increasingly inseparable from his film persona ( notwithstanding the fact that many of them were rubbish! ). Whilst he had every right to the opinions I always felt the strident manner in which he expressed them and effectively used his iconic status to promote them was deeply unsavoury as well going a long way to undermine the excellence of his earlier work by fixing him in ( at least sections of ) the public mind as a right-wing demagogue who made too many lazy, conservative-leaning movies.

[Third Man]

Originally Posted by Moor Larkin Seeing as poor old Chuck started all this, I'm a bit baffled why his support of gun law makes him such a terrible person.

For me this is a interesting point you have made, why indeed are so many people having a go at Heston, well they may need some sort of focal point for their pent up frustration on a certain subject, people like to have a focal point for that and what do they hope to gain from it, some sort of self gratifying pleasure at lambasting a dead man who happened to be President of the NRA and was made to look a fool by an expert in exploitation documentaries.

Let's look at the gun law in this country, in 1997 we had automatic weapons and most hand guns banned unless you had a Home Office licence for them.

Ref: Times Online;

"The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06. That means that more than 10 people are injured or killed in a gun attack every day. "

So by having a go at Heston and his stance on gun possession, what did people who criticised him hope to gain, if the stats are right then outlawing gun possession in the USA might backfire and gun crime might actually replicate what happened here in the UK and soar and if it soars in the US it might as well be called the Wild West again .

Simon

[christoph404]

Interestingly it was a gun massacre of 6 year old children at a school in Dunblane,Scotland that prompted a radical shake up of gun law in the UK.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by Third Man "The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06. That means that more than 10 people are injured or killed in a gun attack every day. " So by having a go at Heston and his stance on gun possession, what did people who criticised him hope to gain, if the stats are right then outlawing gun possession in the USA might backfire and gun crime might actually replicate what happened here in the UK and soar and if it soars in the US it might as well be called the Wild West again . Simon

10 people per day, in a population of 60 million. That's 0.0000167%
Sure, 10 a day is too many, especially if you're one of the people involved.
But it's vanishingly small when compared to the number killed or injured by firearms every day in the US. There really is no comparison.

And as Bowling for Columbine showed, it's nothing to do with access to guns. There are other countries, like Canada, with a lot more guns per head than the US, but with a tiny percentage of the gun crime

Steve

[christoph404]

Also to get a more balanced perspective one should look at gun crime in relation to overall crime stats that do not involve firearms because Home Office stats also say that gun related crime represents just 1% of that overall crime figure. I would imagine gun related crime is a lot more than 1% of crime figures in the USA, and as mentioned, Michael Moore believes it is to do with a national phsyche in the USA rather than a plethora of easily available hand guns. Im not so sure about that myself, Im pretty sure if guns were more difficult to obtain then less people would be getting shot! I think criminals will always be able to obtain guns regardless of gun laws but some kind of restriction is sureley going to avoid a scenario where a 9 year old steals his fathers hand gun from the bedside drawer and takes it to school to shoot dead one of his classmates who nicked his pack lunch the day before.

[Mark O]

Originally Posted by suzepulcheria And then of course there was John Wayne...

Apparently The Duke once said "To end the Vietnam War lets bomb Moscow"........and he wasn't joking

and no.......I didn't read it in the Daily Mail!

[christoph404]

A note on gun figures in the USA and Canada. Apparently there are 7.4 million firearms in Canada, 1.2 million of which are restricted firearms i.e. handguns. The rest are rifles, possibly for hunting or protecting yourself from aggresive bears! In the USA there are approx 222 million firearms, 76million of which are handguns. When you take into account the population of Canada at approx 31 million, ( the same population as California) it throws those figures into some kind of perspective. Gun related Homicide in the US was at a staggering 65% in the 90s and in Canada it was half that, I would say gun crime in the UK is negligable compared to those two countries. The figures would also seem to say, contrary to Michael Moores presentation of stats in "Bowling For Columbine" that there is a link between ease of hand gun ownership and high rates of gun crime. In Canada gun control is very strict and it is very difficult to obtain a licence to own a hand gun, and if one is to make any kind of comparison and sense out of stats like that then surely things like that should be taken into account. Whilst I admire Michael Moore's passion for just causes and his tenacity in seeking out the truth Im not always convinced by his juggling and presentation of stats to support his opinions.

[Third Man]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook 10 people per day, in a population of 60 million. That's 0.0000167% Sure, 10 a day is too many, especially if you're one of the people involved. But it's vanishingly small when compared to the number killed or injured by firearms every day in the US. There really is no comparison. Steve

I agree there is no comparison but the fact that gun crime rose from 864 to 3,821 in about 6 to 7 years after restrictions on guns were brought in is a bit worrying, isn’t it. The restrictions and bans theoretically should of lowered gun crime but it hasn’t. So would the same thing happen in the US you restrict and ban the guns, does gun crime come down, not if you are in the UK.

Simon

[CaptainWaggett]

It's not just about deliberate gun crime. The suicide rate is a lot higher in the US and it's not coincidental that Brits who want to kill themselves don't have a foolproof method in their own homes. Similarly, there are more deaths while hunting in the US and there are also kids who find Daddy's gun and think it would be a laugh to take it to school.

[billy bentley]

Excuse me Third Man, Charlton "just happened to be President of the NRA", what are you suggesting he stumbled into the position ? Won it in a Trombola ? Took the job to return a favour ? May I remind you of Harry Lime's speech from the top of the ferris wheel ?

[Moor Larkin]

It seems clear that many Britons feel that because some people cannot be trusted with something, nobody can be trusted with anything. Nanny knows best. I suspect that's what people like Chuck really resented, and possibly what Funnyman Moore was alluding to, when he discussed the American 'mind-set'.