Politics and Artistic Integrity

[Marky B]

Originally Posted by CaptainWaggett 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?

I told you I would be corrected there. No matter what the politics are,the people who turn up for these occasions do not want to hear the rantings of some radical - if they did,they would elect to go to a meeting on the subject.
All she had to do was thank everyone who she worked with on the film,the Academy for choosing her,her peers who were also nominated........
Or better still,just say thank you and an acknowledging nod to the audience and leave the stage with grace.
Ta Ta
Marky B

[CaptainWaggett]

How do you know that the audience (which is many, many more than the few hundreds actually at the ceremony) just want to hear the same speech over and over again? I certainly don't because it's incredibly boring! If one has a global audience of millions and feel strongly about a subject, why not make the most of the opportunity? Why shouldn't Vanessa have a right to free speech, even if some pickets would want to deny it to her.

And if the people actually present don't want any radical action, why did so many of them protest , on the night, at the Oscar to Elia Kazan? The Oscars, like anything else, has become politicised (do people really think that the year's best picture is the one that wins?) and I don't see why actors or anyone else shouldn't use it. Though Vanessa, in fact, wasn't expressing any contraversial political opinions on that particular occasion.

[christoph404]

Originally Posted by Third Man 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

I had a look at P.A.M. Internet - Welcome to our webspace and the times online but couldn't really find the figures and stats that you are quoting from there. The times online analysis said that overall gun related crime was going down and it fell by 13% in 06-07 compared to the previous year. There were 49 murders in 2005-2006 involving firearms and 58 murders in 2006-07.So that is a small increase in homicide involving firearms. The overall homicide figure ( by all assorted methods!) in England and Wales in 05-06 was 766. It would appear that murders using firearms has never gone over the 100 figure in the last 8 years though it did reach a peak of 95 in 01-02. I can't see the evidence to say that 10 people per day are shot in the UK, I don't think that is correct. The trouble with stats and facts and figures is that you need to be a university professor to be able to analyze them properly and come to some kind of coherent conclusion. Stats can be presented in all sorts of ways to mean all sorts of things, politicians do it all the time and the public nods in agreement because we either don't know any better or are not equiped to make our own deductions from the stats.

[Marky B]

Originally Posted by CaptainWaggett How do you know that the audience (which is many, many more than the few hundreds actually at the ceremony) just want to hear the same speech over and over again? I certainly don't because it's incredibly boring! If one has a global audience of millions and feel strongly about a subject, why not make the most of the opportunity? Why shouldn't Vanessa have a right to free speech, even if some pickets would want to deny it to her. And if the people actually present don't want any radical action, why did so many of them protest , on the night, at the Oscar to Elia Kazan? The Oscars, like anything else, has become politicised (do people really think that the year's best picture is the one that wins?) and I don't see why actors or anyone else shouldn't use it. Though Vanessa, in fact, wasn't expressing any contraversial political opinions on that particular occasion.

If I went to any occasion where it's celebrating sport,business,music,films,television etc,I don't want to hear politics. We get enough of it as it is. Yes,Vanessa Redgrave has every right to free speech,but such a speech should be channeled at places where debate will be more healthy and challenging (ie,where you can confront and be confronted by your opposers with their views) and not somewhere where most people have gone to for different reasons.
Ta Ta
Marky B

[Third Man]

Originally Posted by christoph404 I had a look at P.A.M. Internet - Welcome to our webspace and the times online but couldn't really find the figures and stats that you are quoting from there. .

Here's the article:

Ministers 'covered up' gun crime - Times Online



Simon

[christoph404]

Originally Posted by Marky B If I went to any occasion where it's celebrating sport,business,music,films,television etc,I don't want to hear politics. We get enough of it as it is. Yes,Vanessa Redgrave has every right to free speech,but such a speech should be channeled at places where debate will be more healthy and challenging (ie,where you can confront and be confronted by your opposers with their views) and not somewhere where most people have gone to for different reasons. Ta Ta Marky B

I tend to agree with you on that point Marky, even if you are an artist (actor, director, writer)involved in a film with a political message or agenda sureley it is better and more dignified to let the work speak for itself. Michael Moore was booed when he began a diatribe against Bush and the "fake election and fake government" during his acceptance speach for his academey award. I got the impression that the audience were booing not because they disaproved of what he was saying, but because this was not the time or place to say it! It was an awards ceremoney and the film has already said it all, I also think people resent being invited to an event and someone using the opportunity to use that event and the captive audience to promote an unexpected and personnal agenda.I think the consensus was , yes you may be quite right but just accept the award for your film, say thank you and sit down! Michael Moore and Vannessa Redgrave could probably fill the Albert Hall with people willing to listen to their particular message and good luck to them if they wanted to do that, the point is that anyone who didn't want to listen would have the choice not to go and I think that is the difference because awards ceremonies and the like are promoted as a very particular kind of event and the audience has a right to have that expectation fulfilled and not listen to someone's political views without being asked if they would like to depart from the agenda of the evening, ie receiveing awards and making gracious thank yous!

[Marky B]

Originally Posted by christoph404 I tend to agree with you on that point Marky, even if you are an artist (actor, director, writer)involved in a film with a political message or agenda sureley it is better and more dignified to let the work speak for itself. Michael Moore was booed when he began a diatribe against Bush and the "fake election and fake government" during his acceptance speach for his academey award. I got the impression that the audience were booing not because they disaproved of what he was saying, but because this was not the time or place to say it! It was an awards ceremoney and the film has already said it all, I also think people resent being invited to an event and someone using the opportunity to use that event and the captive audience to promote an unexpected and personnal agenda.I think the consensus was , yes you may be quite right but just accept the award for your film, say thank you and sit down! Michael Moore and Vannessa Redgrave could probably fill the Albert Hall with people willing to listen to their particular message and good luck to them if they wanted to do that, the point is that anyone who didn't want to listen would have the choice not to go and I think that is the difference because awards ceremonies and the like are promoted as a very particular kind of event and the audience has a right to have that expectation fulfilled and not listen to someone's political views without being asked if they would like to depart from the agenda of the evening, ie receiveing awards and making gracious thank yous!

Thank you

[Mark O]

Originally Posted by billy bentley May I remind you of Harry Lime's speech from the top of the ferris wheel ?

I'm intrigued.......what was Harry Lime's speech?

[Moor Larkin]

Originally Posted by Mark O I'm intrigued.......what was Harry Lime's speech?

He said, " 'ere mate. Want some nylons?"

[Third Man]

Originally Posted by 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 ?

Yes I remember the speech very well , you're talking about dots yeah?
Are you making a comparison with the President of the NRA and a murdering pencilling thief whose actions resulted in the mental and physical disfigurement of children?

Simon

[christoph404]

Originally Posted by Third Man Here's the article: Ministers 'covered up' gun crime - Times Online Simon

Thanks for leading me to that article Simon. Its quite extraordinary that the Journo who wrote it is presenting figures and stats that are completeley contrdictory and way off the mark compared to any other published statistics including the Home Office's own website! I just don't believe 10 people per day are shot in the UK, I think that journo is being quite creative with his figures.....what a surprise eh? May have to apply Steve Crooks dictum here....don't believe everything you read in the news!

[christoph404]

Originally Posted by Mark O I'm intrigued.......what was Harry Lime's speech?

He was exploring the origin of the Cuckoo Clock, but I think he got it all wrong.

[Mark O]

Originally Posted by Moor Larkin He said, " 'ere mate. Want some nylons?"

oo-er.......I 'ope he had a Suspender belt with him as well that I could hold the Nylons up with!

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by christoph404 May have to apply Steve Crooks dictum here....don't believe everything you read in the news!

I thought it was "don't believe anything you read in the newspapers"

Steve

[penfold]

Originally Posted by christoph404 He was exploring the origin of the Cuckoo Clock, but I think he got it all wrong.

Indeed, the cuckoo clock was invented in the Black Forest area of Germany, not in Switzerland. It was on QI so it must be true...
An extreme example of art being condemned by politics is the treatment of German filmmakers of the twenties and thirties....a friend of mine (As ardent an anti-nazi as myself or anyone else) is helping to run a project studying and restoring the silent 20's films of a minor German director called Hans Steinhof. A number of his films have now been seen and studied, they're decent genre pictures by and large, second division but efficiently told thrillers, rom-coms and the like. But many German critics and film historians will not touch the project with a bargepole; because when the exodus of Jewish talent from the German industry occurred in the early thirties, Steinhof, who had nothing to fear, was promoted in the resulting vacuum and was asked to make the films the new leaders of UFA - Goebbels and co - wanted to have made. He was probably delighted in the bigger budgets...but ended up associated with some of the nastier propaganda films made. These I understand not being shown outside of an informed audience, but the earlier apolitical films are tarred unfairly with the same brush. Leni Riefenstahl was as controversial, but at least her work was seen.