March 27, 2003

Three Last Takes on Hollywo...

Three Last Takes on Hoican majority] if I don't?" The L.A. Weekly's Deadline Hollywood columnist Nikki Finke slams Lance Corporal Josh Gracin, the American Idol 2 star, and the Fox network, for being terrible hypocrites. And Cathy Seipp profiles the atypical (for Hollywood) views of James Woods.

Posted by at March 27, 2003 10:16 AM
Comments

I think the piece on Gracin is harsh. Sounds like the Marines genuinely want him on the show, for recruitment purposes -- so in a sense he is serving them.

We should probly be a little squeamish about letting someone off the front lines for entertainment purposes, but I wouldn't blow a gasket about it.

Posted by: William Swann at March 27, 2003 11:01 AM

You gotta give Moore his due, whether you see him as the great savior or a phony: He's terrific at rhetoric, in the classic sense. I found the L.A. Times piece very persuasive

Posted by: Ben at March 27, 2003 11:29 AM

I would have found it more persuasive if Moore wasn't pro-choice. Maybe the Dixie Chicks agree with him on that one, so one out of two ain't bad.

Charles Taylor just posted an interesting analysis of the reactions to Moore and Polanski. I thought he'd completely lost it after that "Boat Trip" review, but it looks like he's pulled himself together.

Posted by: Jim Treacher at March 27, 2003 11:47 AM

The comparison between Gracin and Moore is just absurd.

Posted by: HH at March 27, 2003 12:06 PM

Whenever I meet somebody who likes Michael Moore, I say, "He's just the Leftwing's Rush Limbaugh."

Whenever I meet somebody who likes Rush Limbaugh, I say, "He's just the Rightwing's Michael Moore."

Same business model. Different target audience.

Posted by: Patrick Phillips at March 27, 2003 12:29 PM

What an awful piece by Cathy Seipp. It veers all over the place, and isn't quite a profile, isn't quite a personal narrative-- just a mishmash of falsely bold pronouncments and idiotic web-journal style personal reflection.

Seipp is clearly disturbed, unable to write a piece about celebrities and Hollywood without citing "Islamofascists," and unable to talk about Woods' views on the war without bringing up the carnage at the World Trade. And got to love the classy ending with the Woods quote about how Hilary Clinton didn't attend a single 9/11 funeral. Terribly written and executed, it is a marvel to me how this person is published regularly, even if it is UPI.

Posted by: Fred at March 27, 2003 03:22 PM

>>Terribly written and executed, it is a marvel to me how this person is published regularly, even if it is UPI.

Seipp is "terribly written and executed"? Calm down, take a breath, and THEN type.

Posted by: Jim Treacher at March 27, 2003 03:34 PM

No reader of poll numbers Moore claims he speaks for the majority, who he feels don't have access to CNN, NPR, Pacifica, CBS, ABC..... His claim that he wasn't being booed is about as real as the crockumentary that he won his award for. I guess we should take his word that these are fictitious times, because if there's one thing he knows it's fiction.

Posted by: Jack Tanner at March 28, 2003 05:01 AM

Patrick Phillips-
I have been contemplating the Moore/Limbaugh mirror image analogy and I think it's basically correct, but let me suggest an important difference: While both are faux populists, claiming to speak for the common majority while really serving the elites, Rush is faux populist for the masses, while Moore is a faux populist for the elites.

Rush is really popular with the masses, or at least the masses of white, working class men, and does his duty for the business elites he serves by convincing his listeners that it is somehow to their advantage to vote for tax cuts for the rich and unrestrained power for multinational corporations. Meanwhile, the actual rich people and business leaders whose interests he actually serves know that he is a court jester and don't listen to him.

Moore's audience is the cultural elites themselves, and he serves them by reinforcing their delusions that they understand the concerns of ordinary people. He tells them what they want to hear, but does so while looking and talking like someone who listens to Rush. Meanwhile, the actual masses that Moore claims he speaks for either do not know who the hell he is, or know him only as someone Rush criticises as a prime example of the dominate liberal media.
-Decnavda

Posted by: Timothy Roscoe Carter at March 28, 2003 10:01 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






published regularly, even if it is UPI.

Posted by: Fred at March 27, 2003 03:22 PM

>>Terribly written and executed, it is a marvel to me how this person is published regularly, even if it is UPI.

Seipp is "terribly written and executed"? Calm down, take a breath, and THEN type.

Posted by: Jim Treacher at March 27, 2003 03:34 PM

No reader of poll numbers Moore claims he speaks for the majority, who he feels don't have access to CNN, NPR, Pacifica, CBS, ABC..... His claim that he wasn't being booed is about as real as the crockumentary that he won his award for. I guess we should take his word that these are fictitious times, because if there's one thing he knows it's fiction.

Posted by: Jack Tanner at March 28, 2003 05:01 AM

Patrick Phillips-
I have been contemplating the Moore/Limbaugh mirror image analogy and I think it's basically correct, but let me suggest an important difference: While both are faux populists, claiming to speak for the common majority while really serving the elites, Rush is faux populist for the masses, while Moore is a faux populist for the elites.

Rush is really popular with the masses, or at least the masses of white, working class men, and does his duty for the business elites he serves by convincing his listeners that it is somehow to their advantage to vote for tax cuts for the rich and unrestrained power for multinational corporations. Meanwhile, the actual rich people and business leaders whose interests he actually serves know that he is a court jester and don't listen to him.

Moore's audience is the cultural elites themselves, and he serves them by reinforcing their delusions that they understand the concerns of ordinary people. He tells them what they want to hear, but does so while looking and talking like someone who listens to Rush. Meanwhile, the actual masses that Moore claims he speaks for either do not know who the hell he is, or know him only as someone Rush criticises as a prime example of the dominate liberal media.
-Decnavda

Posted by: Timothy Roscoe Carter at March 28, 2003 10:01 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






= true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> = true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //-->