Shocked, Shocked that Negative Campaigning is Going on Here!

courtney.img_assist_customYou don’t get into politics and not know the reprecussions of timing in an election season, I mean, an awards season. People wouldn’t campaign for Oscars if it didn’t result in wins. Campaign, you know, like politicians? Campaign, you know, like Ben Affleck did for Joe Courtney back in 2006? It’s great that Affleck did that. He’s a stand up guy who is involved in politics loosely. But no way no how is this dude coming clean completely when he plays dumb — from the Carpetbagger:

Though he credited Mr. Affleck’s speech at the University of Connecticut with helping him win the 2006 election, by just 83 votes, he and the actor-turned-filmmaker did not know each other and have not had much contact since, he said. They did meet, though, a few months ago, when Mr. Affleck testified before Congress about his charity efforts to help the Congo.

“We shook hands and reminisced about the ’06 election,” Mr. Courtney said, according to Steven Zeitchik at The Los Angeles Times. “That’s as far as sub rosa communications extended.”

A spokesperson for Warner Brothers, which released “Argo,” also denied that there was any connection between Mr. Affleck and Mr. Courtney’s letter, and added “dismay that anyone would suggest otherwise.”

Of course, that is a bit of protesting too much, as this is exactly the time when potshots at front-runners — which “Argo” has steadfastly become — are common, as any studio executive worth their contracted-trade ads knows. Whether the mini-tempests make a difference or not (exactly how many Academy members are from Connecticut?) remains to be seen, but last we checked, Academy members were not big sticklers for truth.

Protesting too much indeed, specifically since Courtney sought out Affleck to shake his hand “a few months ago.” Come on, dude.  Smart of the WB to get out a statement – but lest we forget, the congressman made a big splashy deal about it and the only two people who benefit are himself and Ben Affleck.  For that alone his motives are suspect. That’s what politicians do — find dirt, expose dirt, try to ruin the chances of another to win.  It’s naive of him to imagine he wouldn’t impact the Oscar race. He isn’t that stupid.  No, it isn’t his “job” to save Spielberg from embarrassment but at least he should be more honest about his motives.  Lincoln has been hit from all angles — ironic since the anniversary of his death is coming up next month.  Winning comes at a high price and it’s reserved only for those who want it bad enough.    Ben Affleck is a really nice guy, a beautiful man with a beautiful family — the next JFK and Jackie probably.  He’s going to win the Oscar.  Spielberg and Co. can’t compete with that, not in a million years. So don’t worry, Joe.

Chicago Cast to Reunite to Present the Oscar

Next Story »

The State of the Race: Searching for Soderbergh — Baby Let Me Follow You Down

48 Comments

  1. February 11, 2013

    Ben Affleck is a really nice guy, a beautiful man with a beautiful family – the next JFK and Jackie probably.

    Well let’s hope not. I like Ben Affleck’s brains where they are.

  2. Cassandra
    February 11, 2013

    Last fall when Argo came out, I told my partner “there’s this year’s Oscar for best film.” And while I liked the film and it kept me on the edge of the seat, I also thought it has a few really big holes and weaknesses. But it is the frontrunner because it hits all the right notes with all the right people. I agree with Sasha’s film choices and passion. Lincoln to me is a masterpiece. How, though, could it and the others compete with a pretty tight and fast paced film that casts the movie industry in such a good and powerful light and has an uplifting ending — especially in these uncertain times? The alignment of movie industry politics and DC politics has really helped grease the wheels, though, and has been in evidence for a few months. It’s as if everyone associated with certain films called in, and continue to call in, their political chits. It’s a pretty dismaying trend ..

  3. February 11, 2013

    A spokesperson for Warner Brothers also denied that there was any connection between Mr. Affleck and Mr. Courtney’s letter

    This spokesperson appears to be really well-informed about everybody’s connection to each other. Somebody should ask him what really happened behind closed doors regarding that whole CIA interrogation thing. With testimony so assertively reliable, we’ll soon get to the bottom of this, by golly.

  4. CB
    February 11, 2013

    Kushner flubbed the history of the supposedly accurate ‘Lincoln’ and wound up posthumously slandering members of the CT delegation. There’s nothing worse than going down in history – your name going down in history – as being pro-slavery, and even though there was an actual split delegation that could’ve been just as dramatically effective, for whatever reason Kushner elected to make it the CT delegation. I’m from PA, and I’m proud to be from a Union State in the same way Southerners are proud of being from the South. I like that I’m from a blue state, and one that was on the right side of history. People from CT feel the same way, and there was absolutely no reason for Kushner’s screw-up. When he says it was for ‘dramatic purposes’, that’s BS, because it didn’t add to the drama in any way that the ACTUAL split delegation could’ve added.

    Now, Argo (which I’m no cheerleader of) also twisted facts, minimizing the Canadian involvement and adding those silly ‘danger moments’. I will say this – those changes to history DID actually benefit the drama of the movie, whereas Kushner’s did not. Adding the gunners attacking the plane does add to drama (effectively or ineffectively, they do add something literally dramatic). Same with making it all about the American savior – it’s just an easier and more direct story to tell.

  5. Zach
    February 11, 2013

    I’m sorry, how could, and how did, anyone see Argo and think, there’s your winner? Nothing will beat that. I saw it, thought it was good, thought Affleck could win because they love actor-directors and he made it personal at the end. But I didn’t walk out like that was the Best Picture. The few times I’ve ever walked out of a film both loving it and thinking it was the Best Picture, they’ve actually gone on to win – A Beautiful Mind, Chicago, ROTK, Slumdog. I did feel that way about Lincoln, but I knew it was beatable if something more ‘cinematic’ came along. But nothing did and it wasn’t Argo. Argo is the default choice, the film everyone had to return to when the other frontrunners disappointed. And I’ve never seen a year like this one with the bloggers changing their frontrunner every month. First it was Argo, then it was Lincoln, then it was Les Mis, then it was Zero Dark Thirty, then it was Lincoln, then it was Argo. Really. It was always a competitive year, but the truth is it was never ANY of these films except for Lincoln heading into and immediately following the Oscar nominations, and then Argo once it started sweeping.

  6. Zach
    February 11, 2013

    No one thought the 13th Amendment would pass, and no one thinks Lincoln will win.

    Lincoln is like the guy your mom tells to marry when you grow up. Silver Linings is the angst-ridden bad boy you sneak out of the house to hook up with, but it’s just a phase you grow out of. And Argo is the Sexiest Man Alive. But he wants nothing to do with you in the morning, and give it a few years and you’ll regret not marrying Lincoln.

  7. unlikely hood
    February 11, 2013

    Say it ain’t so Joe. You say sub rosa, I think cosa nostra.

    Mild correction: Lincoln’s death’s anniversary isn’t next month. It’s in April.

    Sasha your initial take was spot-on. All he had to do was send Kushner an email.

    Crazy theory: maybe Joe holds a grudge because of Amistad. I know I heard nothing about that episode growing up, but now I think high school kids regularly see that film. Well, that film lets you know that slavery was alive and well in Connecticut during the time frame of the film (1839-41) – unlike all of its neighbors, CT waited until 1848 to finally abolish it. Not sure, but perhaps this is part of why Joe decided to train his whip on Spielberg.

  8. Bryce Forestieri
    February 11, 2013

    Thank God Awards Daily and no less The New York times are shining a light on the disgusting smear campaign from WB and Ben Affleck. This is the lowest move I’ve seen in so far since I pay attention to the Oscar race.

  9. Pierre de Plume
    February 11, 2013

    Kushner flubbed the history of the supposedly accurate ‘Lincoln’ and wound up posthumously slandering members of the CT delegation.

    That’s not just overstating it, CB, it’s factually incorrect.

    It looks like both Lincoln and Argo played with the facts for dramatic purposes. I don’t think anyone was hurt by it. But as I’ve said before, when a filmmaker has to make up something that didn’t happen in order to create a dramatic climax to a movie, it’s just a bit disappointing to me even though it doesn’t detract from my enjoyment of the film.

  10. CB
    February 11, 2013

    Pierre, I disagree. He had real historical figures voting against the 13th Amendment who actually did. I think they’d consider it slander. And Kushner’s claim he did it for dramatic purposes makes no sense as there were other states with actual split delegations. He was factually wrong for no discernable reason.

  11. Lane
    February 11, 2013

    The Argo campaign team are doing everything they have to, to win. They want to win more than anyone else. ARGO as a movie standing on it’s own without an oscar cmpaign is not good enough to win best picture because of the compeition from the other great movies nominated but it will win because of it’s oscar campaign, with it’s media campaign it has effectively taken down all it’s opponents it’s also a movie that makes heroes out hollywood, there is no way it won’t win. It’s going to be one of those Oscar years where the winner is not a deserving winner of best picture.

  12. phineas
    February 11, 2013

    “Lincoln is like the guy your mom tells to marry when you grow up. Silver Linings is the angst-ridden bad boy you sneak out of the house to hook up with, but it’s just a phase you grow out of. And Argo is the Sexiest Man Alive. But he wants nothing to do with you in the morning, and give it a few years and you’ll regret not marrying Lincoln.”

    lol
    Lincoln is your choice if you want to say: Look, I am so intelligent because I like Lincoln. The others are just stupid.
    SLP is your choice if you want to say: Look, I am a hipster. I like it. I dont care what the others say.
    Argo is your choice if you want to say: I love Hollywood and Ben Affleck. The others can f*ck themselves.

    ;)

  13. Aaron Beckett
    February 11, 2013

    It’s a similar argument that I’ve seen people get upset about in Kon-Tiki (which I loved, btw) as well. You should ALWAYS take films based on actual events with a grain of salt. And if the story piques your interest then hopefully you will go out and seek the documentaries and historical books written about the subjects and learn more.

    Kushner didn’t even use the real names in the voting to try to avoid this as much as possible. No one came out of that movie thinking “Oh man, CT sure was racist.” Every state in the union was pretty heavily racist at the time. This is such a stupid argument.

  14. rufussondheim
    February 11, 2013

    I don’t think anyone would vote against Lincoln for this Connecticut change. Really. They won’t. If you like Lincoln, you don’t care. If you care, you don’t like Lincoln. The only people seeming to make a big deal of this are well, Sasha and maybe someone else somewhere. But I haven’t seen them. Sasha is merely giving this guy the publicity he was seeking when he made this claim. I’m sure all of us would have forgotten about this by now if new posts didn’t come up on a regular basis.

    And then we learn the vote total from the 2006 election. To me, that’s all I need to know. This congressperson lives in one of those increasingly rare competitive districts. So, I’m guessing, he did this far more to generate support amongst the local press than to sway the Oscar voting. This guy needs the votes, and what better way to get votes than to bash Hollywood Elites badmouthing your home state. If I were this guy, I’d probably do the same thing.

  15. February 11, 2013
  16. Aaron B
    February 11, 2013

    “Getting it right” is obviously subjective. If we all listed times the Academy “got it right” over the last 20 years I bet the majority of winners are mentioned at least once.

  17. rufussondheim
    February 11, 2013

    Hooray for Oslo winning an award. I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but damn I love that movie (I know I sound like a broken record) and even though it’s a small film and “easy” to make, it’s perfectly made. I can’t find a flaw in it.

    I know I keep saying Zero Dark Thirty is the best film of the year, and it is. I swear. But the movie that I will watch over and over and over again over the years will be Oslo.

  18. Mattoc
    February 11, 2013

    Thanks Paddy. These are like my own personal choices, except Editing. Holy Motors didn’t cut itself arseholes.

  19. The J Viewer
    February 11, 2013

    “Lincoln is like the guy your mom tells to marry when you grow up. Silver Linings is the angst-ridden bad boy you sneak out of the house to hook up with, but it’s just a phase you grow out of. And Argo is the Sexiest Man Alive. But he wants nothing to do with you in the morning, and give it a few years and you’ll regret not marrying Lincoln.”

    That was apt and beautiful, Zach.

    My head’s full of questions, and I am looking for some answers but don’t know who to ask….

    But the disclosure is coming soon, whether or not the Academy collectively will turn into Ms. Lonely, who’s fed up with her mom and ends up scoring just for fun the hot, sexiest superstar alive named Argo, or a good girl who follows her mother’s path, a girl who could see a happy marriage life with a family man named Lincoln, or a teenage girl with mixed-up confusion who falls for a bad boy named Silver. : )

  20. Pierre de Plume
    February 11, 2013

    CB (and Bette):

    In a case of slander, in this case public figures who are long dead, one must establish willful intent. The context of Lincoln is a historical drama based on true events, where – most notably – the names of the subjects in question weren’t even used. Not only can you establish malicious intent, you certainly can’t show any damages to either the principals or their descendants.

    And, be truthful, did either of you even notice this discrepancy when you saw the film?

  21. Pierre de Plume
    February 11, 2013

    Correction (where’s that edit button?):

    Not only can you NOT establish malicious intent. . . .

  22. CB
    February 11, 2013

    Pierre, you’re right – it wasn’t a maliciously intended slight. But it can only thusly be one thing: sloppy historical research/writing. Because there were other other delegations that split. So why did he do this?

    As for the fact that these are public figures who are long dead: this was (at least according to the movie) the vote of their lives. Let’s look at a very important but far less consequential vote – less consequential because it doesn’t concern literal human bondage: the Affordable Care Act. How would you feel if you knew that 100 years from now in a movie called ‘Obama’ that your vote for the health care act was misrepresented? Probably pissed. And dead or not, Kushner got it wrong, and they should excise those 15 seconds from the film. Especially because ‘historical drama with elements of fiction’ or not, this is the movie that is the pop cultural definitive story of passing the 13th Amendment. They showed it to the Senate. And the only reason the movie is even discussed and getting awards consideration is because it’s about the most iconic President and one of the top issues that defined our country in American history.

    I love ‘United 93′ but one thing that always sticks in my craw is that they made the German passenger seeking to appease the terrorists. I love that movie – I think it’s one of the 3 best movies of the 00′s. But that was unnecessary, and a deliberate choice that has no historical evidence to back it up. ‘Lincoln’ had no reason to screw up the facts of the brave Congressmen who voted to ratify the 13th Amendment. None.

  23. Pierre de Plume
    February 11, 2013

    But it can only thusly be one thing: sloppy historical research/writing. Because there were other other delegations that split. So why did he do this?

    I’m glad you’ve apparently come to see that your original allegation – that of slander – is just plain overreaching.

    As far as “why did he do this?” — Kushner has already explained it.

  24. CB
    February 11, 2013

    And to answer your question – no, of course I didn’t catch the error, but that doesn’t mean it’s one that shouldn’t be rectified.

  25. Rob
    February 11, 2013

    CB, you’re not only wrong on the general points, you’re wrong on the specifics. Actual members of the Connecticut delegation were NOT slandered. In fact, in his response to Courtney, Kushner said specifically that all three of the names of the Connecticut congressmen in the film were changed EXPRESSLY to avoid ascribing votes to real people.

  26. CB
    February 11, 2013

    (Sorry to be filling this entry with so many comments.)

    To go along with the fact I didn’t catch the error – the film prides itself on having intensely precise details in everything it does for set decoration, lighting, all that technical stuff. People go on about how this is how the White House really looked in 1865. That the decor, the costumes, the uniforms, all of it is so scrupulous in presentation. Why not the vote that the whole movie is based around?

  27. CB
    February 11, 2013

    Rob, I think I’m wrong on the specifics but not on the general points. The film is wrong in depicting a split in the Connecticut delegation. When there were other split delegations, why was there a need for Kushner to split that of Connecticut?

  28. eclipse22
    February 11, 2013

    hmmm this post was perplexing to say the least,

    i guess they do say all is fair in love and war …

    i’m off better stick to my guns and stay away from here during the week LOL

  29. February 11, 2013

    That the decor, the costumes, the uniforms, all of it is so scrupulous in presentation. Why not the vote that the whole movie is based around?

    because verisimilitude. because mise-en-scene

    nobody noticed the vote in congress — in fact, the elision helped to concentrate our attention on characters who have already been introduced instead of adding 3 or 4 more actors who pop up for the sake of accuracy at a crucial moment when the drama is most intense.

    and I repeat: NOBODY NOTICED OR CARED ABOUT THIS VOTE ISSUE FOR THE PAST 14 WEEKS. sorry to yell, but jeezus.

    whereas, to have shown Tad playing with his Wii instead of a goat cart would’ve been jarring. People notice the things they see with their eyes in movies. It’s sort of a basic thing about movies.

    If you’re the type of person who was thrown out of the realism that Lincoln recreates when the fictionalized vote scene took place, then congratulations, you might be a Connecticut congressman with an axe to grind.

    But for millions and millions of the rest of us, it’s far more important that Daniel Day-Lewis wasn’t wearing a Washington Redskins jersey.

  30. Remy
    February 11, 2013

    I don’t think negative campaigning has much impact. You only have to go back to the “A Beautiful Mind” year for an example of an active smear campaign spectacularly not working. If they love a movie they’ll vote for it, and “Argo” would be the frontrunner regardless of any of this.

  31. CB
    February 11, 2013

    Ryan, I honestly don’t care about that stuff but I think I raise a good point, which is why would a movie that’s hyped on its incessant attention to detail screw up such a vital point? There were other delegations that split their vote – why not use them?

    I think we all know what the answer is: Kushner flubbed that part of the screenplay, and instead of saying ‘Oops, sorry,’ in order to maintain the ostensible precision the movie prides itself on and bases much of its appeal around, he chose ‘dramatic license’ as an excuse. With other delegations that split their votes to choose from, this ‘choice’ makes no sense.

    My gripe with Lincoln has been that if it were about a fictional character or almost any other historical figure, it would not have earned the gravitas it inherently has. Because it’s about the greatest President in American history, it gets away with a lot of aesthetic and storytelling failings (IMO), in the same way that The Queen and Gandhi do. But here’s an example where the purported scrupulous accuracy with which this film was crafted falls short. Why can’t Kushner just say, “Yeah, I botched that one, we’ll cut the 15 seconds?” or just, “I screwed up, it happens, how does this in any way ‘ruin’ your experience of my movie?” Because, I agree totally, in no way could it.

  32. February 11, 2013

    Kushner flubbed that part of the screenplay

    You have no proof . And I have no proof. But my instinct tells me you’re wrong.

    Kushner worked closely with Spielberg and Doris Kearns Goodwin for 6 years on this screenplay. If you don’t think every scene and line of dialogue was vetted, parsed, considered and deliberately written to achieve a specific effect, then your disrespect for the craft of screenwriting deserves no respect from me.

    This wasn’t a flub. It serves a specific and, I feel confident, an intentional purpose.

    CB, a writer cannot give each of 175 dead congressman their Big Oscar Scene. Screenwriting and any dramatic reconstruction of history requires that attitudes, actions and words be compressed, simplified, and distilled into composite characters.

    geesus, where were you sticklers for detail when The King’s Speech showed a namby-pamby Dickensian Mr Pickwick/ Churchill who was portrayed as big buddy of Colin Firth? (sorry, I can never remember that king’s name because I don’t give a shit). When in fact Churchill and King Firth could barely stand to be in the same room together, and Churchill was instead chummy with the king’s Nazi appeaser brother?

    You guys all know of Winston Churchill, right? Heard of him? Is he moderately more famous than the Connecticut congressmen in 11864 (can any of you name those congressmen?) Is his the accuracy of historical portrayal in movies at all important to you?

    So why weren’t you all raising hell about how The King’s Speech was totally misrepresenting Churchill’s allegiance — to the point of literally REVERSING Winston Churchill’s allegiance to the WRONG king? That didn’t bug anybody?

    Why not? Because THAT wasn’t the story being told, that’s why. It was a gross misrepresentation of history, but I didn’t notice any crybabies in the UK or here in America saying that The King’s Speech screenwriter “flubbed it.”

    Because sane people understand that historical details often get bent in service of telling a bigger story. (or in the case of The King’s Speech, a much more trivial story).

  33. CB
    February 11, 2013

    But my instinct tells me you’re wrong.

    And mine tells me I’m right. I just don’t understand the artistic or storytelling purpose of splitting the CT delegation when there were other delegations to be split. I’m not requiring everyone to get his or her big Oscar moment, just that everyone’s yea or nay be accurate in a film that earns much of its gravitas on authenticity. That’s all.

    The King’s Speech’s inaccuracies did further the plot, as did Argo’s, hell, as did Gandhi’s. I gave an example earlier of where I didn’t see an inaccuracy as serving a plot in one of my all-time favorites United 93.

    As for the Kearns/Spielberg/Kushner meticulousness – where in that scenario does this decision come from? I don’t see that happening. I actually don’t care for Kushner’s work – I consider it overwrought, self-important, and overly reliant on topicality or preconceived historical import. But many love his work, and I’d hate to detract from their enjoyment.

  34. Rob
    February 11, 2013

    Well, now we get to the heart of it: You don’t like Kushner’s work, you think he’s “self-important” and that he basically lied about what happened by pulling “dramatic license” out of his ass, despite the fact that he’s literally been talking about issues related to historical fiction since Angels in America.

    You can keep defending the good name of Congressmen “Benjamin” and “Bentley” who were viciously slandered (except that they didn’t exist) or of Connecticut, which, as was pointed out this week, had such a toxic and divided history on slavery that it was referred to by Wm. Lloyd Garrison as “the Georgia of the Union.” But this is a tempest in a thimble, and you know it.

  35. Pierre de Plume
    February 11, 2013

    CB, did you read Kushner’s response to the criticism on this point? It was published here at AD several days ago.

  36. Yvette
    February 11, 2013

    Pierre de Plume:

    ‘CB, did you read Kushner’s response to the criticism on this point? It was published here at AD several days ago.’

    And let facts get in the way? CB doesn’t like Kushner or Spielberg. That’s what it comes down to.

  37. Yvette
    February 11, 2013

    Why is no one screaming about Argo’s fictionally anglo hero?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/08/argo-hollywood-latino-hero

  38. rufussondheim
    February 11, 2013

    At Ryan’s suggestion I just started reading Ron Rash’s Serena, which has been adapted into an upcoming film starring Jennifer Lawrence.

    I just finished the first chapter and I have to say, it was one of the best first chapters I’ve read in a bit. Utterly captivated.

    oh, and, yes, ryan, jennifer lawrence is perfect for this and if she doesn’t win the oscar this year she has to be seen as a frontrunner for next years award

  39. rufussondheim
    February 11, 2013

    Because no one gives a fuck, Yvette.

  40. Terometer
    February 11, 2013

    “NOBODY NOTICED OR CARED ABOUT THIS VOTE ISSUE FOR THE PAST 14 WEEKS.”

    But that doesn’t mean it therefore shouldn’t be brought up and be re-examed.
    It’s a shame that one cares more about dramatic intensity rather than historical accuracy. What’s next for you to abandon for your loyalty of Lincoln? The funniest thing is that with all the historical accuracy it sacrificed, Lincoln isn’t even dramatic intensive at all! What a joke!

  41. February 11, 2013

    It’s a shame that one cares more about dramatic intensity rather than historical accuracy.

    Might be a shame for a historian. Not for me.

    hey, you should care about whatever you care to care about. But if you never worried about historical accuracy in movies before now then you have a helluva lot of catching up to do. Have fun.

  42. February 11, 2013

    Because no one gives a fuck, Yvette.

    Not even Tony Mendez. http://nbclatino.com/2013/01/10/argos-real-tony-mendez-im-not-hispanic/

  43. February 11, 2013

    Shorter Tony Mendez explanation:

    Tony Mendez: My mother’s side of the family comes from Europe and my father’s side of the family comes from Mexico, but can’t you see I’d rather not talk about my father’s side of the family? I never knew the guy and I’d rather not acknowledge that half of my heritage, so let’s talk more about my mother’s side of the family. I’m from the desert. Just drop it.”

    Interviewer: In the Hispanic film community, there is much debate surrounding this topic. Many Hispanic actors feel their progress halts when Hollywood decides to place an Anglo star name in a Hispanic role. When you see Ben portray you on screen, do you feel he represented you with integrity? The right way?

    Tony Mendez: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let’s say you have no idea and leave it at that, okay? No idea. Zip. None. If you had an idea of what we do, we would not be good at what we do, now would we? We would be cunts. Are you calling us cunts?

    Interviewer: Thank you very much Tony, I really appreciate your time.

  44. Yvette
    February 11, 2013

    The point being Rufus, that if you ‘don’t give a fuck’ about the ethnicity of the main ‘hero’ of a movie based on a real event and real characters, why would you ‘give a fuck’ about the vote of unnamed politicians from the 200 years ago being used for dramatic purposes. Whatever Mendez’ attitudes on his ethnicity are, he still has a Latino origin and to Hispanics, that might mean something to not whitewash that ethnic origin. I don’t care and I’m Hispanic, because I realize Affleck used dramatic license. So why is it different than what Kushner did for dramatic purposes. The purposes and themes of both films were not altered in the long run. Except for a congressman who want to get some attention.

  45. Yvette
    February 11, 2013

    ‘What’s next for you to abandon for your loyalty of Lincoln? The funniest thing is that with all the historical accuracy it sacrificed, Lincoln isn’t even dramatic intensive at all! What a joke!’

    Terometer,
    What is it about Spielberg or Lincoln that upsets you so much. I mean seriously…not liking a film is one thing, but damn, this film really irks you for some reason. I may think Argo is overrated, but I don’t hate or Affleck….
    I just think it’s not worthy of all these awards. But you seem to really hate Lincoln.

  46. NIc V
    February 11, 2013

    You know that’s kind of funny. I never thought about it when I saw Argo. I just accepted that Ben Affleck was playing a character and didn’t even think about the fact that the character was Hispanic. So does this mean now that the Hispanic community will write a letter to Ben Affleck? God I hope so. I mean didn’t Naomi Watts take a little heat for being white and playing a woman from Spain? I recall she did. So why not turn a little heat up on Ben’s ass now.

  47. steve50
    February 12, 2013

    “International Cinephile Society winners announced:”

    Just noticed Paddy’s comment buried in this thread.

    Now this is something worthy of separate post and a perfect antidote to the Hollywood towelsnapping. Thanks, Paddy!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *