Of particular note was Javier Bardem who actually delivered his acceptance speech for the Oscar he won for No Country For Old Men (excellent book and film) in Spanish.
He was thanking his mom.
Lestat - 08:02am on 02/25/2008
Xenophobia much?
Jack - 08:02am on 02/25/2008
Xenophobia much?
Xenophobia = criticizing those who don’t want free trade.
Does that make sense to you Jack?
likwidshoe - 09:02am on 02/25/2008
To expand upon Lestat’s comment, the first half of his acceptance speech was in English. He then prefaced the part of his speech that was going to be in spanish because he was thanking his mom.
While I find most people in Hollywood to be politically repugnant, I didn’t think this episode qualified.
J.R. - 10:02am on 02/25/2008
Agreed (with J.R.). Plus Barden was really, really good in that movie. Oscar well-deserved.
Anyone else annoyed that Anderson didn’t win best picture or screenplay? No Country was amazing, but Blood should have taken at least one of those two (at least the latter, the ideas in it were far deeper than No Counry’s ”life is violent and random"-a-la-History of Violence).
(Plus Blood had nothing to do with Sinclair’s Oil -- it was nominated for the wrong screenplay category.)
<--- Pardon the rant.
Hairy Polemic - 10:02am on 02/25/2008
Guys, I think you’re missing the point. I have no problem with Barden or his Spanish acceptance speech. I think the guys great, and if he wanted to get up there and confuse the audience by delivering his entire speech in Yiddish I would have been just fine with it.
What got me was how the left doesn’t mind a foreign actor coming in here and making millions (and taking jobs from other starving actors!) while they oppose free trade with Mexico.
I mean, c’mon. That’s hypocritical, to say the least.
Rob - 12:02pm on 02/25/2008
Rob,
I’m not sure it has occured to them. They don’t think that way… you know, logically.
Hairy Polemic - 03:02pm on 02/25/2008
Having a Spanish actor to star in an American movie and supporting NAFTA are two different things; one has to do with talent and the other economics. If you were to ask the director of that movie why that particular actor was chosen, I’m sure the answer would be that he was the best man for the job, and not because he was the cheapest option. Companies outsource to save money, while movie directors choose certain actors (foreign or otherwise) because they fit the role perfectly. However, if they ever did pay Mexican illegals 100 pesos to play key roles in American movies just because it’s cheeper, then I’ll join you in your outrage.
Globalization come in two flavors; one is a cultural movement where societies come together to celebrate their diversity, and the other is an economic movement where companies compete to save the most money. See the difference?
He was thanking his mom.
Xenophobia much?
Xenophobia much?
Xenophobia = criticizing those who don’t want free trade.
Does that make sense to you Jack?
To expand upon Lestat’s comment, the first half of his acceptance speech was in English. He then prefaced the part of his speech that was going to be in spanish because he was thanking his mom.
While I find most people in Hollywood to be politically repugnant, I didn’t think this episode qualified.
Agreed (with J.R.). Plus Barden was really, really good in that movie. Oscar well-deserved.
Anyone else annoyed that Anderson didn’t win best picture or screenplay? No Country was amazing, but Blood should have taken at least one of those two (at least the latter, the ideas in it were far deeper than No Counry’s ”life is violent and random"-a-la-History of Violence).
(Plus Blood had nothing to do with Sinclair’s Oil -- it was nominated for the wrong screenplay category.)
<--- Pardon the rant.
Guys, I think you’re missing the point. I have no problem with Barden or his Spanish acceptance speech. I think the guys great, and if he wanted to get up there and confuse the audience by delivering his entire speech in Yiddish I would have been just fine with it.
What got me was how the left doesn’t mind a foreign actor coming in here and making millions (and taking jobs from other starving actors!) while they oppose free trade with Mexico.
I mean, c’mon. That’s hypocritical, to say the least.
Rob,
I’m not sure it has occured to them. They don’t think that way… you know, logically.
Having a Spanish actor to star in an American movie and supporting NAFTA are two different things; one has to do with talent and the other economics. If you were to ask the director of that movie why that particular actor was chosen, I’m sure the answer would be that he was the best man for the job, and not because he was the cheapest option. Companies outsource to save money, while movie directors choose certain actors (foreign or otherwise) because they fit the role perfectly. However, if they ever did pay Mexican illegals 100 pesos to play key roles in American movies just because it’s cheeper, then I’ll join you in your outrage.
Globalization come in two flavors; one is a cultural movement where societies come together to celebrate their diversity, and the other is an economic movement where companies compete to save the most money. See the difference?