Another "Political" Oscar Night

Last night the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences handed out it awards for this year's Oscars. There were few surprises, as most of the winners were the same as the Golden Globe recipients earlier, with the only significant differences that of the Best Actor (Sean Penn) and Best Supporting Actress (Penelope Cruz). Most of the major awards otherwise, for Best Director and Best Movie went to the Indian production "Slumdog Millionaire."

Hollywood pared down this year' event somewhat in recognition of the U.S. recession, although all the attendees attire did not reflect that it has yet hit LaLa Land in any significant way. Hugh Jackman as emcee did a masterful job in the opening number, and another midway through the program. Surprisingly also, there were no clips this year of the nominees performances nor of the five pictures nominated for Best Picture. Instead, a more personal touch was added in bringing back former winners in each of the major categories to render personal testaments and accolades to the nominees individually. It was a homey touch in the middle of a set that would rival the showroom of a major Las Vegas casino.

As usual, liberal political statements were made since the nominations themselves seem to be progressively more and more political with each passing year. Action films and low budget box office smashes were again noticeably absent. It is the "art" that is important after all, not the box office receipts (wink, wink). Those smashes simply fund the real work of movie making, influencing public opinion for Hollywood's latest political cause.

This year it was India's struggling democracy and poverty, and gay rights activism in statements by both the writer and Best Actor winner, Sean Penn, for their contributions to "Milk." As someone who was alive during that time in America, at the time of Mr. Milk's death it was more attributed to interdepartmental political party jealousies than having had as much as it appears was conveyed in the movie with gay rights causes or activism. The Mayor of San Francisco also was murdered by Dan White over a refusal to rehire him after a resignation for political reasons. Those were turbulent times.

Such egocentric motivations it appears is provided in order to enlighten the public, and Mr. Penn pulled no punches during his acceptance speech in referring to picketers outside the Convention Hall as filled with "hate" and condemned them and the American people it appears that supported and passed Proposition 8 last election in California. In fact he laid blame so far and wide as to blame all the American people and warned that if "equal rights" were not given to the gay community, than that would result in the hatred of the next generation's children and grandchildren for this generation's "bigotry and shortsightness," by word and inference and was the thrust of his widespread attack.

With the progressive removals of any real governmental protection for either party really of the institution of marriage as a covenant and contractual relationship at the present time and with an over 50% divorce rate in this country, and with California a community property state in addition, I'm still trying to figure out just what it is the gay community actually feels they are missing. Social acceptance cannot be legislated, and this is really not a purely "equal rights" issue at all, since common law marriages were the norm in this country up until the government actually interfered and taxed marriage by requiring "licenses" to get married at all.

A religious ceremony was simply involved requiring two witnesses, and the marriage itself was simply logged in the county courthouse records in order to protect the rights of inheritance in the event of the death of either spouse, or their "posterity." It would appear to me that the drive behind this might also be motivated for financial reasons more than anything else, since it would certainly eventually increase the coffers of the already overflowing domestic relations attorneys in this country most of all. Unfortunately, this is the fact of marriage in this country today, sad to say. And with "powers of attorney," and wills now available on line for any legal matters for either party, I don't see where there is actually any disparity in "equal" rights with respect to legal standing at all.

Equal opportunity laws now also include sexual discrimination, so there are "equal rights" in the workplace. Married couples purchase homes as "joint tenants" and file separate income taxes as "heads of household," when there are children involved, so I'm still scratching my head over just what is missing in this quest for "equality," from a legal or Constitutional standpoint.

This year again merely seemed replays of Hollywood's propensity for story telling and escapes from reality. The price of one of those gowns alone would have prevented a few foreclosures, but facts and fiction somehow shatter the illusion, and it is illusion that feeds the industry.

"Benjamin Button" fit the bill in that respect to a "T" for Best Picture, but the "politically correct" Hollywood elite chose the strugging democratic English/India joint venture, "Slumdog Millionaire" instead.

As with the continued state of our nation in this now 1970-80's bank/Congressionally created economic recession replay, some things never change.