Bush Wins Worst Actor Award
Vol: 41 Issue: 27 Sunday, February 27, 2005
Hollywood couldn’t resist one more shot at the hated President Bush, awarding him the “Golden Raspberry Award” on Saturday for worst actor of the year for his appearance in Michael Moore’s documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
Rather confusing, really. If ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ is really a documentary, then the concept of ‘best actor’ and ‘worst actor’ should be irrelevant.
By definition, there are no ‘actors’ in a ‘documentary’ — there are just participants. If actors are used in a documentary, or if the participants are acting, then it isn’t a documentary at all.
But since Hollywood doesn’t function within the same sphere of reality as the rest of America, one shouldn’t be too surprised.
There is something about getting a group of professional deceivers into a room that ought to tip one off to the fact they are about to deceive, but somehow, this manages to all slip right by the general public.
Let’s stop here for a second and consider the Oscar Awards for what they really are. Awards given to the best actor are given because . . . ?
Ok, I won’t keep you in suspense. They are awarded to the actor who is the most convincing fake.
If Liam Neeson plays Dr. Alfred Kinsey, Liam Neeson isn’t actually Alfred Kinsey; he is pretending to be Alfred Kinsey. If he receives an Oscar, [he didn’t, it is just an example] then he is being granted what amounts to the ‘Best Faker of the Year’ Award.
On the other hand, Halle Berry tied with President Bush in the ‘Worst’ category. Berry’s ‘Catwoman’ performance was judged to be as bad as President Bush’s performance as President Bush.
Logic would seem to suggest that if Halle Berry isn’t REALLY Catwoman, but President Bush really IS President Bush, so there is some kind of reality-disconnect going on here. But this is Hollywood. Disconnecting from reality is what they get paid for.
John Wilson, founder of the Golden Raspberry Award Foundation that gives out “Hollywood’s least coveted trophies” on the eve of the Oscars, cheerfully admitted Moore’s anti-Bush ‘documentary’ allowed the foundation’s nearly 700 members to do some Bush bashing of their own.
Of course, Wilson didn’t include quotes around Fahrenheit 9/11, since in his view, it is really IS a documentary, except for the parts played by real people, who, according to him, were acting. Or something.
The president not only was named worst male actor in a leading role, he also won for being half of the year’s worst screen couple when paired with either Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or ‘My Pet Goat’ the book he was reading to schoolchildren on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.
Footage of the President continuing to read the story after being given word of the attacks was part of the central plotline to Moore’s propaganda film, in which Moore alleges the administration was somehow complicit in the attacks on September 11.
Two other Fahrenheit ‘stars’ were “honored.” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was named worst supporting actor and pop star Britney Spears won for worst supporting actress for a clip in which she declares blind faith in Bush’s policies while popping chewing gum.
Hollywood has made no secret of its abject hatred of President Bush. To the liberal elites in Tinsel Town, President Bush is the embodiment of all that is evil about America.
They have a little trouble articulating exactly why, but the main reason is because the America they live in is a different America that that inhabited by the rest of us.
To the Hollywood elite, homelessness is one of the greatest scourges of modern American life — and they don’t think the government is taking enough money from the working class to redistribute among the homeless to fix the problem.
In Hollywood, a person making $50,000 a year is a member of the ‘working poor’. Anyone earning less than that is either homeless or shares a home with a half dozen friends.
The Hollywood elite, however, drive their Jaguars past homeless people littering their streets on their way to Rodeo Drive to pick up a $200 T-shirt, muttering under their breath about the government’s lack of concern for the poor.
Having finished shopping, they step around, over, or look past the homeless people hoping one of them will peel a few bills off their roll of hundreds to help them out.
Then they go onstage to bash the Bush administration for not doing enough to help.
The Hollywood elite single-handedly support a small army of accountants and tax advisors to make sure that they don’t pay any more than absolutely necessary in taxes.
Barbra Striesand could construct an apartment building big enough to house half of Hollywood’s homeless population out of her checking account.
But instead, she put an equivalent amount of money into buying advertising to convince you not to vote for Bush because he doesn’t do enough for the homeless, the poor, the sick and the disenfranchised.
I vividly recall another champion of the liberal left, Martin Sheen, testifying before Congress about the plight of the homeless and the obligation of government to do something about it back in the 1990’s.
Sheen’s testimony followed that of Elizabeth Taylor, who was testifying before the Congress about the scourge of AIDS and the government’s failure to adequately address it.
Think of it! In this case, we have two individuals whose only claim to fame is that they lie for a living. Martin Sheen, a multimillionaire actor, castigating the Congress over homelessness, and Elizabeth Taylor, married seven times, lecturing the Congress about sexually transmitted diseases! And nobody laughed.
What gives these people their sense of power and self-importance? At first glance, one might think it is their incredible personal wealth. Most Americans evidently agree that having lots of money makes you smarter. Otherwise, Julia Roberts wouldn’t have been called to testify before Congress about the critical need for funding autism research.
Martin Sheen has never been homeless; Elizabeth Taylor’s only qualification to testify about sexually transmitted diseases is her perfume line designed to, umm, curtail sexual behavior? Julia Roberts isn’t autistic, and she is hardly a trained research professional.
(Unless learning how to best pretend to be somebody else qualifies one as a research ‘professional’.)
The only explanation for why anybody would care about the opinions of a professional faker is because our culture affords them the status of ‘pop idols’.
They entertain us, like the court jesters who entertained medieval kings and, like those court jesters, they are handsomely rewarded for it.
We heap upon them praise for their performances, lavish them with unimaginable wealth, hang on their every word, and forgive them any excesses, for no other reason than that they are cultural idols.
Why would anyone seek excuses for Michael Jackson’s pedophilia, for example? Who cares if he didn’t have a childhood because he was making a gazillion dollars? How could that possibly grant him a special dispensation to ruin some other kid’s childhood?
The Scriptures have much to say about idols, an idol worship, but mostly, we interpret ‘idols’ in terms of statues of Buddha, or Vishnu or Brahmin, but idol worship is nothing other than giving someone or something the moral authority God reserves for Himself.
“And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” (2nd Corinthians 6:16)
The Apostle John closed his 1st Epistle with the admonition; “Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.” (1st John 5:21)
As we get closer to the end of this present age, that warning takes on a new perspective. When one reads of Biblical idol worship, one comes away with the sense of the ignorant and superstitious cultures of antiquity. “Idol worship” could never happen in America.
We’re much too sophisticated for that.