Howell, Murphy, bling
Sincere thanks to the Toronto Star's Peter Howell for saying I "may be on to something" in dissing Eddie Murphy's energetic-but-far- from-profound Dreamgirls performance and the notion that he's got the Best Supporting Actor Oscar locked. This is probably true, but it may not be. And all I was trying to do was articulate a widespread but unarticulated disdain for the guy -- trust me, the Murphy dissers are out there in force.
It's such a pleasant thing to be misinterpreted, and to have the words that you've carefully assembled in order to make a precise point ignored. I really recommend it because at the very least, it shows you who the real jackals are. Topping the list are those who've tried to link the Murphy diss to that "bling" riff I wrote a couple of months ago. (Hint, hint...I'm an unconscious racist.) I'm going to try this again (and remember what your teachers told you about reading carefully and taking notes): dissing the "blings" was a flip-off critique of sartorially gaudy get-down types who are guilty of a kind of nocturnal insecurity and/or pretentiousness.
Men and women who flash the cash and strut around in hotel lounges and hard-to-get-into clubs wearing cheap-ass sequined T-shirts and way too much jewelry on their fingers and around their necks are looking to enhance their cred on some level by putting put on a show for their peers. The "bling" mentality has, of course, been around for centuries. Sinclair Lewis and F. Scott Fitzgerald certainly wrote about the 1920s variety, and if they were around today they'd be saying the same things about present-day offenders. And in these present-day writings, they would no doubt observe...naahh, leave it alone.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 2, 2007 at 9:36 AM
comment #1
jeffmcm
says ...
'Sartorially gaudy get-down types'?
If George Orwell gave a crap about entertainment reporting, he'd be proud.
Posted by jeffmcm
at February 2, 2007 9:57 AM
comment #2
donnyboy
says ...
The criticism of materialism and over consumption doesn't hold up.
If it is bad, and so hollow, then, of course, won't those who engage in it be worse off. There would be no need to say anything, because it is a given (yes?) that they are worse off for being so "superficial".
Think of it this way: If you know someone that likes eating soap, would consistently harp on their taste, and how bad it is, and how it was ruining them. No you'd just stay away and leave them alone.
This all boils down to envy.
It is Oscar time after all!
Posted by donnyboy
at February 2, 2007 10:08 AM
comment #3
bipedalist
says ...
You are not doubting his chances or his performance: you are leading a campaign to "take him down." There is a big difference.
Posted by bipedalist
at February 2, 2007 10:34 AM
comment #4
T. S. Idiot
says ...
I have no idea how Hollywood feels about Alan Arkin, but he's had a long career, with several good performances, and seems to exemplify professionalism. The Oscars folks obviously like LMS. So why shouldn't Arkin win? But do the voters truly try to spread things around? If someone is going to vote for Mirren and O'Toole, say, can he vote for another over-60?
Posted by T. S. Idiot
at February 2, 2007 11:25 AM
comment #5
Joe B.
says ...
As I said a couple of posts below:
"... this kicking of Dreamgirls (when it's kinda down) is getting a bit tiring. Kinda been a bug chunk of the HE site for days."
And not too surprisingly, it keeps rolling along... The "H.E. Dreamgirls/Murphy Takedown Machine" keeps on going, and going, and going...!
Posted by Joe B.
at February 2, 2007 11:42 AM
comment #6
Craig Kennedy
says ...
Ok, this is my last comment on this tiresome subject:
Jeff Wells on Monday 1/29: "It may be too late and it may be a futile notion, but it's time for all good people to rise up and band together in order to stop Eddie Murphy from winning the Best Supporting Actor Oscar."
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2007/01/stop_eddie_murp.php
And today he's claiming:
"And all I was trying to do was articulate a widespread but unarticulated disdain for the guy."
Bullshit. Those things aren't in the same ballpark. In fact, they're not playing the same sport.
If you're going to be a dick, at least stand up and be proud of it instead of crying you're misunderstood. Pick one: Dick or coward, but please spare us both at the same time.
Posted by Craig Kennedy
at February 2, 2007 12:11 PM
comment #7
ArchiveGuy
says ...
OscarWatch's latest on Wells: "freak-out", "inexplicable tirade", "grasping at straws".
Who wants to bet that we won't see that as an HE headline any time soon?
Posted by ArchiveGuy
at February 2, 2007 1:11 PM
comment #8
Hallick
says ...
Why would anyone consider Eddie Murphy a lock unless they were lazily coat-tailing his nom onto Hudson's lock in her category? I don't think he's EVER been a lock; and he still wouldn't be if "Dreamgirls" had gotten the Best Picture nomination.
Posted by Hallick
at February 2, 2007 5:42 PM
comment #9
gruver1
says ...
Wells to cjKennedy: Strongly sensing a widespread but unarticulated disdain for Eddie Murphy (having repeatedly heard about same for years) , I thought I'd put it all out in the open by suggesting it's time for all good people to rise up and band together in order to stop Murphy from winning the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. Explain the incongruity.
Posted by gruver1
at February 2, 2007 6:41 PM
comment #10
Hallick
says ...
The incongruity arose when you wrote, "all I was trying to do was articulate a widespread but unarticulated disdain for the guy". It makes you sound like you're trying to distance yourself from the personal, first person attack you did on Murphy (the "dick" option in cjKennedy's post) by claiming all you were doing is just present an articulation of widespread feelings (thus, the "coward" option). Which your bounty piece doesn't read like at all.
And even now, in your response to cjKennedy, you're talking about sensing and hearing things, as if what you wrote was an act of simple observation instead of personal spleen venting. By doing that, a person could wonder if you haven't felt a little roughed up about the bounty thing and you're trying to spin history by claiming it was a reporting piece ("all I was trying to do was articulate a widespread but unarticulated disdain for the guy") and not an editorial ("He's the one bad guy in the bunch who, I feel, really doesn't deserve to win"; "there's that air of arrogance and impudence that rubs me the wrong way").
Posted by Hallick
at February 2, 2007 7:26 PM
comment #11
Craig Kennedy
says ...
cjKennedy to Wells: Hallick pretty much answered your question, I think. Perhaps I've misunderstood the thought process behind the course of your anti-Murphy posts, but here's how it looks to me: First you announce Eddie Murphy is an asshole who has made a string of awful movies and you're launching some kind of campaign to keep him from winning an Oscar. Then you report on similar feelings from other sources. Then accusations of racism and everything else start flying. Then today you appear to step back and say "Hey woah, don't shoot the messenger here. I'm just an innocent journalist reporting facts as I hear them. I'm not the bad guy here, Eddie is and I'm just repporting on it." In fact you seem to be both the messenger and the message, hence the incongruity.
Posted by Craig Kennedy
at February 2, 2007 8:26 PM