Clooney's 2012 Oscar award campaign gears into action

u know what katiedot , i was always feeling i am crazy because the main reason i am G fan actually that i hate the way he treats women and i think he is ultimate womanizer despite he say otherwise and ur words just cooled my blood a little bet i don't count him evil but if any woman can get all the women rights from G for the way he think about and treat or deals with his women i will be grateful ,thanks again for saying what i wanted to say

I mostly agree with you Katiedot. But I do think it's a little unreasonable to expect one actor/director to tilt at all of Hollywood's windmills at once. However, if he doesn't "walk the walk" he shouldn't have "talked the talk" and should have kept his mought shut.

I am glad he is interested in making small independent films for adults (not teens) with somewhat serious subjects. I think he makes the projects that interest him--and those are not heavy on female roles. I can't blame him for that. Unfortunatley we are realizing that feminism is a slooooow process. Those female roles for older women probably won't come along until: 1) there are more female directors, producers and writers, 2) society in general starts seeing women in their 40s and 50s as attractive and interesting in their own right and 3) middle aged adults start buying more movie tickets (and since movie ticket sales as a whole are trending down with the other entertainment choices folks have, don't see this happening).

Katiedot wrote:He can't have it both ways. It's the same as a man who owns a cigarette factory saying smoking is bad. If that factory owner really believed smoking was bad he wouldn't be selling cigarettes to people.

Funny you should say that Katie because for about a year I worked in the office of Philip Morris (maker of Marlboro cigarettes) and I was the ONLY person there who smoked (other than the salesmen of course, but they were nuts anyway LOL) but the other employees didn't EXACTLY look down on me but I felt guilty every time I took a cigarette break outside.

fava wrote:I mostly agree with you Katiedot. But I do think it's a little unreasonable to expect one actor/director to tilt at all of Hollywood's windmills at once. However, if he doesn't "walk the walk" he shouldn't have "talked the talk" and should have kept his mought shut.

I am glad he is interested in making small independent films for adults (not teens) with somewhat serious subjects. I think he makes the projects that interest him--and those are not heavy on female roles. I can't blame him for that. Unfortunatley we are realizing that feminism is a slooooow process. Those female roles for older women probably won't come along until: 1) there are more female directors, producers and writers, 2) society in general starts seeing women in their 40s and 50s as attractive and interesting in their own right and 3) middle aged adults start buying more movie tickets (and since movie ticket sales as a whole are trending down with the other entertainment choices folks have, don't see this happening).

I completely agree with you. I wouldn't have said anything at all if it weren't for his interview in Entertainment Weekly where all of a sudden the role of women in Hollywood is "a concerining issue" to him.

That was such a blatant, self-serving lie aimed entirely at voters for the academy awards laying down his fictional credentials as someone who worries about feminism that it got me incredibly angry. I'm sure he's concerned about how hard it is for women in a general way, same as he's probably concerned about half a million other things wrong on this planet but this man is no feminist.

He's not made any effort at all to make life for women in Hollywood any better or change the status quo. That's fine; as you said, it's not his role in life to solve all problems, but then he can't run around pointing fingers at everyone else for not doing something he's not prepared to do either.

That statement, compounded by the lie that he's not campaigning for an Oscar just turned my stomach. As they say, "don't piss in my face and then tell me it's raining". He's desperately campaigning for his awards, presenting himself as something he's not in order to woo every voter he can.

I also agree with you Katie....the ironic thing is the accolades for The Descendants he is getting were there before he started to campaign. By all accounts he is very good in it and therefore shouldn't need to try so hard. I am having a hard time with the hypocrisy too...

Yes, that's exactly it! He's begging for something that he deserves and is likely to get anyway. He's better than this. It's undignified and just doesn't suit him.

Perhaps he sees his chances for staring roles in films becoming more limited as he ages. But yes, his campaigning is upsetting and I think beneath him. As for his statements about women .... who in Hollywood isn't aware of his choices? Odd isn't it, that his fan base is mostly women.

Katiedot wrote:He's begging for something that he deserves

That is exactly the phrasing I was searching for

It's funny, when George interviewed with critic Peter Travis for Descendents he said he used to campaign hard but doesn't anymore. I wonder what he considers all his appearance as, if not compaigning. Ooooh George!

Katiedot wrote:Yes, that's exactly it! He's begging for something that he deserves and is likely to get anyway. He's better than this. It's undignified and just doesn't suit him.

I am sure he has some problems in his life lately. He has never been inconsistent but lately, too many times and in different situations, he gives interviews where he says one thing and then actually makes another!

Katiedot wrote:
He's not made any effort at all to make life for women in Hollywood any better or change the status quo. That's fine; as you said, it's not his role in life to solve all problems, but then he can't run around pointing fingers at everyone else for not doing something he's not prepared to do either.

Can't really add anything that hasn't already been said. Just wanted to give you guys a

Katiedot wrote: He's not made any effort at all to make life for women in Hollywood any better or change the status quo. That's fine; as you said, it's not his role in life to solve all problems, but then he can't run around pointing fingers at everyone else for not doing something he's not prepared to do either.

OK, I've put on my snarky hat. He has given us the appearance that he is taking one woman at a time and making her life in Hollywood better by opening doors for them and getting them jobs. But, George, this is NOT what is supposed to happen. If you're going to make statements about women's inequality in Hollywood, use your name for ALL women, not just your tart of the month. At this rate, it will take him forever to get thru all the women in Hollywood. If you're going to talk the talk, then please, walk the walk.

Katiedot wrote:Yes, that's exactly it! He's begging for something that he deserves and is likely to get anyway. He's better than this. It's undignified and just doesn't suit him.

I agree with you but the problems arise because all of his competitors are also very good in the roles they've turned out and deserve it as well and therein lies the rub....how to stand out in the pack of very deserving actors, without looking like your campaigning.

Hey Ello! Here's a thread you might be interested in.

Ok, I've done an update of my post from a couple of days ago (and incorporated a few good lines from other posters). It's a lot of reading so feel free to skip it. I just need to get this off my chest:

=========================================

Was it really only in January 2010 that he announced he wasn't going to be doing any more press ever again? He barely did anything to promote Michael Clayton, The American or Up in the Air and we fans sorely missed him.

After such a long press silence, imagine our happiness to see a major interview with him in Rolling Stone last month. Followed by a huge interview (and cover!) in Esquire this month. And a great feature in the Sunday Times (UK). And yet another cover in Vanity Fair in February. He made personal appearances at half a dozen film festivals in the past couple of months in places that most of us didn't even know had film festivals!

All this was followed by still another cover and interview in Entertainment Weekly this week.

Umm, about that.

In that interview he so sweetly re-stated his position saying yet again how much he hates campaigning for awards and won't do so any more. You know what? We're fans; we'll overlook all these unprecedented public appearances and heaps of media he's done recently. If it makes him feel as unclean as he says it does then we'll all play along with it and say it's just one big coincidence, all this press coverage right before the big awards are voted on. What else are fans for?

But there's one thing I can't let him get away with. This sudden and unexpected concern for the role of women in Hollywood. I appreciate he has to cover every Academy Award voter demographic in his non-campaign but this one is one step too far.

He can make statements about pretty much any political, environmental or social issues and I'm happy to listen to him. Believe him. Trust him. I think he's (mostly) a smart, switched-on guy who I think really does want to make the world a better place.

But feminism? Here's one area where he hasn't got a leg to stand on.

Maybe he really does think that he believes the role of women in Hollywood is a "concerning issue" for him? Or maybe it's just that he's well aware it's something that makes him sound good? You know, for that campaign that he's not running.

If he feels so strongly about the plight of women in Hollywood, where are all those good meaty roles for women in the four films he's made to date?

Funny, it seems that there aren't any; so far they've all been boy's club stuff. Julia Roberts in CoADM doesn't count; her part (the hackneyed Mata Hari spy role) didn't appear until half way through the film and she had barely 10 minutes' screen time.

Renee Zellwegger in her superficial role as the girlfriend in Leatherheads? Puh-lease! Women in Hollywood complain over and over again that the only roles open to them are as wives and girlfriends, ie: the side dish in the meal and not the main course. Renee's role was exactly that: the pretty bit of fluff who gives the main characters (both male) in the film a reason for doing stuff.

He chose to make four films that were mostly about men, starring men, doing men's stuff. That's not criticism, by the way. They were extremely good films (well ok, I probably could have lived without Leatherheads) and I enjoyed them all.

He deserved the critical acclaim he got for them and there's no reason at all why he has to be the one to promote women in his films but then there’s this: he can't sound off about other people in Hollywood not doing something that he's not prepared to do either. Not when he's so vocally not campaigning for something.

It's nice to read that he's concerned, but let’s be honest here: he's in a position to address those issues and chooses not to.

What about behind the scenes? Is he hiring and encouraging female writers? Camera operators? Assistant directors? Cinematographers? Or are the women working for him on his films mostly found in the traditional female areas of assistants, makeup, wardrobe?

We never hear anything about it which is a little odd given how concerning he says he finds this, don’t you think? If he were really making a difference wouldn’t that be something he’d share so that others could follow his lead?

In his personal life he demonstrates time and time again that he has little respect for women. Ten years of dating nothing but pole dancers, strippers, lingerie models, porn actresses and cocktail waitresses - many of them young enough to be his daughter - doesn't exactly speak volumes about his attitude towards women. Well, actually it does, but it's saying something very different from what he'd like to hear being said. Overall, going on past history I think it's fair to assume that the only thing we can reliably know about his opinion of women is that it's best if we are pliant, compliant and powerless.

That's not a big deal. He lives his life the way he wants to and dates whoever he wants to; who he sleeps with is completely his business and not mine. For me his taste in women is one of his few character flaws but that generally doesn't bother me that much; it is what it is. Besides, who on this planet is perfect? He enjoys his life and lives it to the fullest without apologies. And why not? That’s always been one of the reasons why I've been a fan for so long.

But he can't now expect me, or anyone else, to believe he suddenly cares about the treatment of women in Hollywood. Especially not right before the academy starts voting on who gets to take an Oscar home with them next month.

Why does it matter? Because like almost all of his fans, I’m a woman and I’m not so brainless that I’ll swallow his clueless soundbites without question. I think in America you have that great expression: ‘Don’t piss on my head then tell me it’s raining’. That’s not rain and I have an umbrella.

One last gripe: that whole "I don't do Oscar campaigns anymore" in the middle of an obvious Oscar campaign really, really needs to stop.

He needs to grow a pair. He wants that Oscar and should have one, probably two. There’s no shame in asking for what you want and deserve. This ‘non campaign’ act of his doesn’t suit him.

We’re fans of the straight talking George Clooney, man of integrity; a person who isn't going to pretend to be something he's not just for a trinket he deserves and will probably get anyway. If campaigning for an Oscar makes him feel unclean then reading his recent statements in the media makes everyone feel unclean.

Thanks for the article Katie, so, so true. He wants the Oscar award very badly and is willing to make himself 'unclean' to get it. I wonder if he wants to get one more Oscar under his belt before he retires to behind the camera?

Cate Blanchette in the Good German played a fairly meaty role.
Maybe women aren't going into the technical side of film making as some of it demands a lot of physical strength.
Having said that, I always watch the extras on my DVD's and there are always are a lot of females walking around on locations with clip boards and head phones etc.

Yeah, but the Good German wasn't a film made by George and Cate's role was still largely that of the pretty woman who motives the rest of the almost entirely male cast to action.

cindigirl wrote: he wants to get one more Oscar under his belt before he retires to behind the camera

I guess so

bec he does almost everything
with a purpose

Katiedot wrote:Yeah, but the Good German wasn't a film made by George and Cate's role was still largely that of the pretty woman who motives the rest of the almost entirely male cast to action.

yeah
Cate's role was the detonator

Katiedot wrote:Yeah, but the Good German wasn't a film made by George and Cate's role was still largely that of the pretty woman who motives the rest of the almost entirely male cast to action.

Plus, the role is actually quite an interesting one in the novel. It was cut down, and Tobey Maguire's significantly added to, to fit the typical boys-fighting-over-a-girl storyline.

I think one of the reasons I didn't like Leatherheads was the way the role of Renee Z. was written. She was written (by George) as being a controlling b**** in the first half and then turning into this little helpless thing by the end of the movie (due to his charms!) The scene that really got to me was when they were getting together at the end of the movie and you see their faces in profile, and he's talking to her like she's a little girl. This may have been a reflection of the attitudes back then but was it necessary to put it in the movie? I believe this man has serious women issues. JMO of course.

yeah.... a long strange history
this film
huh

Great thoughts, Katie, and right on the mark, I think. George, to me, has become a host of contradictions; the "I wanna keep my life private" to his championing womens' rights in Hollywood. And he's one of the few people that actually could see that some "womens" films get made - he can put a satellite in the sky to safeguard a nation, but he can't get a movie made? Really?
When he does have women's roles in his movies, he also uses the same women, again and again. That's not to discount any of these actresses, because they are genuinely good, but for the most part, Julia, Tilda, and Kate can pretty much get gigs on their own. What about other actresses - and I mean real actresses - not his gf's. Look at how successful "The Help" was? I'm sure there are alot of screenplays out there similar to this...can't he find one? Personally, I don't think he wants to.

It's very easy to see him become like the politicians he says he doesn't like - say what people want to hear, to get the vote.

difficult for him
I guess
find the right script
(worse doing it himself, more difficult to find money, I guess)
then
majors want HIM
in the film

even if
maybe another
good
father role....
who knows

I can understand that he doesn't make films with, by, for or about women. As a filmaker I think he has to be inspired the story and the stories that interest him aren't women's stories.

It's just that I don't like him taking on the mantle of feminism when he's so not feminist.

Just a thought about George not making films where women are the main characters. Aren't films whose main characters are women called 'chick flicks' or 'rom coms?' I think he'd rather make movies that have meaning to him instead of the fluffy Jennifer Anniston movies.

cindigirl wrote:Just a thought about George not making films where women are the main characters. Aren't films whose main characters are women called 'chick flicks' or 'rom coms?' I think he'd rather make movies that have meaning to him instead of the fluffy Jennifer Anniston movies.

He produced one of the WORST Jennifer Aniston movies, Rumor Has It, that has ever been produced. And that's saying something.

yep
weak
despite the many people in it

I would think his campaigning would be over now....weren't Oscar ballots due before the GG? Oh and I have a friend who votes and she thinks the Movies are weak this year. She said she will probably vote for the Descendants. Actually it is her husband who gets the ballot ----he is a makeup/ hair artist.

IMO the best actress category is strong this year, at least it was for the GG.

silly girl wrote:I would think his campaigning would be over now....weren't Oscar ballots due before the GG? Oh and I have a friend who votes and she thinks the Movies are weak this year. She said she will probably vote for the Descendants. Actually it is her husband who gets the ballot ----he is a makeup/ hair artist.

According to the Academy website, nominations will be announced this Tuesday, January 24th. Then the final ballots are due about a week before the ceremony, which is on Feb 26th.

If George is nominated, and I don't think there's any doubt he will be, the hustle of the last few months will be nothing compared to the next four weeks. His campaign hasn't even really begun yet. I wonder which disenfranchised minority group he'll take up for next? He's already checked off gays (with the play) and women (with the EW interview). Anyone know how much of the Academy membership is comprised of midgets?

Oh I see.....thanks Missa.... I misunderstood....I am pretty much tired of all the campaigning....politics included.... love your last comment!

Missa wrote: Anyone know how much of the Academy membership is comprised of midgets?

LOL!

Sadly the cynical side of me thought the exact same thing. Ok, not about midgets, but about which other large groups of Academy Award votes George needs to chase after next. He's already covered animal lovers with all those cutsie Einstein stories that have come out recently.

Katiedot wrote:

Missa wrote: Anyone know how much of the Academy membership is comprised of midgets?

LOL!

Sadly the cynical side of me thought the exact same thing. Ok, not about midgets, but about which other large groups of Academy Award votes George needs to chase after next. He's already covered animal lovers with all those cutsie Einstein stories that have come out recently.

LOL! I almost added the Einstein stuff to my comment. It's really kind of sad how transparent it all is, isn't it? I am not enjoying his new cologne, "Eau de Desperation".

I'll be following Stacy's phototweets in real time ! So if you wanna be " sitting " at Georgies table, you know who to talk to.

B A B I E S!!!!!

He hasn't covered BABIES yet!! All those Academy voters who LOVE BABIES!!!!

3:20

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Here's an update on how Oscar hopefuls can and can't promote themselves.

From Ottawa Citizen

Oscar hopefuls work around new guidelines

By Ronald Grover February 20, 2012

The Jan. 31 photo opportunity for the film The Artist came courtesy of Los Angeles City Councilman Tom LaBonge, who presented the cast and crew of the film with the inaugural Made in Hollywood award. But the photo op wasn’t just a feel-good ceremony to celebrate the movie.

It also served as a clever marketing opportunity for Harvey Weinstein, the movie impresario who has made a history of tweaking rules set by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to restrict Oscar campaigning.

With balloting for the Oscar only a month away, the event was aimed not so much at citizens of Tinseltown as at the nearly 5,800 Academy members who could vote for The Artist, one of the nine films nominated this year for Best Picture.

The Artist is the only one among this year’s contenders for the world’s top movie awards that was truly filmed in Hollywood, and the plaque being presented to the makers of the black-and-white, mostly silent movie about 1920s Los Angeles was a none-too-subtle bit of lobbying to movie folk who have seen film jobs leave for Toronto, New York and elsewhere in recent years.

What’s good for Hollywood is, naturally, good for the Oscars and good for show business, the thinking goes.

The Artist wasn’t the only Oscar hopeful using the marketing ploy of a thinly veiled civic or educational event this year. Fox Searchlight, a unit of News Corp., sponsored A Tribute to Classic Family Dramas From Oscars Past and Present and sent The Descendants star George Clooney to a question-and-answer session at the Egyptian Theater in Los Angeles.

The Fox studio event was co-sponsored by the non-profit American Cinematheque, some of whose members are also Academy members.

Dreamworks, which produced the The Help, a tale of Southern maids in the 1960s, sponsored a symposium on “the power of films to create social change” with the USC School of Cinematic Arts.

“It just felt organic,” a Dreamworks spokesman said in describing the Help seminar, at which Oscar-nominated star Octavia Spencer and writer/director Tate Taylor appeared on the panel. “This was a movie that was about something, a movie that resonated with a lot of people because of what it stood for.”

Fox executives declined to be interviewed for this story, and a spokeswoman for the Weinstein Co. had no comment.

Why the use of so many non-traditional and educational symposiums around Los Angeles this year? Studio executives had to get creative, because that’s what they’re paid for.

This year, the Academy clamped down on past Oscar campaigns that included lavish parties for members where the food and drink flowed. In September, the Academy passed new rules that prohibited receptions after screenings, a longtime Hollywood lobbying ritual, and limited to two the number of panel discussions that filmmakers can attend.

The rules also barred inviting Academy voters to attend events designed specifically to promote a nominated movie or individual. What the changes didn’t prohibit was nominees like The Help’s Spencer from attending a panel discussion at which she talked about growing up in the Southern United States and encouraged USC students to reach for their dreams.

“I’m just here to talk about how powerful a film can be to change people’s minds,” Spencer said after posing for pictures in the lobby of the Landmark Theater in the Westwood section of Los Angeles, where the seminar was taking place.

But it’s not only prestige that Oscars bring. The box office for last year’s winner, The King’s Speech, jumped 10 percent the week after the film was crowned, even though it had been in theatres nearly three months. This year, online ticket seller Fandango reported a doubling of ticket sales for The Artist and a 65 percent bump for The Descendants” the day after they were nominated.

To meet that demand, the studios rolled out their films to more locations. The Artist, for example, added nearly 800 theatres to its release schedule between the Jan. 17 nominations and a recent peak on the Feb. 3 weekend. Its U.S. and Canadian box office more than doubled over the same period, from around $9 million to more than $20 million. The Descendants also aggressively boosted its theatre count, and The Help, which was released in theatres late last summer, will look to increase DVD sales and future TV revenue from all the Oscar hype.

“You particularly see the Oscar bump for end-of-year indies, movies not fueled by star power,” said Fandango editor-in-chief Chuck Walton. “Moviegoers are more selective these days, and once the competition has been narrowed, they’ll take a chance on seeing a movie that’s an Oscar winner.”

And as studio executives know these days, it’s hard to win an Oscar if you don’t campaign for one.

hu!

so that's what all his non-campaigning is about... hahahahaha

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Oscar lobbying goes down to the wire
CBC News Posted: Feb 22, 2012 10:57 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 23, 2012 10:25 AM ET Re

Oscars 2012

The final ballots are in for the 84th Oscars, ending a round of Academy Awards campaigning by powerful producers making the case for their films.
Deana Sumanac talks to Canadian producers and members of the academy about
how it's done and the rules of the game.