Letters to the Editor
The following is a selection of letters sent to us in response to Scott Holleran's commentary "Glamour and Depravity Collide at the Oscars." Click here to read the original article. Some responses have been edited for clarity or shortened for length requirements. Thanks to all who responded as we do read every e-mail. We look forward to more of your feedback. <HR align=justify>
There was nothing depraved about the awards or the behavior displayed there—not even the Polanski Oscar. The award is deserved on artistic merit but I think that if he actually wants the statue he has to come to LA to get it and face his sentence. No one was celebrating him for the rape he committed. They were celebrating the work he produced that touched on other aspects of his complex life (holocaust survivor and Manson victim). Polanksi and the war are both issues fraught with strong arguments from both sides.
Jana Weldon
Phoenix, AZ
<HR align=justify>
I'd first like to say that I enjoy Box Office Mojo immensely; I check it daily and enjoy your features. Mr. Holleran's article was well-written, though I felt a bit misguided when it came to his definition of patriotism. Matthew McConaughey is considered patriotic because he supports the war effort. Those that support the peace effort are merely "smug, rich liberals". Holleran's comments are a sad reflection of the skewed perception among many Americans that anyone who promotes peace and alternatives to sending our men and women off to die is somehow unpatriotic and anti-American.
A perfect example of this is his mention of Michael Moore's speech and how it was "anti-American". I don't see how anyone could have interpreted his comments as anti-American. Anti-Bush, definitely, but not anti-American by any means.
When asked by a reporter backstage why he said what he did, his reply: "I'm an American." When asked if that was all, his reply: "Oh, that's a lot." Hardly the words of a man who hates his country.
There is nothing wrong with patriotism, and what everyone needs to remember is that what makes this country great is that we can show our love for our country as we see fit, whether it is supporting your president or protesting your president. Just because you wear red, white, and blue corsages does not necessarily make you a patriot. Sometimes, voicing your opinion to a hostile crowd that does not want to hear what you have to say can be just as patriotic. Keep up the great work on the site, I look forward to more of your articles.
Jason DeGroot
St. Cloud, MN
<HR align=justify>
I, too, singled McConaughey out for praise for his courage.
I spent two years of active duty in the U.S. Army, including a year in Vietnam, and while I applaud and encourage the discreet and appropriate use of freedom of speech, I am ashamed for and angry about Moore's offensive rhetoric.
Ed Blank
Pittsburgh, PA
<HR align=justify>
Some of Holleran's observations are simply unglamorous. He expects us to believe that the Academy's support of Roman Polanski was directly intended to advocate the statutory rape. We're not supposed to believe that the standing ovation celebrated Polanski's movie. We're not even supposed to believe that the standing ovation supported his work DESPITE his past mistakes. We're supposed to believe that the standing ovation intended to "celebrate the depraved for being depraved."
What needs to be said in return? How about: "Roman Polanski directed 'The Pianist.'"
Ethan Peter
Atlanta, GA
<HR align=justify>
I'm from Spain and I have been reading Box Office Mojo since long ago, and it's the first time that I write you. The reason is that I feel sick about Scott Holleran's column. Spanish Goverment has send troops to the Gulf and gives support to the U.S. troops fighting there, but 91% of the population it's against the war (official poll by the Spanish Govement). Nobody is called anti-patriotic for saying that. And the same people who are against war back the Spanish soldiers. That's the great thing about freedom of speech.
What's the point of having the marines fighting for the freedom of speech if you insult the people who use that right?
Or you are the one who can say when this right can be used, like dictators around the world do? It's so perverted to say "hey, you have the right of saying whatever you want, but don't use it if I don't like what you're saying". Voltaire said it 250 years ago: "I hate what you're saying, but I would die for your right to say it".
Why can't the smug, rich liberals say peace but even richer more powerful people from the oil companies make social parties with people from the goverment to promote the war? I don't get why they don't have the right? Is because they are rich or because they are liberals? I don't think Michael Moore is richer than anyone in any of those lobbies.
Rodrigo Varona
Madrid, Spain
<HR align=justify>
Scott Holleran's article is a deliberate slam against anti-war protesters. Michael Moore had every right to say what he said. It is his duty to criticize his nation, if his nation is truly a democracy. Criticism is the means by which a nation improves. I don't have a clear-cut political view on this, but I commend Moore for taking a stand in something that he believes in. Just the same, I commend Matthew McConaughey for taking a stand in something that he believes in.
Sure, Michael Moore may have been rude for bringing politics into his acceptance speech but then that means that everyone else that brought politics into their acceptance speech, whether they were pro- or anti-war, were being rude.
This response to Michael Moore's speech only strengthens the argument that the U.S. is descending into totalitarianism. How long is it going to be before people are arrested for saying what Michael Moore said? I hope people realize what a sad state the U.S. is in, when people criticize someone else for utilizing his or her freedom of speech. Bush has himself said that a totalitarian government is not worth fighting for. In that case, the army's efforts will soon be in vain if the U.S. continues to get deeper into totalitarianism.
It is Michael Moore's duty in a democracy to voice his opinion, and I am glad that he did so. Thus, I am outraged by Scott Holleran's bashing of Michael Moore.
Matthew Opitz
Springfield, MO
<HR align=justify>
Who asked Scott Holleran to talk about the Oscars? I lump Holleran and his comments in the same corner as Michael Moore and Marlon Brando. Different sides of the political spectrum, same inappropriateness.
Nicole had it right. You watch the Oscars because art is important, NOT for a political view, and that includes Scott Holleran's.
Thanks for allowing feedback.
Bill Grant
San Diego, CA
<HR>
I was happy to see you call things what they are in your article about the Oscars. I can't stand all the sugar-coating people do with words. You're blunt with your words and I appreciate that. Describing Roman Polanski as a 'fugitive from the law who raped a 13-year-old child' and as 'depraved'; Adrien Brody's 'vulgar assault' on Halle Berry; Michael Moore's 'diatribe against America.' Thank you for telling it like it is. I hope to see more of your articles soon.
Christine Armstrong
Copiague, NY
<HR>
Bravo to you Scott for saying something that needed to be said. Watching many at the Oscars that night made me sick. Even worse, some have argued that they are brave for saying something, but ridicule those—including you—for stating your feelings.
That's what we movie fans are here for—making it clear what we do or do not like. By not requiring more of Hollywood, we've gotten the garbage that is the batch of summer movies (with a few exceptions) and spoiled millionaires who think we should listen to them because they are rich and famous.
I'm making my statement in the one way you guys got on the map—by tracking what people see and pay tickets for. No Polanski or Moore or Dixie Chicks or Madonna for me thanks. It isn't censorship. It's choosing who and what I want to hear about. No one's stopping them. It's just that no ones cares about them anymore, and that's what angers them most of all.
Vic Medina
Dallas, TX <HR>
Please feel free to discuss this issue further on our user forums at http://www.boxofficemojo.com/forums/.
There was nothing depraved about the awards or the behavior displayed there—not even the Polanski Oscar. The award is deserved on artistic merit but I think that if he actually wants the statue he has to come to LA to get it and face his sentence. No one was celebrating him for the rape he committed. They were celebrating the work he produced that touched on other aspects of his complex life (holocaust survivor and Manson victim). Polanksi and the war are both issues fraught with strong arguments from both sides.
Jana Weldon
Phoenix, AZ
<HR align=justify>
I'd first like to say that I enjoy Box Office Mojo immensely; I check it daily and enjoy your features. Mr. Holleran's article was well-written, though I felt a bit misguided when it came to his definition of patriotism. Matthew McConaughey is considered patriotic because he supports the war effort. Those that support the peace effort are merely "smug, rich liberals". Holleran's comments are a sad reflection of the skewed perception among many Americans that anyone who promotes peace and alternatives to sending our men and women off to die is somehow unpatriotic and anti-American.
A perfect example of this is his mention of Michael Moore's speech and how it was "anti-American". I don't see how anyone could have interpreted his comments as anti-American. Anti-Bush, definitely, but not anti-American by any means.
When asked by a reporter backstage why he said what he did, his reply: "I'm an American." When asked if that was all, his reply: "Oh, that's a lot." Hardly the words of a man who hates his country.
There is nothing wrong with patriotism, and what everyone needs to remember is that what makes this country great is that we can show our love for our country as we see fit, whether it is supporting your president or protesting your president. Just because you wear red, white, and blue corsages does not necessarily make you a patriot. Sometimes, voicing your opinion to a hostile crowd that does not want to hear what you have to say can be just as patriotic. Keep up the great work on the site, I look forward to more of your articles.
Jason DeGroot
St. Cloud, MN
<HR align=justify>
I, too, singled McConaughey out for praise for his courage.
I spent two years of active duty in the U.S. Army, including a year in Vietnam, and while I applaud and encourage the discreet and appropriate use of freedom of speech, I am ashamed for and angry about Moore's offensive rhetoric.
Ed Blank
Pittsburgh, PA
<HR align=justify>
Some of Holleran's observations are simply unglamorous. He expects us to believe that the Academy's support of Roman Polanski was directly intended to advocate the statutory rape. We're not supposed to believe that the standing ovation celebrated Polanski's movie. We're not even supposed to believe that the standing ovation supported his work DESPITE his past mistakes. We're supposed to believe that the standing ovation intended to "celebrate the depraved for being depraved."
What needs to be said in return? How about: "Roman Polanski directed 'The Pianist.'"
Ethan Peter
Atlanta, GA
<HR align=justify>
I'm from Spain and I have been reading Box Office Mojo since long ago, and it's the first time that I write you. The reason is that I feel sick about Scott Holleran's column. Spanish Goverment has send troops to the Gulf and gives support to the U.S. troops fighting there, but 91% of the population it's against the war (official poll by the Spanish Govement). Nobody is called anti-patriotic for saying that. And the same people who are against war back the Spanish soldiers. That's the great thing about freedom of speech.
What's the point of having the marines fighting for the freedom of speech if you insult the people who use that right?
Or you are the one who can say when this right can be used, like dictators around the world do? It's so perverted to say "hey, you have the right of saying whatever you want, but don't use it if I don't like what you're saying". Voltaire said it 250 years ago: "I hate what you're saying, but I would die for your right to say it".
Why can't the smug, rich liberals say peace but even richer more powerful people from the oil companies make social parties with people from the goverment to promote the war? I don't get why they don't have the right? Is because they are rich or because they are liberals? I don't think Michael Moore is richer than anyone in any of those lobbies.
Rodrigo Varona
Madrid, Spain
<HR align=justify>
Scott Holleran's article is a deliberate slam against anti-war protesters. Michael Moore had every right to say what he said. It is his duty to criticize his nation, if his nation is truly a democracy. Criticism is the means by which a nation improves. I don't have a clear-cut political view on this, but I commend Moore for taking a stand in something that he believes in. Just the same, I commend Matthew McConaughey for taking a stand in something that he believes in.
Sure, Michael Moore may have been rude for bringing politics into his acceptance speech but then that means that everyone else that brought politics into their acceptance speech, whether they were pro- or anti-war, were being rude.
This response to Michael Moore's speech only strengthens the argument that the U.S. is descending into totalitarianism. How long is it going to be before people are arrested for saying what Michael Moore said? I hope people realize what a sad state the U.S. is in, when people criticize someone else for utilizing his or her freedom of speech. Bush has himself said that a totalitarian government is not worth fighting for. In that case, the army's efforts will soon be in vain if the U.S. continues to get deeper into totalitarianism.
It is Michael Moore's duty in a democracy to voice his opinion, and I am glad that he did so. Thus, I am outraged by Scott Holleran's bashing of Michael Moore.
Matthew Opitz
Springfield, MO
<HR align=justify>
Who asked Scott Holleran to talk about the Oscars? I lump Holleran and his comments in the same corner as Michael Moore and Marlon Brando. Different sides of the political spectrum, same inappropriateness.
Nicole had it right. You watch the Oscars because art is important, NOT for a political view, and that includes Scott Holleran's.
Thanks for allowing feedback.
Bill Grant
San Diego, CA
<HR>
I was happy to see you call things what they are in your article about the Oscars. I can't stand all the sugar-coating people do with words. You're blunt with your words and I appreciate that. Describing Roman Polanski as a 'fugitive from the law who raped a 13-year-old child' and as 'depraved'; Adrien Brody's 'vulgar assault' on Halle Berry; Michael Moore's 'diatribe against America.' Thank you for telling it like it is. I hope to see more of your articles soon.
Christine Armstrong
Copiague, NY
<HR>
Bravo to you Scott for saying something that needed to be said. Watching many at the Oscars that night made me sick. Even worse, some have argued that they are brave for saying something, but ridicule those—including you—for stating your feelings.
That's what we movie fans are here for—making it clear what we do or do not like. By not requiring more of Hollywood, we've gotten the garbage that is the batch of summer movies (with a few exceptions) and spoiled millionaires who think we should listen to them because they are rich and famous.
I'm making my statement in the one way you guys got on the map—by tracking what people see and pay tickets for. No Polanski or Moore or Dixie Chicks or Madonna for me thanks. It isn't censorship. It's choosing who and what I want to hear about. No one's stopping them. It's just that no ones cares about them anymore, and that's what angers them most of all.
Vic Medina
Dallas, TX <HR>
Please feel free to discuss this issue further on our user forums at http://www.boxofficemojo.com/forums/.
