criterionforum.org

mfunk9786 wrote:I just want to know what you have against Mo'nique's performance if you haven't seen the film. It's exhausting to hear your ridiculous opinions that have no basis on which to form them.

If this was meant for me, you clearly have a problem discerning the difference between having something against a performance and having something against her speech.

As I have noted, I have not seen her performance and cannot comment on it.

I have seen her speech and thought it was self serving and showed no graciousness towards her fellow nominees.

In reply to triodelover-

I was simply replying to her comment where she thanked the Academy for awarding her because of her performance not politicking.
I don't care if she did it LESS than some of the other Actors, that doesn't concern me. I have nothing against her if she did!
BUT, when she makes it a point to "Thank the Academy for choosing the winner based on quality not politicking", well then, that is where I find fault, since I found a full page add in Variety asking voters to consider her for Best Supporting Actress. Seems like politicking to me.
Oh well, this is not exactly a fact based argument and I admit this is mostly just my opinion. I just was rubbed the wrong way by her speech.

HistoryProf wrote: If Brando or George C. Scott ever said asked 'why you ain't talkin about them?' then I'd most certainly criticize them for it. I would also criticize them if they were pompous a-holes who pretended like the award didn't matter before the ceremony and mocked it after getting one. That's my opinion, of courses, and you are free to yours...but don't call me a racist for it. I don't think she deserved it for a lot of reasons, but race is not one of them.

George C. Scott wrote: The [Academy Awards] ceremonies are a two-hour meat parade, a public display with contrived suspense for economic reasons.

Edit: Angel's right

Scott said many things about acting competitions and awards before winning the Oscar.

well, yeah, I assumed he was referring to two guys that had done that - seemed the only rationale for picking those two in particular. it's just that I was either not alive at the time or probably more interested in watching HR PufNStuf on saturday mornings when it happened. (i.e.: born in 1970)


And Foofighters echoed my sentiments better than I verbalized them. To me, she managed to out-pompous Sandy Powell and her "I already have two of these..."

HistoryProf wrote:I know you are trying to insinuate race into this, but it doesn't fly. I abhor texting language as much as I do "street" crap like "ax" - I see it on a daily basis in papers and it certainly isn't anything that's defined by color. If you insist on it being a racial thing, maybe you can just lump me in with Bill Cosby and his distaste for the rampant lack of respect on the part of young people for the English language.

If Brando or George C. Scott ever said asked 'why you ain't talkin about them?' then I'd most certainly criticize them for it. I would also criticize them if they were pompous a-holes who pretended like the award didn't matter before the ceremony and mocked it after getting one. That's my opinion, of courses, and you are free to yours...but don't call me a racist for it. I don't think she deserved it for a lot of reasons, but race is not one of them.

The only thing offensive here is your ignorance of the history of language. What you're complaining about is not "street crap," and is most certainly not "rampant lack of respect" for the English language. AAVE (African-American Vernacular English) is a legitimate and organically developed dialect form of English with its own distinct and demonstratable phonology, morphology, and syntax. It has long been recognized by all reputable linguists and philologists. If you're going to complain about AAVE under the terms of language debasement, then you will have to reckon with the acknowledged fact that your own idea of proper English is a "debased" form of eighteenth century literary English and would have horrified the educated and the literary men of the period who fought hard to fix and stabilize English against the "barbarism" of the linguistic flux which produced your own speech (as even a quick perusal of the language tracts by Swift, Defoe, and Johnson, to say nothing of the multitude of grammarians and lexicographers, will show).

I'm quite aware of the history of African creole languages across the South and the roots of AAVE. I am likewise aware that today's English has evolved (devolved?) markedly from that of the 18th century. Of course I know that language changes - but I think your response is unnecessarily antagonistic. I don't think being critical of bad grammar makes one culturally insensitive and think you are out of line for making that leap so acerbically, but that's just me. and finally, I'm also aware that my stance on the issue is akin to the old man down the street who yells at kids to get off their lawn. Maybe i'll make that my new avatar to avoid future imbroglios.

But since i'm now being accused of being an ignorant twit on top of racist, I suppose I'll take leave of this thread.

historyprof wrote: I don't think being critical of bad grammar makes one culturally insensitive and think you are out of line for making that leap so acerbically, but that's just me.

Except my whole point is that it's not bad grammar, it's dialect syntax. That you apparently know this makes it all the more incredible that you'd persist with your criticisms.

And I did not call you "culturally insensitive," I called you ignorant of language history. That I was wrong in this does you no favours, in fact it makes things even less understandable.

historyprof wrote:but I think your response is unnecessarily antagonistic.

Ignoring whether or not I'm bound by necessity to do anything, need I point out the irony that my "antagonism," limited as it is to one reasonable accusation of ignorance, pales considerably next to the antagonism you've pointed at Mo'nique--for grammar of all things--and others throughout this thread, and for which you've been warned?

please point out the fellow posters who I was antagonistic to and personally insulted, and I'll gladly apologize. I had no idea Mo'nique posted here though! what's her user name?

I am Mo'nique.

Spoiler

Spartacus

No! I'm Mo'nique.


Sorry.

:-"

I agree with History Prof, frankly. If Meryl Streep tended to say "wiff" instead of "with" (in person rather than in performance, naturaly) would it be excused as "dialect"? It's just as annoying when a southerner says "nayow" instead of "now". It's not racist to point this out; maybe it's classist, but since class is the real issue no one ever wants to touch that.

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:IIt's just as annoying when a southerner says "nayow" instead of "now".

Is it...ahem, now? From whence doth ye hail, O scion of perfect diction? Certainly couldn't be from the Center of Civilzation as We All Know It where "oil" is the guy what's datin' your sister and "earl" is that black gooey stuff you pour into the crankcase of your car?

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:It's not racist to point this out; maybe it's classist, but since class is the real issue no one ever wants to touch tIhat.

No, I think the word you are searching for is arrogant.

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:since class is the real issue no one ever wants to touch that.

And this is a bad thing how? Any discussion on race immediately flies off the rails the way it is. Just look at the hash that's been made of this one. I can't imagine that a discussion on class wouldn't end up in the Infighting section in record time.

My point isn't that varied diction and dialect isn't valid or interesting, my point is that white liberal academics love to dissect the lives of the "poor dumb unwashed" and further their own uselessness by writing pretentious, condescending "studies" about various classes' behavioral charecteristics. It's the "intelligentsia's" own brand of racism, that's all. Just as it's condescending to rationalize or excuse or coddle (or overtly praise) Gabourey Sidibe's outrageous heftiness, when she's, simply, morbidly obese. Callering her obese, or criticizing Mo'Nique's manner of speaking takes nothing from their intelligence or talents.

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:My point isn't that varied diction and dialect isn't valid or interesting, my point is that white liberal academics love to dissect the lives of the "poor dumb unwashed" and further their own uselessness by writing pretentious, condescending "studies" about various classes' behavioral charecteristics. It's the "intelligentsia's" own brand of racism, that's all.

Are you kidding? So your point "isn't that varied diction and dialect isn't interesting," it's just that discussion of these variances is all a conspiracy of useless liberal academic racists?

This is a joke, right?

No, my point is that Mo'Nique sounds like a fucking fool when she talks.

But then, so does Sting. Maybe it has something to do with only having one name, I dunno.

How about a remake of My Fair Lady starring Monique, so we can put this to rest?
And I'm sorry I'm late to Bigelow party, but while I certainly don't think she is a hack or talentless, my point was that she has been saddled with a bunch of mediocre cliched scripts which she has done a perfectly servicable job with. I also think it's fine that she does TV or commercial work, even David Lynch has done pepto bismal ads, we all need to eat. What I don't see is what sets her apart from the typical action director, except the much referenced MILF designation. I mean I HATE Michael Bay, but his movies are instantly recognizable, not so much for Bigelow. And full disclosure, yes, feel free to hate me, but I liked Avatar more than Hurt Locker, but certainly don't care in the least who won Oscars.

You MILFist!

Sounds to me that everyone just shouldn't talk.

Talkist

The great irony is that I spelled Mo'Nique wrong. So much for all that fancy schoolin'.

This thread is so, so terrible. Congratulations, everyone: we've managed to create something less tolerable than the awards ceremony itself.

Zot! wrote:The great irony is that I spelled Mo'Nique wrong. So much for all that fancy schoolin'.

Nah, spelling is relative, there are no standards. It's all about you, babe, do your own thing, fuck the rules.

mynamecriterionforum wrote:I agree with History Prof, frankly. If Meryl Streep tended to say "wiff" instead of "with" (in person rather than in performance, naturaly) would it be excused as "dialect"? It's just as annoying when a southerner says "nayow" instead of "now". It's not racist to point this out; maybe it's classist, but since class is the real issue no one ever wants to touch that.

You're kidding, right? How is Meryl Streep hypothetically using the phonetics of a dilect that she has not grown up speaking comparable to what Mo'nique did? As far as I can see, there is no comparison; one is clear and unaccountable affectation, the other is natural speech patterns. There should be no need for me to point this out.

As for your "now" example, does it also annoy you when people from the British isles pronounce words differently than you? Do you bother to sympathize with British RP speakers who look disparagingly on Norther British accents as tho' it too were an annoying debasement of speech? I doubt it. Every intelligent person knows instinctively that pronounciation is variable, and yet when it comes to their own local variations that knowledge disappears and up come the unaccountable prejudices.

HistoryProf wrote:please point out the fellow posters who I was antagonistic to and personally insulted, and I'll gladly apologize. I had no idea Mo'nique posted here though! what's her user name?

What is the point of wilful misunderstandings? It should be obvious that, like Mo'nique, "others" meant people at the academy awards.