[MOPO] FS: kinoart.net new posters online

[Wolfgang Jahn]

Hi all, I have 270 new items on: www.kinoart.net/content_home_en.php 

 

 

This time the focus is on 50s/60s Cinema and Beautiful Women!

 

There are rare posters from the purchase of a collection with actresses like
Sophia Loren, Brigitte Bardot, Doris Day, Racquel Welch, Claudia Cardinale.

 

Furthermore: Italian posters for the Western classics Fistful of Dollars,
For a few Dollars more, Once upon a Time in the West, and more with Clint
Eastwood and John Wayne for example.

 

Other highlights include the German A1 for Double Indemnity, German style B
for Prince and the Showgirl, German A0 for Shane, an original Swedish for
Stroheim's Greed (1925), US 1sheet for Roman Holiday, US 30x40 for Yellow
Submarine.

 

Then as always some James Bond (From Russia with Love French 1panel) and UK
Hammer Horror (Day of the Triffids Quad) as well as posters for German
Cinema from the 40s and 50s.

 

Best wishes and thanks for your interest,

Wolfgang Jahn

 



www.kinoart.net



Wolfgang Jahn

Fon (+49) (0)221 1698728 

mailto:   m...@kinoart.net

 


 Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
   ___
  How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List

   Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L

The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.

[MOPO] FA: Heritage has Invasion of Saucer-Men, Niagara, Singin' in the Rain, Easy Rider, The Mummy, Westerner, On the Town, more

[Carteron, Bruce - 1551]

Heritage has 536 lots of some of the Best of vintage movie posters closing this 
Sunday evening, March 3rd, at 10pm CT!

www.ha.com/161309
Featuring a great selection of affordable posters, lobby cards, photos, press 
books, and related Memorabilia!
Heritage has offered over 185,000 lots (all searchable with images, 
descriptions and prices in our free permanent auction 
archive)
  of some of the very rarest and most desirable items in the hobby. Serving 
almost 750,000 collectors, including over 40,000 Movie Poster bidder-members, 
HA.com is the place to go to buy and sell your vintage movie posters!

Some of the Great Highlights this week include:

Invasion of the Saucer-Men (American International, 1957). Insert (14" X 36")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51248

Niagara (20th Century Fox, 1953). One Sheet (27" X 41")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51354

A View to a Kill (United Artists, 1985). British One Sheet (27" X 40")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51513

Singin' in the Rain (MGM, 1952). Window Card (14" X 22")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51443

Easy Rider (Columbia, R-1972). One Sheet (27" X 41")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51145

Lady and the Tramp (Buena Vista, 1955). One Sheet (27" X 41")  & Insert (14" X 
36")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51278
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51277

The Mummy (Universal, R-1951). Lobby Card (11" X 14")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51346

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Allied Artists, 1956). Lobby Cards (2) (11" X 
14")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51246
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51244

The Westerner (United Artists, 1940). One Sheet (27" X 41")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51519

>From Russia with Love (United Artists, 1964). One Sheet (27" X 41") Style B
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51180

On the Town (MGM, 1949). One Sheet (27" X 41")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51371

The Thing from Another World (RKO, 1951). Lobby Card (11" X 14")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51489

Fallen Angel (20th Century Fox, 1945). One Sheet (27" X 41")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51157

Niagara and Other Lot (20th Century Fox, 1953). Lobby Cards (2) (11" X 14")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51353

Parlor, Bedroom And Bath (MGM, 1931). Window Card (14" X 22")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51384

The Outlaw Josey Wales (Warner Brothers, 1976). One Sheet (27" X 41")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51377

The Feud (Fox, 1919). One Sheets (27" X 41") Styles A and B
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51159
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51160

Halloween (Compass International, 1978). One Sheet (27" X 41")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51218

The Man with the Golden Arm (United Artists, R-1960). One Sheet (27" X 41")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51324

A Christmas Story (MGM, 1983). One Sheet (27" X 41")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51095

Bullitt (Warner Brothers, 1968). Belgian (14.25" X 20.5")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51072

Double Indemnity (Paramount, 1940s). First Post-War Belgian (14.25" X 18.25")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51137

Once Upon a Time in the West (Paramount, 1969). One Sheet (27" X 41")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51369

Gilda (Columbia, 1946). Italian Color Promos (2) (13" X 18.5")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51196

The Angry Red Planet (American International, 1960). Half Sheet (22" X 28")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51022

The Misfits (United Artists, 1961). Danish One Sheet (24.5" X 33.5"
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51341

Northwest Passage (MGM, 1940). One Sheet (27" X 41") Style D
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51359

Escape from New York (Avco Embassy, 1981). One Sheet (27" X 41")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51152

The Accused (Paramount, 1949). French Affiche (23.5" X 31.5")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51006

Ghostbusters (Columbia, 1984). One Sheet (27" X 41") Advance
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=51192

Take Me Out to the Ball Game (MGM, 1949). One Sheet (27" X 41")
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161309&lotNo=

[MOPO] FA: Heritage's March Auction HAS THE BEST! Come take a LOOK!

[Smith, Grey - 1367]

This coming MARCH 23rd and 24th, Heritage will auction the very best in vintage 
movie posters with over 1100 lots! www.HA.Com/7072

Bidding is online now!

Great highlights include:

Werewolf of London (Universal, 1935). Title Lobby Card (11" X 14").
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7072&lotNo=83291

King Kong (RKO, 1933). Swedish Oversized (25" X 47").
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7072&lotNo=83287

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (Universal International, 1948). CGC 
Graded Lobby Card Set of 8 Very Fine/Near Mint (11" X 14").
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7072&lotNo=83276

Dr. No (United Artists, 1962). British Quad (30" X 40").
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7072&lotNo=83495

Breakfast at Tiffany's (Paramount, 1961). Poster (40" X 60") Style Z. First one 
of these we've seen!
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7072&lotNo=83473

I Walked with a Zombie (RKO, 1943). One Sheet (27" X 41").
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7072&lotNo=83284

Casablanca (Warner Brothers, 1942). One Sheet (27" X 41").
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7072&lotNo=83119

Moon Over Miami (20th Century Fox, 1941). One Sheet (27" X 41") Style A.
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7072&lotNo=83073

The Adventures of Robin Hood (Warner Brothers, 1938). Australian Three Sheet 
(40" X 80.5").
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7072&lotNo=83221

AND MANY, MANY MORE!







 Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
   ___
  How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List

   Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L

The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.

[MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.

[David Kusumoto]

A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along with 
pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are my favorite "still-living" directors of all time - 
is a big loser when it comes to winning awards.  "Argo" was fine, but I thought 
"Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better.  Meanwhile, this 
year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in my mouth a little. 
 The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from the NY Times. - d.
“Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest Loser
  

Once again, the Best Picture prize slips from 
his hands. What does Hollywood have against its most successful resident?


by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013




























Image by Mario Anzuoni  / Reuters

Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The triumph 
of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of Lincoln
 brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in 
seven at bats for entertainment's biggest prize. 

And tonight, not only 
did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once seemed his, but the 
consolation prize of Best Director, the category in which Argo's Affleck was 
not even nominated, was also snatched away and handed to Life of Pi's Ang Lee.

For
 a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his 
unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned 
untouchable since before many of today's young directors were born — 
facing up to yet another defeat at the hands of his people starts to 
look like a clear and consistent rebuff. 

Worse still, Spielberg's
 films are not just distant also rans. Most of his seven nominated films
 were at some point in their campaigns considered favorites to win the 
whole thing, making Spielberg the Academy's Charlie Brown, forever 
having the football pulled away. 

This year in particular. for a brief 
moment between the Oscar nominations being announced and the Golden 
Globes, Spielberg's Lincoln looked like a shoo-in to win the prize. Only to see 
Argo stage a last minute surge and steal its thunder again. 

So
 to what do we attribute this ongoing snub? Chalk it up to Hollywood's 
love/hate relationship with its greats. The number one thing Hollywood 
hates is failure. The sad fates of those who have fallen beneath the C 
list demonstrate every day how little empathy the town has for those who
 can't soar with the eagles. 

But the number two thing Hollywood hates is
 success. Praying for the downfall of its mighty is practically the 
industry's official religion.

Spielberg these days is such a venerable figure that one can easily 
forget his historically troubled history with the Academy. After 
receiving one for a Best Picture nominations for his first outing — Jaws, but 
then being denied for nearly a decade that followed, Oscar finally broken down 
and ponied up nods for E.T. — when it became the day's highest grossing of all 
time — and Color Purple.


But both those films still lost out on the grand prizes, and to add 
insult, he was shut out in Best Director category throughout the 70s and
 80s as well.

After the Color Purple loss, Academy 
officials were so alarmed by the serial snubbing of Hollywood's most 
successful director that they took the unheard of step of bestowing upon
 Spielberg at age 40 the Thalberg Lifetime achievement award, until then
 reserved for septuagenarians at the end of their careers. 

It wasn't 
until seven years later, when he made a three hour holocaust film that 
Oscar finally couldn't deny giving him their grand prize for Schindler's List. 
But since then, it has been a 20 year sea of also-rans.

Of
 course, he hasn't gone completely unrecognized. Eight Best Picture 
nominations is something most directors will never even dream of. Add to
 that, two Best Directing awards making him the most awarded director 
since William Wyler in the 1950's.

But still, somehow the Best 
Picture prize keeps sliding from his grasp, and for a man at the top of 
Hollywood, to be the town's perpetual also-ran in its biggest contest 
has to be galling.

In a town with — despite the disruptive presence of the internet — a 
fixed number of studios and a shrinking number of major releases, 
entertainment remains a zero-sum game. Celebrating the achievement of 
the man with a permanent position on top is never entirely in one's best
 interest (unless you're doing it to his face). 

And in a place where, as
 William Goldman famously put it, "no one knows anything" and everyone 
knows that they don't know anything, seeing the mighty stumble

Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.

[Franc]

Very interesting reading, David.  Thanks for sharing themt. Somehow after
Ben Affleck got the DGA award, I knew Steven Spielberg and Lincoln were
going to be shunned by the Oscars. It's a shame because in my opinion while
Argot was cleary a good film, Lincoln was a monumental film that is destined
to become a classic. 
 
FRANC

-Original Message-
From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of David
Kusumoto
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:55 PM
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.


A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along
with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are my favorite "still-living" directors of
all time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards.  "Argo" was fine,
but I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better.
Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in
my mouth a little.  The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from
the NY Times. - d.



“Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest Loser

Once again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood
have against its most successful resident? 

by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013

 
 
Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters

Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The
triumph of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of
Lincoln brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in
seven at bats for entertainment's biggest prize. 

And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once
seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in
which Argo's Affleck was not even nominated, was also snatched away and
handed to Life of Pi's Ang Lee.

For a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his
unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned
untouchable since before many of today's young directors were born — facing
up to yet another defeat at the hands of his people starts to look like a
clear and consistent rebuff. 

Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just distant also rans. Most of his
seven nominated films were at some point in their campaigns considered
favorites to win the whole thing, making Spielberg the Academy's Charlie
Brown, forever having the football pulled away. 

This year in particular. for a brief moment between the Oscar nominations
being announced and the Golden Globes, Spielberg's Lincoln looked like a
shoo-in to win the prize. Only to see Argo stage a last minute surge and
steal its thunder again. 

So to what do we attribute this ongoing snub? Chalk it up to Hollywood's
love/hate relationship with its greats. The number one thing Hollywood hates
is failure. The sad fates of those who have fallen beneath the C list
demonstrate every day how little empathy the town has for those who can't
soar with the eagles. 

But the number two thing Hollywood hates is success. Praying for the
downfall of its mighty is practically the industry's official religion.

Spielberg these days is such a venerable figure that one can easily forget
his historically troubled history with the Academy. After receiving one for
a Best Picture nominations for his first outing — Jaws, but then being
denied for nearly a decade that followed, Oscar finally broken down and
ponied up nods for E.T. — when it became the day's highest grossing of all
time — and Color Purple. 

But both those films still lost out on the grand prizes, and to add insult,
he was shut out in Best Director category throughout the 70s and 80s as
well.

After the Color Purple loss, Academy officials were so alarmed by the serial
snubbing of Hollywood's most successful director that they took the unheard
of step of bestowing upon Spielberg at age 40 the Thalberg Lifetime
achievement award, until then reserved for septuagenarians at the end of
their careers. 

It wasn't until seven years later, when he made a three hour holocaust film
that Oscar finally couldn't deny giving him their grand prize for
Schindler's List. But since then, it has been a 20 year sea of also-rans.

Of course, he hasn't gone completely unrecognized. Eight Best Picture
nominations is something most directors will never even dream of. Add to
that, two Best Directing awards making him the most awarded director since
William Wyler in the 1950's.

But still, somehow the Best Picture prize keeps sliding from his grasp, and
for a man at the top of Hollywood, to be the town's perpetual also-ran in
its biggest contest has to be galling.

In a town with — despite the disruptive presence of the internet — a fixed
number of studios and a shrinking number of major releases, entertainment
remains a zero-sum game. Celebrating the achievement of the man with a
per

Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.

[David Kusumoto]

Franc, I'm not only with you all the way with "Lincoln," but I have already 
"declared" that in my mind, it is a towering achievement, an historical event, 
a classic.  As I posted on FB, I saw 8 of the 9 best picture nominees - and I 
thought "Lincoln" was Spielberg's best and most accomplished film since 
"Schindler's List."  I have the "Lincoln" one-sheet hanging on the wall behind 
my computer as I write this.  I also thought Tony Kushner was robbed.  "Argo" 
is OK, but not eloquent, not ground breaking, not special in any way memorable. 
 For "Argo" to win Best Picture AND Best Screenplay over the likes of "Lincoln" 
was criminal - and reminded me of the "vote for us" syndrome of the acting 
branch, e.g., see Robert Redford, Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner and Clint Eastwood. 
 Of the aforementioned winners, in my view, only Eastwood for "Unforgiven" 
(2002) was truly deserving.  Gene Seymour of CNN said the "Argo" win was an 
example of Hollywood kissing itself, e.g., Academy members voting for a 
movie... "whose success will benefit as many people in the industry as possible 
(Go Ben!) - and/or a movie that reflects Hollywood's best image of itself."  
Well history will prove the Academy wrong, just like how it got it wrong 
picking "Crash" as the Best Picture of 2005.  "Lincoln" was not just good, it 
was great, a masterpiece of writing and acting.  The only thing that would have 
made me madder Sunday night was if Daniel Day Lewis had LOST. -d.

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 20:09:53 -0500
From: fdav...@verizon.net
Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU




Message



Very 
interesting reading, David.  Thanks for sharing them. Somehow after 
Ben Affleck got the DGA award, I knew Steven Spielberg and Lincoln were going 
to 
be shunned by the Oscars. It's a shame because in my opinion while Argo was 
clearly a good film, Lincoln was a monumental film that is destined to become a 
classic. 
 
FRANC

  
  -Original Message-
From: MoPo List 
  [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of David 
  Kusumoto
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:55 PM
To: 
  MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven 
  Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.


  
  
  

  A pair of 
  interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along with 
pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are 
  my favorite 
  "still-living" directors of all 
  time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards.  "Argo" was fine, but 
I thought "Lincoln" and the 
  "Silver Linings Playbook" were better.  Meanwhile, this year's Oscars 
telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in my mouth a 
  little.  The first article is from Buzz Feed, the 
  second is from the NY Times. - d.

  “Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's 
  Biggest LoserOnce again, the 
  Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood have against its 
most 
  successful resident? 

by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff 
  Writer, February 24, 2013

 
  Image by Mario 
  Anzuoni / Reuters

Tonight, 
  Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The triumph of 
  Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory 
  from the jaws of Lincoln brings 
  Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in seven at bats 
  for entertainment's biggest prize. 

And tonight, not only did he lose 
  out on the Best Picture prize that once seemed his, but the consolation prize 
  of Best Director, the category in which Argo's Affleck was 
  not even nominated, was also snatched away and handed to Life of Pi's Ang Lee.

For a man who is 
  widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his unbelievable fifth 
  decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned untouchable since before many 
  of today's young directors were born — facing up to yet another defeat at the 
  hands of his people starts to look like a clear and consistent rebuff. 
  

Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just 
  distant also rans. Most of his seven nominated films were at some point in 
  their campaigns considered favorites to win the whole thing, making Spielberg 
  the Academy's Charlie Brown, forever having the football pulled away. 
  

This year in particular. for a brief moment between the Oscar 
  nominations being announced and the Golden Globes, Spielberg's Lincoln looked 
like a shoo-in to win the prize. Only 
  to see Argo stage a last minute surge and steal its 
  thunder again. 

So to what do we attribute this ongoing 
  snub? Chalk it up to Hollywood's love/hate relationship with its greats. The 
  number one thing Hollywood hates is failure. The sad fates of those who have 
  fallen beneath the C list demonstrate every day how little empathy the town 
  has for those who can't soar with the eagles. 

But the number two thing 
  Hollywood hates is success. Praying for the downfall of its mighty is 
  practically the industry's official religion.

Spielberg these days is such a venerable

Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.

[Tom Martin]

>So David... what your trying to say is Spielberg/'s is pretty good
if I get your drift right? Just want som clarification... thx

>
>
> Original Message 
>From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com
>To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In
>Hollywood.
>Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:10:27 -0800
>
>>
>>Franc, I'm not only with you all the way with "Lincoln," but I have
>already "declared" that in my mind, it is a towering achievement, an
>historical event, a classic.  As I posted on FB, I saw 8 of the 9
>best picture nominees - and I thought "Lincoln" was Spielberg's best
>and most accomplished film since "Schindler's List."  I have the
>"Lincoln" one-sheet hanging on the wall behind my computer as I write
>this.  I also thought Tony Kushner was robbed.  "Argo" is OK, but not
>eloquent, not ground breaking, not special in any way memorable.  For
>"Argo" to win Best Picture AND Best Screenplay over the likes of
>"Lincoln" was criminal - and reminded me of the "vote for us"
>syndrome of the acting branch, e.g., see Robert Redford, Mel Gibson,
>Kevin Costner and Clint Eastwood.  Of the aforementioned winners, in
>my view, only Eastwood for "Unforgiven" (2002) was truly deserving. 
>Gene Seymour of CNN said the "Argo" win was an example of Hollywood
>kissing itself, e.g., Academy members voting for a movie... "whose
>success will benefit as many people in the industry as possible (Go
>Ben!) - and/or a movie that reflects Hollywood's best image of
>itself."  Well history will prove the Academy wrong, just like how it
>got it wrong picking "Crash" as the Best Picture of 2005.  "Lincoln"
>was not just good, it was great, a masterpiece of writing and acting.
> The only thing that would have made me madder Sunday night was if
>Daniel Day Lewis had LOST. -d.
>>
>>Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 20:09:53 -0500
>>From: fdav...@verizon.net
>>Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
>>To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Message
>>
>>
>>
>>Very 
>>interesting reading, David.  Thanks for sharing them. Somehow after 
>>Ben Affleck got the DGA award, I knew Steven Spielberg and Lincoln
>were going to 
>>be shunned by the Oscars. It's a shame because in my opinion while
>Argo was 
>>clearly a good film, Lincoln was a monumental film that is destined
>to become a 
>>classic. 
>> 
>>FRANC
>>
>>  
>>  -Original Message-
>>From: MoPo List 
>>  [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of David 
>>  Kusumoto
>>Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:55 PM
>>To: 
>>  MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>>Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven 
>>  Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
>>
>>
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>
>>  A pair of 
>>  interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along
>with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are 
>>  my favorite 
>>  "still-living" directors of all 
>>  time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards.  "Argo" was
>fine, but I thought "Lincoln" and the 
>>  "Silver Linings Playbook" were better.  Meanwhile, this year's
>Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in my mouth a 
>>  little.  The first article is from Buzz Feed, the 
>>  second is from the NY Times. - d.
>>
>>  “Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's 
>>  Biggest LoserOnce again, the 
>>  Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood have
>against its most 
>>  successful resident? 
>>
>>by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff 
>>  Writer, February 24, 2013
>>
>> 
>>  Image by Mario 
>>  Anzuoni / Reuters
>>
>>Tonight, 
>>  Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The
>triumph of 
>>  Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory 
>>  from the jaws of Lincoln brings 
>>  Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in
>seven at bats 
>>  for entertainment's biggest prize. 
>>
>>And tonight, not only did he lose 
>>  out on the Best Picture prize that once seemed his, but the
>consolation prize 
>>  of Best Director, the category in which Argo's Affleck was 
>>  not even nominated, was also snatched away and handed to Life of
>Pi's Ang Lee.
>>
>>For a man who is 
>>  widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his
>unbelievable fifth 
>>  decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned untouchable since
>before many 
>>  of today's young directors were born — facing up to yet another
>defeat at the 
>>  hands of his people starts to look like a clear and consistent
>rebuff. 
>>  
>>
>>Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just 
>>  distant also rans. Most of his seven nominated films were at some
>point in 
>>  their campaigns considered favorites to win the whole thing,
>making Spielberg 
>>  the Academy's Charlie Brown, forever having the football pulled
>away. 
>>  
>>
>>This year in particular. for a brief moment between the Oscar 
>>  nominations being announced and the Golden Globes, Spielberg's
>Lincoln looked like a shoo-in to win the prize. Only 
>>  to see Argo stage a last minute surge and steal its 

Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.

[Kirby McDaniel]

I responded to David K., but I'll go ahead a post to the entire list.  I agree 
with David and Franc on this one entirely.  I'm not what anyone would 
characterize as a huge 
Spielberg fan, although I recognize his enormous accomplishments in purveying 
popular films.  In my book he has had several particularly satisfying films - 
SCHINDLER'S LIST, E.T., and a few others.  But LINCOLN is an extraordinary film 
driven by an extraordinary script adapted from an extraordinary book with 
extraordinary performances.  Is that enough "extraordinaries" fer ya?  I 
enjoyed ARGO; it was entertaining.  But clearly Spielberg and company were 
robbed.  I think the sorry decision to have 9 best picture nominations is going 
to produce what I'll bet are (regrettably) "plurality" decisions like this one.

I thank Steven Spielberg for bringing together this great pool of talent and 
leaving us with a picture that generations will enjoy again and again.

Kirby McDaniel
www.movieart.net


On Mar 1, 2013, at 7:09 PM, Franc wrote:

> Very interesting reading, David.  Thanks for sharing themt. Somehow after Ben 
> Affleck got the DGA award, I knew Steven Spielberg and Lincoln were going to 
> be shunned by the Oscars. It's a shame because in my opinion while Argot was 
> cleary a good film, Lincoln was a monumental film that is destined to become 
> a classic.
>  
> FRANC
> -Original Message-
> From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of David 
> Kusumoto
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:55 PM
> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
> Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
> 
> A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along 
> with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are my favorite "still-living" directors of all 
> time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards.  "Argo" was fine, but 
> I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better.  
> Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in 
> my mouth a little.  The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from 
> the NY Times. - d.
> 
> “Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest Loser
> 
> Once again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood 
> have against its most successful resident? 
> 
> by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013
> 
> 
> Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters
> 
> Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The triumph 
> of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of Lincoln 
> brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in seven at 
> bats for entertainment's biggest prize. 
> 
> And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once 
> seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in which 
> Argo's Affleck wasnot even nominated, was also snatched away and handed 
> to Life of Pi's Ang Lee.
> 
> For a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his 
> unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned untouchable 
> since before many of today's young directors were born — facing up to yet 
> another defeat at the hands of his people starts to look like a clear and 
> consistent rebuff. 
> 
> Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just distant also rans. Most of his 
> seven nominated films were at some point in their campaigns considered 
> favorites to win the whole thing, making Spielberg the Academy's Charlie 
> Brown, forever having the football pulled away. 
> 
> This year in particular. for a brief moment between the Oscar nominations 
> being announced and the Golden Globes, Spielberg's Lincoln looked like a 
> shoo-in to win the prize. Only to see Argo stage a last minute surge and 
> steal its thunder again. 
> 
> So to what do we attribute this ongoing snub? Chalk it up to Hollywood's 
> love/hate relationship with its greats. The number one thing Hollywood hates 
> is failure. The sad fates of those who have fallen beneath the C list 
> demonstrate every day how little empathy the town has for those who can't 
> soar with the eagles. 
> 
> But the number two thing Hollywood hates is success. Praying for the downfall 
> of its mighty is practically the industry's official religion.
> 
> Spielberg these days is such a venerable figure that one can easily forget 
> his historically troubled history with the Academy. After receiving one for a 
> Best Picture nominations for his first outing — Jaws, but then being denied 
> for nearly a decade that followed, Oscar finally broken down and ponied up 
> nods for E.T. — when it became the day's highest grossing of all time — and 
> Color Purple. 
> 
> But both those films still lost out on the grand prizes, and to add insult, 
> he was shut out in Best Director category throughout the 70s and 80s as well.
> 
> After the Color Purple loss, Academy officials were so alarmed by the se

Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.

[Doug Taylor]

I thought Silver Linings was Best Picture, followed by Argo.  Lincoln would
have been 3-5 on my ballot.

 

DDL and Spader were great, but I found the film uninspired and a bit
manipulative from the opening scene of the conversation between Lincoln and
the two soldiers.

 

Regards

 

DBT

  Profile

 

From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of David
Kusumoto
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 6:55 PM
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.

 

A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along
with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are my favorite "still-living" directors of
all time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards.  "Argo" was fine,
but I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better.
Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in
my mouth a little.  The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from
the NY Times. - d.





“Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest Loser


Once again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood
have against its most successful resident? 

by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013

 
 

Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters

Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The
triumph of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of
Lincoln brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in
seven at bats for entertainment's biggest prize. 

And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once
seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in
which Argo's Affleck was not even nominated, was also snatched away and
handed to Life of Pi's Ang Lee.

For a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his
unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned
untouchable since before many of today's young directors were born — facing
up to yet another defeat at the hands of his people starts to look like a
clear and consistent rebuff. 

Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just distant also rans. Most of his
seven nominated films were at some point in their campaigns considered
favorites to win the whole thing, making Spielberg the Academy's Charlie
Brown, forever having the football pulled away. 

This year in particular. for a brief moment between the Oscar nominations
being announced and the Golden Globes, Spielberg's Lincoln looked like a
shoo-in to win the prize. Only to see Argo stage a last minute surge and
steal its thunder again. 

So to what do we attribute this ongoing snub? Chalk it up to Hollywood's
love/hate relationship with its greats. The number one thing Hollywood hates
is failure. The sad fates of those who have fallen beneath the C list
demonstrate every day how little empathy the town has for those who can't
soar with the eagles. 

But the number two thing Hollywood hates is success. Praying for the
downfall of its mighty is practically the industry's official religion.

Spielberg these days is such a venerable figure that one can easily forget
his historically troubled history with the Academy. After receiving one for
a Best Picture nominations for his first outing — Jaws, but then being
denied for nearly a decade that followed, Oscar finally broken down and
ponied up nods for E.T. — when it became the day's highest grossing of all
time — and Color Purple. 

But both those films still lost out on the grand prizes, and to add insult,
he was shut out in Best Director category throughout the 70s and 80s as
well.

After the Color Purple loss, Academy officials were so alarmed by the serial
snubbing of Hollywood's most successful director that they took the unheard
of step of bestowing upon Spielberg at age 40 the Thalberg Lifetime
achievement award, until then reserved for septuagenarians at the end of
their careers. 

It wasn't until seven years later, when he made a three hour holocaust film
that Oscar finally couldn't deny giving him their grand prize for
Schindler's List. But since then, it has been a 20 year sea of also-rans.

Of course, he hasn't gone completely unrecognized. Eight Best Picture
nominations is something most directors will never even dream of. Add to
that, two Best Directing awards making him the most awarded director since
William Wyler in the 1950's.

But still, somehow the Best Picture prize keeps sliding from his grasp, and
for a man at the top of Hollywood, to be the town's perpetual also-ran in
its biggest contest has to be galling.

In a town with — despite the disruptive presence of the internet — a fixed
number of studios and a shrinking number of major releases, entertainment
remains a zero-sum game. Celebrating the achievement of the man with a
perman

Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.

[peter contarino]

Just watched Argo. Eh…

 

From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of Kirby
McDaniel
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 9:57 PM
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.

 

I responded to David K., but I'll go ahead a post to the entire list.  I
agree with David and Franc on this one entirely.  I'm not what anyone would
characterize as a huge 

Spielberg fan, although I recognize his enormous accomplishments in
purveying popular films.  In my book he has had several particularly
satisfying films - SCHINDLER'S LIST, E.T., and a few others.  But LINCOLN is
an extraordinary film driven by an extraordinary script adapted from an
extraordinary book with extraordinary performances.  Is that enough
"extraordinaries" fer ya?  I enjoyed ARGO; it was entertaining.  But clearly
Spielberg and company were robbed.  I think the sorry decision to have 9
best picture nominations is going to produce what I'll bet are (regrettably)
"plurality" decisions like this one.

 

I thank Steven Spielberg for bringing together this great pool of talent and
leaving us with a picture that generations will enjoy again and again.

 

Kirby McDaniel

www.movieart.net

 

 

On Mar 1, 2013, at 7:09 PM, Franc wrote:





Very interesting reading, David.  Thanks for sharing themt. Somehow after
Ben Affleck got the DGA award, I knew Steven Spielberg and Lincoln were
going to be shunned by the Oscars. It's a shame because in my opinion while
Argot was cleary a good film, Lincoln was a monumental film that is destined
to become a classic. 

 

FRANC

-Original Message-
From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of David
Kusumoto
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:55 PM
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.

A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along
with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are my favorite "still-living" directors of
all time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards.  "Argo" was fine,
but I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better.
Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in
my mouth a little.  The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from
the NY Times. - d.





“Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest Loser


Once again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood
have against its most successful resident? 

by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013

 
 

Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters

Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The
triumph of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of
Lincoln brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in
seven at bats for entertainment's biggest prize. 

And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once
seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in
which Argo's Affleck was not even nominated, was also snatched away and
handed to Life of Pi's Ang Lee.

For a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his
unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned
untouchable since before many of today's young directors were born — facing
up to yet another defeat at the hands of his people starts to look like a
clear and consistent rebuff. 

Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just distant also rans. Most of his
seven nominated films were at some point in their campaigns considered
favorites to win the whole thing, making Spielberg the Academy's Charlie
Brown, forever having the football pulled away. 

This year in particular. for a brief moment between the Oscar nominations
being announced and the Golden Globes, Spielberg's Lincoln looked like a
shoo-in to win the prize. Only to see Argo stage a last minute surge and
steal its thunder again. 

So to what do we attribute this ongoing snub? Chalk it up to Hollywood's
love/hate relationship with its greats. The number one thing Hollywood hates
is failure. The sad fates of those who have fallen beneath the C list
demonstrate every day how little empathy the town has for those who can't
soar with the eagles. 

But the number two thing Hollywood hates is success. Praying for the
downfall of its mighty is practically the industry's official religion.

Spielberg these days is such a venerable figure that one can easily forget
his historically troubled history with the Academy. After receiving one for
a Best Picture nominations for his first outing — Jaws, but then being
denied for nearly a decade that followed, Oscar finally broken down and
ponied up nods for E.T. — when it became the day's highest grossing of all
time — and Color Purple. 

But both those films still lost out on the grand pr

Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.

[David Kusumoto]

Yes, I agree, Doug.  In my first public post about "Lincoln" in late December - 
I noted the picture does have a few "self consciously noble moments," and that 
scene you mention is the most obvious.  But after that, I really got into the 
dialogue, the horse-trading, the political shrewdness of Lincoln trying 
desperately to get the 13th Amendment passed before the end of the Civil War.  
Lincoln the man (vs. the legend) - truly "came alive" in DDL's perf, and I 
forgot about DDL after awhile.  "Silver Linings Playbook"
 was easily the most "crowd pleasing" of the nominees, as gales of 
laughter could be heard from start-to-finish at the screening I 
attended.  I would not have been too disappointed if "Playbook" had won, but I 
really felt the "Ben Affleck-George Clooney" factor, combined with Affleck 
being snubbed as best director - were heavily responsible for "Argo's" win at 
the expense of all of the other nominees for Best Picture. -d.

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 22:07:09 -0500
From: douglasbtay...@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU

I thought Silver Linings was Best Picture, followed by Argo.  Lincoln would 
have been 3-5 on my ballot.

DDL and Spader were great, but I found the film uninspired and a bit 
manipulative from the opening scene of the conversation between Lincoln and the 
two soldiers.

Regards

DBT
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 20:57:29 -0600
From: ki...@movieart.net
Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU

I
 responded to David K., but I'll go ahead a post to the entire list.  I 
agree with David and Franc on this one entirely.  I'm not what anyone 
would characterize as a huge Spielberg fan, although I recognize 
his enormous accomplishments in purveying popular films.  In my book he 
has had several particularly satisfying films - SCHINDLER'S LIST, E.T., 
and a few others.  But LINCOLN is an extraordinary film driven by an 
extraordinary script adapted from an extraordinary book with 
extraordinary performances.  Is that enough "extraordinaries" fer ya?  I
 enjoyed ARGO; it was entertaining.  But clearly Spielberg and company 
were robbed.  I think the sorry decision to have 9 best picture 
nominations is going to produce what I'll bet are (regrettably) 
"plurality" decisions like this one.
I thank 
Steven Spielberg for bringing together this great pool of talent and 
leaving us with a picture that generations will enjoy again and again.
Kirby McDanielwww.movieart.net
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:10:27 -0800
From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU





Franc, I'm not only with you all the way with "Lincoln," but I have already 
"declared" that in my mind, it is a towering achievement, an historical event, 
a classic.  As I posted on FB, I saw 8 of the 9 best picture nominees - and I 
thought "Lincoln" was Spielberg's best and most accomplished film since 
"Schindler's List."  I have the "Lincoln" one-sheet hanging on the wall behind 
my computer as I write this.  I also thought Tony Kushner was robbed.  "Argo" 
is OK, but not eloquent, not ground breaking, not special in any way memorable. 
 For "Argo" to win Best Picture AND Best Screenplay over the likes of "Lincoln" 
was criminal - and reminded me of the "vote for us" syndrome of the acting 
branch, e.g., see Robert Redford, Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner and Clint Eastwood. 
 Of the aforementioned winners, in my view, only Eastwood for "Unforgiven" 
(2002) was truly deserving.  Gene Seymour of CNN said the "Argo" win was an 
example of Hollywood kissing itself, e.g., Academy members voting for a 
movie... "whose success will benefit as many people in the industry as possible 
(Go Ben!) - and/or a movie that reflects Hollywood's best image of itself."  
Well history will prove the Academy wrong, just like how it got it wrong 
picking "Crash" as the Best Picture of 2005.  "Lincoln" was not just good, it 
was great, a masterpiece of writing and acting.  The only thing that would have 
made me madder Sunday night was if Daniel Day Lewis had LOST. -d.

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 20:09:53 -0500
From: fdav...@verizon.net
Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU




Message



Very 
interesting reading, David.  Thanks for sharing them. Somehow after 
Ben Affleck got the DGA award, I knew Steven Spielberg and Lincoln were going 
to 
be shunned by the Oscars. It's a shame because in my opinion while Argo was 
clearly a good film, Lincoln was a monumental film that is destined to become a 
classic. 
 
FRANC

  
  -Original Message-
From: MoPo List 
  [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of David 
  Kusumoto
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:55 PM
To: 
  MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven 
  Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.


  
  
  

  A pai

Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.

[Tom Martin]

>Steven has been my fave along with Capra and a few others..like
Zemeckis , etc...
he ( Steven) nevere seemed to get respect like when color of Purple
which took me n a journet,, then et,,, raisers and all,,, My 1st
picture i saw was Close encounters,, againg people didnt seem to
really dig that... and ive never done well selling his material..
with exception like the et rare posters,,,he just nevere appealed.. I
offered collections of materials ,, the close encounter doll... fact
is I love the stuff so I d be happt to have it.. the jaws poster was
the best seller...Ive never seen schindleres list as just the concept
and soundtrack made me imagine it so I freaked,,
Jurrassic Park is one of my all time faves,,, I heard steven was even
scared to ride the universal Jurrassic park ride, also i heard his
moms restraunt makes a gret tuna fish sandwich and he makes a great
bowl of matzo ball soup that I always wanted to taste.. :)
im outta here good night momop..
>
>
> Original Message 
>From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com
>To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In
>Hollywood.
>Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 19:37:20 -0800
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Yes, I agree, Doug.  In my first public post about "Lincoln" in late
>December - I noted the picture does have a few "self consciously
>noble moments," and that scene you mention is the most obvious.  But
>after that, I really got into the dialogue, the horse-trading, the
>political shrewdness of Lincoln trying desperately to get the 13th
>Amendment passed before the end of the Civil War.  Lincoln the man
>(vs. the legend) - truly "came alive" in DDL's perf, and I forgot
>about DDL after awhile.  "Silver Linings Playbook"
>> was easily the most "crowd pleasing" of the nominees, as gales of 
>>laughter could be heard from start-to-finish at the screening I 
>>attended.  I would not have been too disappointed if "Playbook" had
>won, but I really felt the "Ben Affleck-George Clooney" factor,
>combined with Affleck being snubbed as best director - were heavily
>responsible for "Argo's" win at the expense of all of the other
>nominees for Best Picture. -d.
>>
>>Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 22:07:09 -0500
>>From: douglasbtay...@hotmail.com
>>Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
>>To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>>
>>I thought Silver Linings was Best Picture, followed by Argo. 
>Lincoln would have been 3-5 on my ballot.
>>
>>DDL and Spader were great, but I found the film uninspired and a bit
>manipulative from the opening scene of the conversation between
>Lincoln and the two soldiers.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>DBT
>>Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 20:57:29 -0600
>>From: ki...@movieart.net
>>Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
>>To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>>
>>I
>> responded to David K., but I'll go ahead a post to the entire list.
> I 
>>agree with David and Franc on this one entirely.  I'm not what
>anyone 
>>would characterize as a huge Spielberg fan, although I recognize 
>>his enormous accomplishments in purveying popular films.  In my book
>he 
>>has had several particularly satisfying films - SCHINDLER'S LIST,
>E.T., 
>>and a few others.  But LINCOLN is an extraordinary film driven by an
>
>>extraordinary script adapted from an extraordinary book with 
>>extraordinary performances.  Is that enough "extraordinaries" fer
>ya?  I
>> enjoyed ARGO; it was entertaining.  But clearly Spielberg and
>company 
>>were robbed.  I think the sorry decision to have 9 best picture 
>>nominations is going to produce what I'll bet are (regrettably) 
>>"plurality" decisions like this one.
>>I thank 
>>Steven Spielberg for bringing together this great pool of talent and
>
>>leaving us with a picture that generations will enjoy again and
>again.
>>Kirby McDanielwww.movieart.net
>>Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:10:27 -0800
>>From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com
>>Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
>>To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Franc, I'm not only with you all the way with "Lincoln," but I have
>already "declared" that in my mind, it is a towering achievement, an
>historical event, a classic.  As I posted on FB, I saw 8 of the 9
>best picture nominees - and I thought "Lincoln" was Spielberg's best
>and most accomplished film since "Schindler's List."  I have the
>"Lincoln" one-sheet hanging on the wall behind my computer as I write
>this.  I also thought Tony Kushner was robbed.  "Argo" is OK, but not
>eloquent, not ground breaking, not special in any way memorable.  For
>"Argo" to win Best Picture AND Best Screenplay over the likes of
>"Lincoln" was criminal - and reminded me of the "vote for us"
>syndrome of the acting branch, e.g., see Robert Redford, Mel Gibson,
>Kevin Costner and Clint Eastwood.  Of the aforementioned winners, in
>my view, only Eastwood for "Unforgiven" (2002) was truly deserving. 
>Gene Seymour of CNN said the "Argo" win was an example of Ho