Hollywood’s Useful Idiots

Well, I didn’t watch most of The Oscars last night, but I caught a bit of it. Clint Eastwood is as good as you get in Hollywood, and from what I know of him, he’s a real human being. Glad he took a couple of the top prizes. My wife & I just happened to see Million Dollar Baby the night before, and I’d recommend it. Glad to see Jamie Foxx get top actor for his unbelievable performance in Ray, my personal favorite film of the year.

But, of course, Hollywood is never in short supply of Useful Idiots. At Oscar time, it’s as veiled as they can make it. Hell, they even managed to keep that fat, obnoxious liar Michael Moore out of it entirely this year. So, I guess they had to make up for it elsewhere, and the natural place is to be found in the short films, documentaries, foreign language films, or obscure artsy fartsy films.

Did anyone notice what won best original song written for a motion picture? It’s called Al Otro Lado Del Rio and it’s from The Motorcycle Diaries. It was performed by Antonio Banderas singing and Carlos Santana on guitar. I thought it sucked, musically, in spite of Cosmic Carlos’ legendary talent. The performance was introduced by Salma Hayek, and rather than say that The Motorcycle Diaries is a film about two commies, one of whom was Che Guevara, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Cubans and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of other innocent people in Latin America, she said it was a film about "two idealists."

Damn, and I really liked watching Salma, too. Very pleasing to look at, and now all I’m going to see is another run of the mill Hollywood Useful Idiot.

Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. The cost of two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance the travel to write, photo, and film from interesting places and share the experiences with you.


  1. bopperholly on February 28, 2005 at 11:46

    First off the award is not based on the live performance that was at the oscars but based on the actual song itself, and Antonio Banderas didnt really sing the song for the movie, Im sure they were just trying to spice it up with some well known actor/musicians compared to somebody we have never heard off. Yes, Antonio Banderas didnt do a good job but I was just listening to Carlos play, and I thought he made up fpr the lack on Banderas part. And I just wanted to also say how thankful I didnt have to see Michael Moore this year, the dude pisses me off.

  2. Jack Jones on February 28, 2005 at 14:58

    I didn't watch the Oscars and I neither did anyone I know. I'm hearing conflicting reports regarding the number of viewers. One report stated that viewers had declined since last year, another said there had been an increase. Anybody know for sure?

  3. Maddie Dog on February 28, 2005 at 10:17

    Good post. I also thought Al Otro Lado Del Rio sucked big time. So why did it win? Would it have won if the Mexican population in Whoreywood was shrinking instead of growing? Hmmmmm

  4. K on February 28, 2005 at 12:54

    Finally! Someone else that thought the Banderas/Santana song sucked. I love both of them (especially Antonio!) but it was a horrible mismatch and mismash. Oh well – can't always be perfect!

  5. Cooper on February 28, 2005 at 16:26

    I heard more viewers then usual, a record number compared to the last few years, most of whom tuned in to see if Chris Rock was going to cross the line.

    The song sucked big time at least as presented last night.

    I happened by via blog clicker or something similar.

  6. Brian B on February 28, 2005 at 17:49

    What mean this, "Oscar", of which you speak? My people's legends tell of a golden idol named Oscar to whom many bowed down, but that religion is dead in our lands.

    Seriously, the AA's lost all relevancy a while back. Hell, I decided to give them one chance, and that was they year they screwed "Saving Private Ryan" in favor of that insipid bit of pseudo-Elizabethan pablum starring the boobless Gwynneth Paltrow. That's when I decided Oscar can shove himself up Billy Crystal's ass for all I care.

  7. Bart on February 28, 2005 at 13:54

    THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES was about Che Guevara as his friend Alberto Granado as young men. At the time, there's no arguing that they were idealists. The two travel South America on motorcycle and witness firsthand the poor conditions in which too many people lived. Because of what they see, the two men choose to spend their lives doing what they think is best to help these people. There are things in Che's adult life that aren't exactly to be celebrated, but as a young man he was no doubt an idealist.

  8. Richard Nikoley on February 28, 2005 at 14:17

    "At the time, there's no arguing that they were idealists."

    _Idealism_, in the context of the human condition, refers to the state of being in which man exists and thrives entirely according to his nature, his identity. This implies all sorts of things, like natural rights, including freedom, self-determination, and self-made prosperity. It does not include a single thing in the world the commies ever had in mind. Not one single thing.

    Thus, you're completely full of shit on this point. Irredeemably so.

    "Because of what they see, the two men choose to spend their lives doing what they think is best to help these people."

    They chose to spend their lives as parasites. They wanted to make the world in their image, and it didn't matter how many they had to kill to make it so.

    They were animals walking upright on two legs, through and through. So is _anyone_ in _any_ context who supports or defends them to _any_ degree. That includes you.

  9. billy-jay on February 28, 2005 at 22:39

    Richard, this is just a semantic issue, but I wouldn't object to the characterization of Che as depicted in TMD as an idealist. Of course, choosing to call him an idealist insteading of a murdering son of a bitch is a bit specious, I think.

  10. Underdog2win on March 1, 2005 at 07:25

    I guess the useful hollywood idiots knew if they backed fat Moore they'd start loosing more money.

  11. Ian on March 1, 2005 at 05:03

    I'd check some of your history. You're jumping to conclusions.

    Were innocent people, and are innocent people hurt in revolutions? Yes. This holds true for all revolutions, which is why it's not the best of ideals. However, I'd encourage you to look more into Che, as Che, ; and to look on Ernesto as Ernesto, who became Che (as in read his words not watch some damn movie, which is subjectively different from the actual diaries…which any copy you find will have a similar problem as the movie, but…). Che wasn't innocent, but he's not a devil.

  12. Todd on March 1, 2005 at 07:05

    A very strong opinion for a song. And just so ya know, the term "commie" is dated. Which song would you have picked instead?

  13. Mike on March 1, 2005 at 16:30

    Just so you know, she was reading a teleprompter. It's not like any of them come up with what they're saying (except possibly Chris Rock, and how boring was that crap?) at awards shows.

  14. Richard Nikoley on March 1, 2005 at 12:41


    Actuaally, I've not seen the film, and I have no intention of doing so. I know the history. That's why I know Che's a devil, just like all the rest of them.

    Innocent people are hurt in all revolutions. What's key is whether the prime-movers in revolution are embarking on a path of freedom for all who will have it, or on a path to authoritarian slavery, as all communist revolutions have been. You might argue that the first communist revolution was undertaken by idealists who were duped, or who later became corrupted, but Che came on the scene much later. He knew exactly the massive slauger he sought.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.