I personally feel that Kevin Bacon was overlooked in this film and was far better than Ryan Gosling in Half Nelson. I don't feel he deserved to win because Forest Whitaker was phenomenal in The Last King of Scotland.Like I say these are all my opinions it would be intresting to hear yours.
share[deleted]
how kevin was not nominatied blows my mind he was this character and it was chilling to watch the osars can suck my left nut
shareWhat?!?! I'm shocked! He totally deserved a nomination, and a win... in my opinion.
Sometimes I think the Oscars shy away from these more controversial topics, I mean, not always... but it seems to me like there's "safe" more socially acceptable controvercial film that The Academy often does like and then there's the gritty more realistic stuff, like this, that they completely ignore. Wimps!
I was not really familiar with Kevin Bacon's films...i watched a few and they were not interesting for me...but this film was great and his performance was top-notch..i have to admit now that he is a good actor! And yes he should have at least been nominated for this film.
shareThe Academy won't nominate an actor whose character is a child molester. The Religious Right would have their own version of an orgy. Politics shouldn't enter into the Oscars, but it does.
Just ask Richard Gere (visibly snubbed after his Oscar deserving performance in 'Chicago' in 2004, because of his tirade concerning the Dali Lama as an Oscar presenter in 1993). He was permanently banned as an Oscar presenter in 1993. And it's not very likely that the Academy will EVER consider him for ANYTHING where he would be able to give a speech on live TV.
The Academy in this day and age, well in all days and ages come to think about it, is very concerned with what types of movies and characters they seem to be endorsing.
"The Academy won't nominate an actor whose character is a child molester."
What about Philip Seymour Hoffmans nomination for "Doubt"?
If you recall correctly, whether or not Hoffman's character was in fact a child molester was not clear at all. Hence, one of the takes on the title, 'Doubt', by the way.
I actually thought that Doubt was about a man persecuted because he was probably gay. Because in the opinion of Head Nun(Streep), it was a short and natural trip from there to pedophilia. In her mind, hers was a pre-emptive strike. Whether or not he had done anything 'yet', was ultimately besides the point for her.
And I think this idea of destroying a person's life because of a 'profile' that's been established on his personal behaviour plays very well today. Prosecuting because of what someone will 'probably' do.
Yes, when you look at the current movement to literally throw child molesters and rapists in jail for an indeterminate period of time because of the chance that they might re-offend it does play very well today. That is in my opinion the whole point of this movie, that towards the end of the movie the audience has no idea whether Walter will molest Robin. Yes, if you put a child molester behind bars for the rest of his life he will never have another chance to harm another child again, but he will also not have a chance to move forward with his life. How do we know, and do we have a right to punish someone for what we think they will do?
every day may not be good, but there is good in every day
Not only is that so for people to re-offend, but more importantly there's strong persecution for those who haven't actually even offended once.
shareYes, a good movie metaphor for that mindset was 'Minority Report'. The government could tell that you were 'going' to commit murder. So, not only do they stop you from commiting the crime, but they incarcerate you for life to boot. Because the clear 'intent' was there to commit murder.
shareI don't think realistically the law will go beyond convicting based on actual occurrence, but it is definitely an intriguing concept for sure. Can't say I've actually seen Minority Report but the premise is very interesting.
shareThe law already does. That was one of the things being alluded to in the film(Minority Report).
Think about sting operations a-la NBC's 'Catch a Predator' series with Stone Phillips. You email with someone who isn't really a minor, so you haven't approached a minor for anything. But you intended to. And you go to jail for it. It's a legal pre-emptive strike based on what you were thinking, not what you did.
And you'd think that would be a constitutional issue (4th ammendment). But I think even the Supreme Court has weighed in on this to say it's OK. But people are challenging this all over the country. Because it turns out that it's crusading volunteer groups, for the most part, initiating the email part of it, not law enforcement people. So, one of their tactics for instance is to start out claiming to be 18, and only later, once you've agreed to meet them, do they confess that they're really 14. Which a cop can't do. Like a cop as part of a prostitution sting can't pretend that they're some woman you're meeting in a bar, only later to reveal that they're a prostitute and arrest you for soliciting when you don't break off the encounter.
Another one down here in Texas is they put decoy fake deer near the road outside of hunting season. And if you shoot at it, you're ticketed for illegal hunting.
'Minority Report' took this kind of mindset to its logical extreme case.
Well there has to be some level of action demonstrated in those cases you suggested. Attempting and making moves to murder or unlawfully have sex with someone are different than a passing thought or attraction. I do agree that there are definitely some issues with it, but I do think there remains a difference between convicting someone of something they could possibly do and convicting someone of something they have made clear strides toward doing.
sharePoint taken.
And you should watch Minority Report. A central plot point is that there is absolutely no doubt that these people fully intended to commit murder. Or is there some doubt? Therein lies the story.
I don't exactly agree with all the criticism against To Catch a Predator. I have read some of the chat logs on the Perverted Justice website, and many of these are truly sickening. Just because the person they were communicating with was not an actual minor doesn't change the intent part of the equation. Buy yes, when the organization began making money off the show it brought a conflict of interest into it.
every day may not be good, but there is good in every day
JedBartlett14 -
Yes he did.
This was a brilliant film which could have so easily gone wrong. It was disturbing & thought-provoking in all the right ways.
No gratuitous stuff. No exploitation. Knockout performances by all involved.
I thought he was pretty damned good in "Murder In The First", but he got no Academy love for that, neither.
share
I understand why he did not receive a nomination though. The subject matter is too controversial even for Hollywood. The only thing most people want to hear about pedophiles is that they are evil scum and deserve to die.
every day may not be good, but there is good in every day
Forrest Whitakker wasnt nominated this year. he was nominated 2 years later. Jamie Foxx won for Ray in that year.
shareI just saw the DVD today and found it very raw and powerful, on one hand I was sickened by him and the other, I actually felt for him because he knew what he had done was so wrong and just wanted to make amends and live again, Bacon's performance was brilliant and I really enjoyed Mos, Eve and Kyra's characters as well, I am very surprised Kevin didn't get an Oscar or at least a nom for this role.
should have won
share