Wasn't he the guy in "Officer and a Gentleman"

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sun Mar 23, 2003 4:06 am

From "Academy Awards can mean more in times of war", by Roger Ebert: [T]he Oscars are not intended as a political forum. It only sometimes seems that way, because in a fragmented world it is one of the few non-sports events that you can be sure most of the country is watching.
It is a melancholy fact that more attention will be paid to the opinions expressed Sunday night than to the combined weight of all of the debates in Congress. ***Let's just say that's debatable.***To this day, more Americans have heard about the Dalai Lama from Richard Gere than from any other source.***I'll go out on a limb and say Roger doesn't know what he's talking about. I respect and admire Ebert as one of the hardest-working people in the business but I subscribe to the belief that he ought to review movies.***

tim · **Posted:** Sun Mar 23, 2003 2:26 pm

A column on whether the Oscars should be presented during a time of war is an acceptable subject for a movie critic.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sun Mar 23, 2003 6:05 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Tim Hathcock:
A column on whether the Oscars should be presented during a time of war is an acceptable subject for a movie critic.<hr></blockquote>Stating as fact that more people know about the Dalai Lama from Richard Gere than from any other source disqualifies Roger.

tim · **Posted:** Sun Mar 23, 2003 7:38 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
Stating as fact that more people know about the Dalai Lama from Richard Gere than from any other source disqualifies Roger.<hr></blockquote>Sadly, Gere's competition in this regard seems to be Bill Murray's character from "Caddy Shack," so Ebert's statement may indeed be true. Of course, he provided no proof, didn't couch it as opinion, and didn't he make it clear if he was exaggerating. But one mistake in a distinguished career hardly disqualifies Ebert.If I didn't know better, I'd say you were being deliberately provocative.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:34 pm

Blanp is right here. About the only time Roger makes a misstep is during an Op-Ed foray in which he overreaches to make a point.

tim · **Posted:** Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:48 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by jjmoney62:
Blanp is right here. About the only time Roger makes a misstep is during an Op-Ed foray in which he overreaches to make a point.<hr></blockquote>I don't argue that his Gere line was correct, but that he's a movie critic writing about a movie awards show and qualified to do so. It was not an Op-Ed foray.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Mon Mar 24, 2003 11:27 am

We're splitting hairs here, i think. OK, so it's a feature analysis heavily loaded with opinion. The point is, it's not a movie review, celebrity profile or film comment/essay, and thus Roger makes himself vulnerable. And that's been clear to his regular readers.Original point well-taken.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Mon Mar 24, 2003 3:19 pm

I suppose everyone by now has seen Michael Moore's denunciation of Bush and the war at the Oscars. The next morning CNN referred to him in a promo as a "troublemaker." How's that for journalistic objectivity?

KfitzR · **Posted:** Mon Mar 24, 2003 4:28 pm

Troublemaker? One might call that high praise.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Mon Mar 24, 2003 5:50 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
I suppose everyone by now has seen Michael Moore's denunciation of Bush and the war at the Oscars. The next morning CNN referred to him in a promo as a "troublemaker." How's that for journalistic objectivity?<hr></blockquote>***I hate to sound like a broken record, but that's CNN. It is an entertainment medium.***

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Mon Mar 24, 2003 7:36 pm

Knowing Mike, I'm sure he took it as a compliment, or perhaps even an objective description of his job. I also noticed that he warned reporters backstage not to report that the boos were louder than the applause, and all seemed to ignore that request. Not that I encourage reporters to pay attention to such advice, but in this case it certainly seemed to me that there were a handful of loud booers amid a generally receptive audience.

aneye4detail · **Posted:** Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:17 pm

OK, I'm being slow again. In what movie did Richard Gere mention the Dalai Lama?

tim · **Posted:** Fri Mar 28, 2003 2:37 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by aneye4detail:
OK, I'm being slow again. In what movie did Richard Gere mention the Dalai Lama?<hr></blockquote>He wastes all three wishes on happiness.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Sat Mar 29, 2003 9:45 pm

this is an excerpt from the above link in which Gere discusses one school of Tibetan Buddhism:You see a gradual opening of the heart and loosening of the bonds of egocentricity and a movement towards altruism. Not that you can make that kind of a giant leap. But as you start to move in that direction, your energy starts to move out. You feel a totally different environment inside and outside. The world changes as your mind changes. Now the other aspect of mindâ€”the wisdom aspectâ€”has its own voyage to take. You start to realize that perhaps the absolute reality, the concrete reality that our senses tell us is out there in the air, maybe isn't so concrete after all. It is in a state of constant fluidity. So again these things you take step by step, little by little. The taste of it starts to intoxicate your being, your mind, your action, your thoughts, your feelings.

Testy Copy Editors

Wasn't he the guy in "Officer and a Gentleman"

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links