The Golden Raspberry Award Foundation has been giving out Razzies for 25 years now. If you're not already familiar with the Razzies, it's basically the anti-Oscar, handing out awards for the worst-of-the-worst in film. In the first 24 years, they have "honored" such great films as Battlefield Earth, Leonard: Part 6, The Postman, Freddy Got Fingered, and most recently, Gigli. They tend to favor musicians-turned-actress like Madonna, Britney Spears, Mariah Carey, and the Spice Girls. This year, Catwoman seems to be the favorite nominee.
Year after year, I take the time to look at their website and search for the nominee list. You'd think that there would be an easily visible "View the nominee list here" link somewhere, but instead you have to spot it in a list of the eight hottest topics. No big deal, since the results are always worth the effort.
Unfortunately, the Foundation showed their true colors this year when they released their nominees for 2004. In stereotypical Hollywood fashion, someone decided to mix politics with the entertainment industry. Allow me to quote directly from their nominee press release (original emphasis used):
. . . one of several political figures garnering RAZZIE nods this year, President George W. Bush as himself in FAHRENHEIT 9/11, for which performance he is also nominating as Worst Screen Couple paired with either Condoleeza Rice and/or His Pet Goat. For their appearances in FAHRENHEIT, both Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld got Supporting nominations. And California's current governor Ah-Nuld Schwarzenegger is also nominated as Worst Supporting Actor for his cameo as "Prince Hapi" in Worst Remake contender AROUND THE WORLD IN EIGHTY DAYS. "The Uber-Nator" is also one of the contenders for a Special Commemorative RAZZIE as one of five Worst RAZZIE "Losers" of The First 25 Years — eligibility for which was determined by having amassed the most nominations over the years without ever actually "winning" a statuette.
The Razzies in general are quite fun, but this is clearly a political statement from the nominators. John Wilson, the Razzies' founder, is quoted as having said that "It wasn't Mr. Moore's editing, it's the raw footage of these people just making fools of themselves." Even if you buy into the propaganda behind Fahrenheit 9/11, we have a direct admission that the awards were given for them "just making fools of themselves." If this is how you interpret this footage, then clearly this is not acting. How can you receive a "Worst Actor" award without even acting in a movie? Fahrenheit 9/11 shows archive footage, not acting. If these nominations can be made, what about all of the horrible characters interviewed in other documentaries? Why have they been left out for so long? I don't know anything about Wilson or the others responsible for the nominations, but all of these thoughts lead me to believe that these nominations are merely an attempt for a leftist retaliation for the loss in the 2000 and 2004 elections.
Additionally, I have a gripe with the other Fahrenheit 9/11 nomination, as it shows a true lack of originality. The nomination is Britney Spears. This nomination is also not for acting, but for an interview. She was in the movie for only a few seconds. I'm not sure why they decided to nominate Spears, but it boils down to this: Either she was nominated because she dared to utter a pro-Bush sentiment, or because the Razzie people needed to fit Spears in somehow and did an IMDB search to find out where she had appeared, or both.
I hate to say it, but the Razzies have lost credibility with me now. I'm afraid they've fallen below even the MTV Movie Awards in my book.
This year's Razzie goes out to the Razzies.