The Hot Blog

Turan is 100% right.

Remember, back in 1947 the Academy had two *socially significant* Best Picture nominees to choose from. One argued that being a Jew in our society might very well get you killed. The other that being a Jew in our society might very well mean losing your hotel reservation. In the midst of the Nuremberg trials and the overwhelming visual evidence of the Holocaust, the gutsy Academy decided to go for the latter.

Speaking as someone who generally likes the film, "Crash" might have been considered daring 20 years ago, but now, it labors and speechifies to its own self-importance. I like the acting (which sells the film more than it deserves) and I like the layering of the story threads, but the dialogue is overripe and makes its points with the subtlety of a falling anvil.

Like "Crossfire" (and the all-but-ignored "Longtime Companion" and "Do the Right Thing"), "Brokeback" will be the film people look back at and marvel at the Academy's timidity. They were so close, but didn't have the balls.

There have certainly been worse Best Picture winners, but I can't remember the last time there was one so disappointing. With all the precursors "Brokeback" had going in (which would've acted as a perfectly cozy safety net for their decision), the Academy had to deliberately go out of its way to demonstrate that it's nowhere as liberal and progressive as it would like to think it is. They pulled it off.

"Turan is 100% right."

Statements like this are why BBM lost.

No one wants to be bullied into liking a film. It would definitely not be ideal to walk out of a movie and feel like you've just attended sensitivity training (which was my qualm with Crash moreso than BM). But I still find it rather inexcusable that some would refuse to watch it.

Turan is a writer I love to hate. He didn't like Kill Bill for being violent (ever heard of irony?). Definitely qualifies as one of the people Armond White would rail against.

give Turan a break. he's a terrific writer/critic and, besides, LA is his turf and has been for decades. if anyone knows the city, the industry and where its thoughts lie, it's him.

So sayeth the guy from Seattle...

one more comment, if i may. most compare the CRASH win to an upset like AMERICAN IN PARIS or OLIVER. it most resembles 1967's lineup when the critical yet controversial darlings were BONNIE and CLYDE and THE GRADUATE. yet the academy chose IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT which, tho also well-reviewed, was a feel-good, race-centered drama that offered a conciliation of sorts between the bigot cop and the black detective.

Turan IS 100% right in everything he says. Crash won because it FEELS like it's pushing boundaries but, in reality, it's well within liberal Hollywood's comfort zones. BBM lost because voters either didn't want to see it or weren't comfortable with the boundaries that were actually being pushed. Also, I don't understand why you bash Turan for stating his opinion. There's nothing embarrassing about what he says, and there's no reason he should hold back just because he's "pissing in the winner's cornflakes."

I don't agree that Kenneth Turan is completely right but one should acknowledge that the Academy had an opportunity to make a statement of historical significance (like Hattie McDaniel in 1934, like Dorothy Dandridge in the 50s, et cetera) and it shied from the gate.

This should not be a surprise! It is by definition an exclusive organization. Exclusive organizations are inherently conservative and obey certain orthdoxies, spoken and unspoken.

One should also aknowledge by refusing to make the statement that a film with explicit gay themes could be named the "Best Picture of the Year" that that statement would be (and will be) interpreted by all sorts of people, rightly or wrongly, as being sourced in homophobia.

I agree with David Poland that BBM's loss can not be directly (or wholly) attributed to homophobia, but one can NOT deny, as Nikke Finke has clearly pointed out, that homophobia contributed to BBM's loss, and Crash's win.

Shame on the gay community for thinking that a film awarded with nearly 25 Best Film Awards around the world, and no other film coming close to that, would be embraced by an organization that professes to award excellence in film making.
Homophobia definitely contributed to it's loss. A number of voter's HAD to say, "Yes, I will vote for Ang Lee as best director, but I will not vote it Best Picture." Until yesterday, no film that ever won the Producer's Guild Award, Director's Guild Award, Writer's Guild Award and Golden Globe Award has ever lost the Oscar for Best Picture. Crash wasn't even nominated for a Golden Globe. You tell me there's no homophobia there?
By the way, ArchiveGuy references a 1947 film above that "argued that being a Jew in our society might very well get you killed." It was based on a book called The Brick Foxhole about being a gay man in our society that could get you killed. In 1947 you couldn't even make "that" film. Today you can make it, but it shows not much has changed
in 60 years.

DP in the HB:

"To make it about homophobia is, in my mind, tragic and terribly unfair, both to people that genuinely love Crash, to the film and filmmakers, and to those of us who have quite another set of issues with Brokeback Mountain. (I have more problems with Crash than Brokeback Mountain, though I have had more problems with BBM supporters than with Crash supporters.) This is not to say that some homophobia wasn't involved. But I don't think it was the biggest factor by a long shot."

OK, well, "tragic" is a bit of showboating on your part, but I agree fully. Some of it was homophobia, maybe, but I think the better part of it was "Wow, Crash made me have discussions about how yes, I too fear black people and my Mexican locksmith. I'm super white! Wow, that film just reflected reality and smashed it. Bravo."

Which is pure, unadulterated bullshit for many people who have seen the film and found it simplistic and even patronizing. (Aside: that, DP, is what makes it more old-fashioned than BM in my book, where "restraint of emotion" is not a trick but the main theme; Crash hops from operatic to faux-realism at the drop of a hat -- like a good old-fashioned message movie, doing anything to "make you think.")

But there is nothing the least bit surprising about this sentiment: when you're watching it, it really IS tough not to feel better about yourself, to think that you've just endured a powerful statement and come out wiser about yourself and humanity. It's the kind of film you instinctively WANT to reward, hoping it's as good as it seems. But then you ask the question of, "Hey, was making us think the little girl died there a cheat, considering the perspective we're seeing things from is on high, from someone -- God? Haggis?-- who presumably knew that the shot was a blank all along?" and the whole film falls apart, in my opinion, showing its holes everywhere. Looking at that scene critically reveals just how pedantic and button-pushing the whole thing is, and Ebert may want to consider this next time he mentions Dickens in the same breath as this kind of hand-holding storytelling.

To get to that point, though, requires more thinking than much of the Academy who hailed Chicago as BP is really capable of.

Anyway. Obviously, I preferred Brokeback, but Capote and Good Night.. were my number one and two choices. And what about Munich? How Crash was selected as a more profound, affecting, socially important cinematic statement than Munich when both explored similar themes with completely polar degrees of subtlety and complexity...well, I just don't know.

Here's a similar admission:
I've resisted your love for Munich ever since I saw it and found it wanting in the art of pulling all its loose strands together in the last act, but last night, for maybe the first time since I saw it, I found myself thinking, "You know, if they really want to award a message movie that IS about dialogue and that DOES challenge its viewers, you'd think they'd go with Munich rather than the TV movie."

Unfortunately, this is the Academy here.

This Turan piece is a reason why BBM lost.

What people don't really understand (or don't want to) is that it is not the Academy's job to make a statement.

It's there to reward what they think are the best in film. Not make social statements.

By the way, kudos on calling the lack of an editing nod as a significant "uh oh."

Did you miss the "social statements in films we liked" montage?

If they're there to reward social statements they really shouldn't be about the best in film right?

It kinda defeats the purpose of choosing the best if you are just about making a social statement.

No argument there.

Wink.

The problem was not that BM was a preachy film, but just people thought its supporters were too preachy. If any film was preachy this year, it had to be Crash, but it had less backlash because people quietly, respectfully, and un-hypedly liked that film and its message.

"What people don't really understand (or don't want to) is that it is not the Academy's job to make a statement."

This is exactly right. Everybody's so caught up in talking about the social significance of Crash and BBM that they've lost sight of the fact that this is NOT what the Best Picture award is all about! I'm not saying there's a complete segregation, and certainly the "socially significant films montage" attests to the Academy's liking for rewarding social statements in film. It's not (or shouldn't be) any more about promoting a gay agenda than it should be about homophobia.

At the end of the day, the award is about what the best PICTURE is. It's not about what's safe or unsafe. It's not about what breaks taboos. The question is merely, what's the best movie?

For many Academy members, the answer was Crash. If you disagree, fine. There are legitimate reasons for that opinion -- but I'm not hearing them. "But it's progressive!!!!" doesn't and shouldn't carry any weight with anybody whose understanding of the award is sound.

I liked Turan's personal critique of Crash (an opinion I share) but I disliked his blanket attribution of why Academy members voted a certain way. He has no idea why voters chose the films they did and his upturned-nose will do nothing to ingratiate him with those voters who preferred Crash to Brokeback.

"At the end of the day, the award is about what the best PICTURE is. It's not about what's safe or unsafe. It's not about what breaks taboos. The question is merely, what's the best movie?"

Personally, I think the only nominated film this year that doesn't operate partly as a means to push the safe-unsafe boundary line is Capote. And even that's tricky to categorize in that way: you could say it asks you to see a human in a murderer and a monster in a celebrity and a writer.

I think you can't divide the two (ie. social statement, merit of film). Look at most of the justifications people who loved Crash offered. Most of them are about how it made them look at themselves, or racism, or how they live. That's a social statement couched in the film. Remove the statement and there is no film. So how can you say it is "merely" about the best film, when the films are all so ideologically charged that you're bound to go with something that at the very least reflects your politics?

This isn't me being apologetic about BBM's loss: I don't see that as a mass homophobe statement, personally. I'm just saying that these are all political films: reward the film and to some degree, you're rewarding the solid execution of that statement, which in most cases, you must agree with before you can even say yes, it was conveyed well.

Sam says:

"For many Academy members, the answer was Crash. If you disagree, fine. There are legitimate reasons for that opinion -- but I'm not hearing them. "But it's progressive!!!!" doesn't and shouldn't carry any weight with anybody whose understanding of the award is sound."

I liked Turan's piece because it IS interesting to speculate on the reasons that the Academy membership voted for a film that only ONE other group voted for as Best Film. Even in shoo-in years like Titanic and Schindler's List, their competition from other award groups was twice what Brokeback Mountain's was. The Piano and L.A. Confidential had a good amount of Best Picture awards. The statistical evidence for Brokeback Mountain winning Best Pciture was huge! And, yet, the Academy found reasons not to go for it. What those reasons are will be written about for years.

I heard this morning that most of this years Oscar Ballots were returned to the Academy at the end of the balloting period instead of the beginning which is normal. This was said to indicate the members were unsure what they wanted to vote for. They also said that ballot returns are normally near the 100% mark. This year, only 80% of the ballots were returned. Why is that, as well?

Backlash on the supporters of BBM now???

After all the pre wins for BBM, I didn't think they'd lose this either.

Just assuming members didn't vote for a movie because of some preconceived prejudice is taking huge leap.

How does a guy who professes to know the industry say something like this? Does Turan really believe Academy members gather together over tea and decide who to vote for to play it safe? They hold meetings and discuss their choices? They find consensus nominees out of the 5? I thought everyone just voted for what they liked?

Am I wrong with this?

If I here one more person going on about Crash's message vs. Brokeback's message I think I'm going to lose it. The simple truth is that Ang Lee is twice the filmmaker Paul Haggis is, and Brokeback Mountain is an undeniably worthier film. It's the difference between great art and competent craftsmanship. Of course, this is a distinction the Academy has proven themselves time and again incapable of making.

1980: Ordinary People (Raging Bull)
1990: Dances With Wolves (GoodFellas)
1994: Forrest Gump (Pulp Fiction)

The Academy has a history of picking thr "safer" film in the best pic race. That's not always the case, but, in years without an obvious front runner, it's inevitable.

This was the closest Oscar year in a long time. It makes complete sense that voters would choose something safe and familiar (starring one of their friends, no doubt) instead of the challenging and complex.

No obvious front runner?
"Brokeback" is the first picture to lose after winning Globes, Producers, Directors Guild, etc.

If that isn't a front runner I don't know what is.

Is anyone else just relieved that it's finally over? That's the way I feel right now. I was pissed for about five minutes after Crash won (I still feel it's a weak film and easily the worst of the five nominees), but I hardly ever agree with the Best Picture winner and I think I will always be more pissed about Heat's total shut out 10 years ago than any undeserving BP winner's now and in the future. I am glad it's over and I'm looking forward to just focusing on enjoying movies again. Cache finally opens here Friday and next week we get Why We Fight and Tristram Shandy. I can't wait.

Heat being shut out is more of a blow than Crash winning any day of the week. But I got a feeling that the Brokeback fans wouldn't agree.

The question is in two months will we be seeing the release of another film that will gather Crash-like momentum for an interminable 10 months to Oscar 2007. It's tiring to even think about

"No obvious front runner?
"Brokeback" is the first picture to lose after winning Globes, Producers, Directors Guild, etc.

If that isn't a front runner I don't know what is."

When I say front runner, I'm thinking of a Titanic or Return of the King or Silence of the Lambs. A gimme that everyone knew would win and did. Brokeback's support was always tenuous...a fact bourne out by the heated debates it generated here on this very blog.

Turan and anyone else for that matter can question CRASH as a film and it's merits compared to BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN.

But anything else just smells of sour grapes.

I got a question. Mr. Turan chalks it up to Hollywood liberals trying to make a statement to the country and "be able to look themselves in the mirror and feel like they were good, productive liberals". Is he onto something? Does he have a point?

Now I don't think he is on point because I don't think these Hollywood liberals really care and they vote for what they want to, what there friends want to or liked or they have their maids and the help fill out their ballot.

Maybe I'm wrong but I have to give the voters more credit than he is.

BROKEBACK MOUNTAINS support may have been tenuous among film fans but it's front runner status certainly wasn't.

Even David Poland had it #1 in his polls.

The odds on the off shore gambling were 1/20. Which is not good if you want to win any money. That means heavy favorite.

This has to be the biggest upset of all time.

To me "Crash" was the worst of a bad lot.

I think Samuel Goldwyn said it best when he said, "If you want to send a message, call Western Union."

"What people don't really understand (or don't want to) is that it is not the Academy's job to make a statement."

BUT the thing is, the Academy LOVES making statements! Do you really think Halle and Denzel were the best that year? etc. The academy LOVES to make history. So why on earth would be all of a sudden decide that they don't want to reward the film that won the DGA, PGA, WGA, Globe, SAG, Golden Lion, 33 critix awards, had the box-office and was about one of the most important issues going on right now.

Compared to a movie won the WGA, SAG Ensemble, ACE and 11 critix awards. 11 compared to 33. Not the mention that BBM won almost unanimous Best Picture prizes while a lot of Crashs were for "breakthrough" things for Paul and Terrance.

Someone said that Crash winning would be on par with The Full Monty beating Titanic.

I'm going to be pissed off about Crash winning for another week. That's not because I liked BBM, but rather because I think Crash is a patronizing piece of shit.

Anyways, after this week, I'm going to stop thinking about the Oscars, and I hope that I don't think about it again for another 50 weeks. The Oscar season is too long, there's too much written about it, there's just not enough to care about. These awards lost any real meaning years ago, if they ever had it at all.

I'll hold off any thoughts of abandoning the Oscars and my near obsessive nature to them until I see what 2006 has to offer. Hopefully there's more than a few truly phenomenal movies (and with Lynch, 2 Coppolas, Almodovar, Eastwood and many other big directors like that in the mix, i can certainly hold hope)

we got a lot to look forward to the rest of the year. and u know ur not abandoning the oscars over one subpar year.

I'm surprised to think most of you believe in conspiracy theories. That the Academy sits in closed sessions and gets together and decides to make "statements".

This isn't a film festival where a few have sway over the rest. This particular group thought Crash was the best. I may not agree but I'm not going to assume they're not on the up and up.

"BUT the thing is, the Academy LOVES making statements! Do you really think Halle and Denzel were the best that year?"

Say what? I hope you weren't saying that the only reason that Halle & Denzel won was because of their skin color.

I also don't get this "conspiracy theory" either. The Academy has what, thousands of members? Surprise - different people are going to *gasp* have different opinions. They don't have club meetings to decide what the Best Picture should be.

You can't even get everyone on THIS site to agree on the same film, so why scream about "the Academy" as a whole.

I don't like Crash either but I'm not going to dismiss the people who voted for it as "stupid" or "wrong".

Saying Denzel Washington won because of the color of his skin is the dumbest statement on the Oscars I have ever heard.

Have you not watched him act? Have you never seen a Denzel movie?

That type of comment belittles every minority out there and belittles voters too.

Just pure stupidity.

Good article from Ebert refuting Mr. Turan's thoughts.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060306/OSCARS/603070301

ebert better be careful. he doesn't want that mob on him.

Halle Berry didn't win because she is African-American.
She won because she got naked. Come on. Everyone knows that. It showed real acting being turned on having sex with Billy Bob Thornton. That was skill and talent showing there.

Forget about if the film is any good or not. There is a piece in the Los Angeles Times today quoting the amoral glee of the Crash promotion team and how they led the Academy sheep into voting for their film. A million there, two million here. Let's send out 100,000 more dvd screeners than is normal to influence the SAG branch. Brokeback didn't get an editing nomination so let's target that branch. Crash's win is all about marketing people and marketing PEOPLE and if this practice continues, they should have their names along side the Best Picture nominee to get the award, not the Producers.
It's quite shameful, but to have shame you must have morals so they have none. It makes Brokeback Mountain's pile of Best Film awards from most everywhere else that much sweeter and purer and more honest.

I find it more interesting that 20% of the Academy did not vote this year when the total is usally near 100%. That's 1/5 of the Academy or 1100-1200 votes! What does that say?

If you're going to be in the fight, why wouldn't you go into it 110%? Don't fault Crash's team for giving it their all and campaigning hard for this.

The goal is to win isn't it?

i must have missed it where brokeback mountain didn't campaign at all and didn't try to sway any voters.

Now Ebert has to go on the offensive and defend his movie and his pick?

At least it'll make for some interesing articles in the next few weeks during this slow season. They may pick the wrong guy to tango with in Ebert. This could be fun.

Is anybody really afraid of Ebert though? I know that I stopped worshipping him long ago. That thumb goes up for damn near everything. I still think he's a good writer, but I take his opinion very lightly these days.

He's a good writer. Actually I should say great since he is a legend. But his reviews lately have been leaving something to be desired. I think when I read him now of "mailing it in". But he has written some good pieces on "Crash" and obviously really loves the film and believes in it. And he must have had some pull with voters in the ampas.

Give some credit to Ebert.

He went all in on CRASH weeks ago and won the pot.

Dave Poland's piece is as right as it gets and Roger Eberts is an informative full length follow up to it. Turan's article is an embarrassment and crying like I've never seen before from a supposed mainstream journalist.

Isn't Turan supposed to be nonbiased in this? Is he a producer of "Brokeback Mountain"?

Why is Turan supposed to be nonbiased? He's a critic. And his article was a column.

He came off as a bitter cheerleader and hack for the movie. He just threw pot shots at the winner. Pot shots that were pretty cheap and low.

If he had a legit reason why "Brokeback Mountain" lost, he should have written about it. What he did was irresponsible and shoddy journalism. It was as low as it gets. He made up things and manuevered in generalities about behavior.

That's not proper journalism. He didn't have a real reason or excuse as to why "Crash" won. He could have interviewed voting members and asked them why they voted the way they did. He could have investigated and done a few minutes work. Instead, he comes off as someone mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

I expect better from one of the leading industry papers.

If any movie deserves cheap, low pot-shots, it's Crash.

I agree that Turan was over the top and sour grapes. But as a columnist, he writes his opinion and reviews films with his opinion. He is not a reporter who needs to interview people for their opinions.

And Turan's reason for the Crash win? Homophobia. I no longer completely agree with this, but he isn't alone in his assessment.

Hollywood is homophobic? What happend to the land of progressive thinking and as George Clooney says "glad to be out of touch"?

It was an awards show. Voted on by 6,000 members. They voted the film for a leading 8 nominations. Now when push comes to shove they all don't vote for it because they're scared of rewarding gays?

Crash was not the best film of 2005 and, aside from Roger Ebert, most critics would agree. It was heavy-handed, self-righteous, and filled with histrionics. Crash had a huge cast of good actors giving good performances (and in the case of Thandie Newton, Terrence Howard, and Matt Dillon, great performances). The screenplay and direction, however, seriously marred the film from achieving anything resembling its "Best Picture" worth.

The script is filled with coincidences, melodramatic speechifying, and overt racism. Unfortunately, this type of racism does not really exist in America. The problem is far more subtle--in-your-face racism can easily be seen and dealt with. Sandra Bullock's reaction to seeing two black guys walking towards her happens quite frequently, but this is hardly intriguing or introspective.

The real crisis in America's bout with racism is both in the perceived racism and the PC racism. That is to say, many people will not say things because the perception may come across as them being racist, when in fact nothing mean-spirited is meant. This is self-realized racism combined with a current ultra-PC world environment. Or for instance, walking down the street, a lone white woman will stay her course in the face of a group of black men walking towards her for fear of being perceived as racist (if the group were white, she would cross the street for security).

These are just examples, and racism exists across all racial lines (though it does have a caucasian stigma due in large part to the history of our country's interracial turmoil).

But the problem with Crash is that it doesn't portray real people in real situations handling real emotions. It portrays cariacatures, even stereotypes, and then plays with the audience by using cheap directorial flourishes and outlandish coincidences in order to push you into feeling "oh so humane". Take for instance the scene in which the little girl protects her father from being shot (ignoring that a blank fired that close would still cause harm). The music swells, the girl jumps, the gun fires, and everything slows down. Instead of accepting the logical conclusion that the gun was filled with blanks, both feel it to be heavenly intervention. This is really the scene in which I went from enjoying Crash to enduring it.

While it is debatable whether or not Brokeback Mountain deserved the Best Picture win, I feel it is not debatable that Crash didn't deserve it. In a year of incredibly good films (even from studios, such as King Kong and Batman Begins), why did the Academy feel the need to award a lackluster film? Since the Academy consists of primarily actors, it would make sense that a large ensemble film with numerous actors being underpaid would take some notice. This becomes even more apparent when viewing the disconnect between the Oscars and almost every other awards' show (Independent Spirit Awards, BAFTA, numerous critics' circle awards, Golden Globes, etc.). Did the Academy simply tire of Brokeback Mountain's stampede or is it simply a matter of actors voting for an actor's dream film?

I should mention, I did feel Brokeback Mountain was the best film I saw in 2005, although since I only saw a handful, that isn't really saying a lot. I don't join in on the anti-Crash bandwagon in lambasting the film, but I do question and have always questioned its artistic integrity. I feel it is a very good film, although compared to other ensemble cast productions, it is sub-par (I Heart Huckabees, Magnolia, Boogie Nights, Short Cuts were all superior and all didn't win Best Picture).

Remember though... Fargo lost to The English Patient and Pulp Fiction lost to Forrest Gump.

Hell, Kenneth Turan, Screw Brokeback Mountain. I still pissed off because "King Kong" wasn't nominated for Best Picture. But I am glad "CRASH" won. This picture makes a statement like none other that i have ever seen. I mean, those words, those sentences spoken in this movie are spoken daily by people I know, I work with, and play with. You hear them at restaurants, in the public restrooms and in the local gym. Talk about being culturally conscience. This is the film I will say will be talked about more so in years to come. We will remember "Brokeback Mountain" only as a GAY Cowboy movie. Two guys getting it on. We will remember "CRASH" as being a film depicting real people doing real things and saying real words as we do in our daily lives as we live life, together.

Yeah jes santos, that's exactly it. "Brokeback Mountain" is just a gay cowboy movie. That's a bit like saying "Crash" is just a movie about racists. Incidentally, I don't know where you live, but I never hear the kind of stuff spouted off in "Crash". I do think "King Kong" should have been nominated for Best Picture (actually taking the place of "Crash" would have been my preference). But then again, "King Kong" was just that one movie about a giant ape.

Well, you do live in Fargo, UT, which is probably like 200% Caucasian.

King Kong is more realistic than Crash.

A lot of great films don't win the Oscar. A lot of average films do. An Oscar win isn't the be all and end all of the film industry.

And I was all for "King Kong" myself. Shame it wasn't nominated since it was also the best directed film of the year.

To Panda Bear and Bicycle Bob who wrote things about the Oscar campaigning. My point was NOT that the Crash promoters put money into their Oscar campaigns and that the others didn't--hell, one day on the newsstand I saw Variety enclosed in plastic with a huge Munich book enclosed with it, but the Crash team went way overboard. I have a neighbor that I am friends with who's an Academy member. The amount of things that he was bombarded with concerning Crash was unbelievable.
The Crash promoters sent out 130,000 screeners at a cost, it is said, of $2million! They spent $5million in promoting a movie that had trouble getting the six million dollars it cost to make! My neighbor was even called on the phone asking to vote for it! The levels to which these people went to in getting the award cheapens the entire process. THAT is my point. Normally, the money is spent on promoting people to SEE the film, not to VOTE for it.

Why are people so animated about this choice for Best Picture? Because everything, and I mean EVERYTHING to the contrary was going for Brokeback Mountain. It wasn't as though Brokeback was considered an equal choice for the win or a second choice or an either/or choice it was considered THE choice. There were two special screenings in Los Angeles of Crash and Brokeback Mountain. One was at the Arclight special events, and the other for Brokeback was at the Cinematheque's Aero theatre. People from the films spoke afterwards. The Brokeback Mountain event was sold out immediately. You could've heard a pin drop in the Crash screening for all the empty seats. Now, I don't doubt that there are true supporters of Crash, but if there really were that many and they all loved this film so much, the movie would not have been almost off the radar at the end of the year before awards season. Would they have put it out on video so quickly if they had thought so? And, would the promoter's have felt the need to push it down the throats of voting memebrs bby doing things no one has done before? I live in L.A., and while there are people who like the film, I see no real passion behind it. Especially passion that gets you awards.

By the way, if Crash is so L.A., as many write about all the time, with it's portrayal of upper and lower classes and of all races, religions and ethnicities, I noticed that there were no gay people in the film. I guess there are no gays in Los Angeles. And the end of the film with snow coming down reminded me of the truly awful ending in Volcano when the ash rained down on people making them all look alike and someone says -- "We're all the same". Cringe-inducing.

As for some people's charges that homophobia played a part in the voting, all you have to do is look at the number of our "current" OUT movie stars -- we'll find out the gay ones in twenty years when they write their books. It reminds me of polls that always say that a majority of voters think gays should have equal rights, but when they go into the voting booth the results come out with a different story.

Also, interesting to note--the Academy of Motion Picture Arts in Sciences in Los Angeles has many film screenings and film series the general public can attend. For it's 75th Anniversary they screened, once a week, all 75 Best Picture Winners! I attended about 40 of them. THe past three years they have had a Great to Be Nominated Series where they show the film that had the most Oscar nominations without winning Best Pciture. I noticed that the screening of the Best Picture winners have been far less well-attended than the films that didn't win it. So, this year, I guess the Academy has been true to itself.

I think the truer test, for anyone who wanted to consider these odd ideas, would be if they would have voted for Crash if there was a gay love story in it. Or if Leonardo DiCaprio had played the Naomi Watts part in King Kong, what would you think of that idea? Would Philip Seymour Hoffman had won if Capote was straight? If the images of gay men were reversed, say Heath's character was like Capote and Hoffman's was like Ennis, who would have won? What if munich was about a team of homosexuals avenging the murders of their brethern. Would that movie even have been nominated for Best Picture. Hell, the story of Harvey Milk being assinated can't even get made. Who wants to feel sorry for a gay man being shot, after all. Things to think about however you choose. Notice I said THINK about, not COMMENT about!

To Panda Bear and Bicycle Bob who wrote things about the Oscar campaigning. My point was NOT that the Crash promoters put money into their Oscar campaigns and that the others didn't--hell, one day on the newsstand I saw Variety enclosed in plastic with a huge Munich book enclosed with it, but the Crash team went way overboard. I have a neighbor that I am friends with who's an Academy member. The amount of things that he was bombarded with conceriing Crash was unbelievable. The Crash promoters sent out 130,000 screeners at a cost, it is said, of $2million! They spent $5million in promoting a movie that had trouble getting the six million dollars it cost to make! My neighbor was even called on the phone asking to vote for it! The levels to which these people went to in getting the award cheapens the entire process. THAT is my point. Normally, the money is spent on promoting people to SEE the film, not to VOTE for it.

Why are people do animated about this choice for Best Picture? Because everything, and I mean EVERYTHING to the contrary was going for Brokeback Mountain. It wasn't as though Brokeback was considered a an equal choice for the win or a second choice or an either/or choice it was consdiered THE choice. There were two special screenings in Los Angeles of Crash and Brokeback Mountain. One was at the Arclight special events, and the other for Brokeback was at the Cinematheque's Aero theatre. People from the films spoke afterwards. The Brokeback Mountain event was sold out immediately. You could've heard a pin drop in the Crash screening for all the empty seats. Now, I don't doubt that there are true supporters of Crash, but if there really were that many and they all loved this film so much, the movie would not have been almost off the radar at the end of the year before awards season. Would they have put it out on video so quickly if they had thought so? And, would the promoter's have felt the need to push it down the throats of voting memebrs bby doing things no one has done before? I live in L.A., and while there are people who like the film, I see no real passion behind it. Especially passion that gets you awards.

By the way, if Crash is so L.A., as many write about all the time, with it's portrayal of upper and lower classes and of all races, religions and ethnicities, I noticed that there were no gay people in the film. I guess there are no gays in Los Angeles. And the end of the film with snow coming down reminded me of the truly awful ending in Volcano when the ash rained down on people making them all look alike and someone says -- "We're all the same". Cringe-inducing.

As for some people's charges that homophobia played a part in the voting, all you have to do is look at the number of our "current" OUT movie stars -- we'll find out the gay ones in twenty years when they write their books. It reminds me of polls that always say that a majority of voters think gays should have equal rights, but when they go into the voting booth the results come out with a different story.

Also, interesting to note--the Academy of Motion Picture Arts in Sciences in Los Angeles has many film screenings and film series the general public can attend. For it's 75th Anniversary they screened, once a week, all 75 Best Picture Winners! I attended about 40 of them. THe past three years they have had a Great to Be Nominated Series where they show the film that had the most Oscar nominations without winning Best Pciture. I noticed that the screening of the Best Picture winners have been far less well-attended than the films that didn't win it. So, this year, I guess the Academy has been true to itself.

I think the truer test, for anyone who wanted to consider these odd ideas, would be if they would have voted for Crash if there was a gay love story in it. Or if Leonardo DiCaprio had played the Naomi Watts part in King Kong, what would you think of that idea? Would Philip Seymour Hoffman had won if Capote was straight? If the images of gay men were reversed, say Heath's character was like Capote and Hoffman's was like Ennis, who would have won? What if munich was about a team of homosexuals avenging the murders of their brethern. Would that movie even have been nominated for Best Picture. Hell, the story of Harvey Milk being assinated can't even get made. Who wants to feel sorry for a gay man being shot, after all. Things to think about however you choose. Notice I said THINK about, not COMMENT about!

is there a bylaw where it states u cant spend x amount of dollars getting ur movie out there and in the hands of voters?

because i don think there is. every film can do it. and just because u do it doesn't mean ur gonna win. but it makes business sense to maximize every vote and every dollar. now did brokeback campaign or was it 110% against it?

crash ran a good campaign. they had to since they had no buzz and there movie was done since the summer.

In an ideal world, shouldn't the movie stand on its own, without needing a aupport team of marketers to prop it up and sell it?
(And in the real world that's how it works anyway, because when you just pay attention to what's on screen, Crash is still junk).

Don't be so naive.

In a perfect world the movies would stand by themselves and they'd vote and politics and friendships and business dealings and who's your neighbor would play no parts in voting for the Academy Awards.

Unfortunately, these aren't those times and if you want to win you have to compete. Lions Gate outdid Universal. I don't like it either.

Thanks for repeating my second sentence, Panda.

Do you always have to be a jerk? Sorry for having kind of the same thought as you.

Why assume I'm not being genuine? Just because you call me names?

Sorry, I didn't get your tone, jeff. I thought you were being condescending. My bad.

I heard they might try to enact some kind of financial limits on Oscar campaigns ala McCain-Feingold Bill.

I just think that would hurt the indie films and be a death blow for the small films.

joe,
There is always going to be an advantage for the big, blockbuster type films. No matter what you do. Whether it is limit screeners, no screeners, or unlimited campaign money. You just have to go in with the premise that the AMPAS is above being swayed and will vote for the best film.

Obviously, easier said than done.

The award season is like a whole other industry. It is worth way too much money for too many people to scale it back. It's not like they're electing representatives or the pope here. It's voting for a movie here.

If I was the one getting free screeners, I wouldn't be bitching about extra campaigning. I'd be asking every movie to get in the campaign and send me their goody baskets.

David Carr, a.k.a, the New York Times Carpetbagger wrote in March of this year that:

"he [Carr] does see why some members of the Academy would be squeamish about the film. The Bagger, now that the season is over, can say he loved “Brokeback.” It was a real story told through the years in a way that he will remember. But breeder that he is – suburban house, Ford Explorer, three kids, lovely wife – he does see why some members of the Academy would be squeamish about the film. The Bagger, now that the season is over, can say he loved “Brokeback.” It was a real story told through the years in a way that he will remember. But breeder that he is – suburban house, Ford Explorer, three kids, lovely wife – he squirmed in his seat during the tent scene."

Again, in case you missed it,"HE SQUIRMED IN HIS SEAT DURING THE TENT SCENE."

If David Carr had this much trouble with the one oft-heard of sex scene in BBM, one can only imagine what some Academy members might have thought about the same.

Ernest Borgnine's remark to the effect that John Wayne must be turning in his grave after the release of BBM can be taken to indicate how much angry, disgusted, indignant, etc. members of the Academy must have felt without having even having seen the film.

I was at a critics' years-round-up of the Best Film (including Sheila Benson, former L.A. Times film critic) here in Seattle at this point last year. During the question-and-answer period following, one middle-aged man, very respectably dressed and seated next to his wife and a few friends, got up and delivered a loud, bellicose tirade about BBM, basically echoing what Borgnine had publicly stated: that it was a hideous kick-in-the-face to the legendary Hollywood western, and, why did they have to "do it," etc.

I think Turan was simply stating what was being said in private by many but that few, aside from Borgnine and Tony Curtis (God bless their souls for having the honesty and balls to say it) would have acknowledged. He knows the "crowd."

All very interesting for a show in which the Academy and Hollywood went to a self-congratulatory orgy for having had the prescience to honor Hattie McDaniels in 1939, the first African-American actor to win an Oscar...and on through "In the Heat of the Night," "Driving Miss Daisy," etc.

They did honor "In the Heat of the Night," in 1968, just as the civil rights movement was heading full-steam into the national headlines. That was almost 40 years ago...

Too bad they half a year after George W. Bush was re-elected largely on the basis of appeals on behalf of "traditional marriage" (read: fear of homosexuals and lesbians).

But "it won't go away," as former Governor James McGreevey and his wife Dina, Mike Haggard and...Mary Cheney...keep us aware that no matter how we try to push things away...

The same Hollywood that forced Rock Hudson, Tab Hunter, and so many others into the closet (and made millions of dollars) over the course of their lives could not bring itself to look at itself in the mirror and come to terms with its myth-making.

Stuck in its myth-making factory (now updated to enshrine African-Americans), the Academy seems to be forever looking back instead of moving forward.

Hiring Ellen Degeneres for this year's ceremonies is a pretty half-hearted measure.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)