NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/07/MNGM8HJTPO1.DTL&hw=brokeback&sn=001&sc=1000

This is just pathetic... Can't people just accept that 'Crash' was a better movie? To be fair, I've never seen 'Brokeback Mountain,' but on the whole, I've heard many more positive reviews for 'Crash.'

I agree. Crash was so much better than Brokeback.

It's called Brokeback Mountain was a mediocre movie.

Screw importance, you award the better movie more than the blah-but-important one.

I honestly thought 'Brokeback' should have won. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy, but it was definitely an excellent film.

Brokeback should have won. Gay cowboys FTW!

I honestly thought 'Brokeback' should have won. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy, but it was definitely an excellent film.

On what merit should've they won on? Beside the fact that it's a gay cowboy film.

Why does everyone love watching Hollywood giving awards to itself?

Why does everyone love watching Hollywood giving awards to itself?

Hmmm, I actually wonder the same thing. I never watch the Oscars, and don't ever plan to start.

I saw all but Munich in the Best Film category.

I take issue with Peter Coyotes' assesment, from the article-
What hurt "Brokeback" director Ang Lee's Best Picture chances, Coyote said, was the film's marketing.

"They bent over backward to say this is not a gay love story,'' Coyote said. "In fact, it was a gay love story, and it was a story about the cost of being in the closet, and that's a really political and powerful issue. In trying to market to a wide audience, they deprived the film of its radical edge. So a lot of people who might have gone to see it didn't go because they just thought it was a romance movie -- and a lot of those people would not have gone to a heterosexual romance movie.''
Having finally seen the movie, I have to say that they where right. Yes, it was a love story between two gay cowboys, but it wasn't a gay love story. I don't have the patience to go look up my post on the subject, but when the film was about to come out The Nazz started a thread that asked if we where going to go see this movie. I had said that I watch enough independent cinema and theater that I no longer need to see every gay themed thing put out there. I know it's hard for homosexuals to tell their parents, I get it, I don't need to see that story again. Not being gay myself, I now can just wait for them to tell a different story.

Well, in a lot of ways, this was a different story. Yes, it dealt with the social implications of being gay in a society that does not tolerate being gay, but that is a backdrop told in subtlety. In essence, it acknowledges that we've seen all that, we get it. No need to retread ground already well worn by More Than Heaven Allows and their ilk.

This was, in fact, a classic romance in a way that you can't write romance anymore. It was a truly forbidden love and the consequences of that forbidden love. There would be no way to tell a romance story of this kind with heterosexual characters. It wasn't gay politically, it was gay narratively. And as such, it was a great movie told in a lost art-subtlety. These where cowboys, who weren't going to talk about their 'feelings' no matter how gay the where. To tell the romance with characters like that takes art, and the screenwriter and director did just that. It was an amazing film.

That being said, Crash was also a well told story, and extraordinarily complex (though it's got nothing on Syriana in that category, a movie I felt I should be taking notes during). While not as subtle as Brokeback Mountain, by comparison Crash is a sledgehammer, it earns all of it's moments that could have easily become too Maudlin to actually watch without becoming embarrassing. It did what a good issue movie does, it didn't give answers but asked some very complex questions. The intricacy of the screenplay and the depth of the performances that spanned all of the characters made it an amazing achievement in film. It earned it's Oscar.

Could it have benefited from all of the insiders and their friends being part of it and the voting body? Of course, but it's still a good movie and very deserving.

The reality is that it wasn't Hollywood that was 'guaranteeing' the Oscar to Brokeback Mountain, it was conspiracy theorists outside of Hollywood who never saw either movie who just assumed that because the film was gay Hollywood would vote for it. The theory that Brokeback Mountain was a sure fire win because it's gay was as unfounded as the one that it didn't win because it was gay.

It is amusing that the excuse is given to both results.

Why does everyone love watching Hollywood giving awards to itself?
A fine question. Were it only the Oscars, I could see getting a little excited about it. But when you've got them, Cannes, the Golden Globes, People's Choice, Screen Actors' Guild, MTV Movie Awards, and so on and so forth, and they're ALL televised, it's a wonder any movies are actually made.

As for Crash versus Brokeback Mountain, I think a provocative and gripping tale of race relations (or a similar endemic and largely glossed-over problem) will beat a love story every time. Brokeback just didn't have the same gravitas. It should probably have something more to do with the actual merits of the film as a film, but it hasn't been that way for a long time in Hollywood.

I saw all but Munich in the Best Film category.

I take issue with Peter Coyotes' assesment, from the article-

Having finally seen the movie, I have to say that they where right.
*snip*

May I just take this moment to tell you that this post of yours is about the most brilliant analysis of a single topic I've read since joining NS?

Extremely well said.

"They bent over backward to say this is not a gay love story,'' Coyote said. "In fact, it was a gay love story, and it was a story about the cost of being in the closet, and that's a really political and powerful issue. In trying to market to a wide audience, they deprived the film of its radical edge. So a lot of people who might have gone to see it didn't go because they just thought it was a romance movie -- and a lot of those people would not have gone to a heterosexual romance movie.''
That’s pretty much me right there. I can’t possibly even conceive of a love story being better than any other type of movie in the sheer quality category save maybe college humor movies and horror flicks.

Plus, I hate cowboy movies.

That’s pretty much me right there. I can’t possibly even conceive of a love story being better than any other type of movie in the sheer quality category save maybe college humor movies and horror flicks.

Plus, I hate cowboy movies.
EXACTLY!

Everyone I know is clamoring for me to see this film despite the facts that A) I've NEVER been a fan of love stories and B) that goes double for Westerns. I've seen Silverado and Unforgiven and that's all. Sure, I've seen snippets of the so-called "classics" of the genre, but really I could care less. So Brokeback stood no chance with me, not because it was a gay-themed film but because it combined two genres I don't even remotely enjoy. I've not seen plenty of Oscar winners and nominees simply because I don't care how good a movie like Howard's End is, I will never been in that kind of mood.

Why does everyone love watching Hollywood giving awards to itself?

It's better than if the public chose. If the American public chose who won the Oscars, stupid shit like Date Movie and Deuce Bigalo would win every year.

It's better than if the public chose. If the American public chose who won the Oscars, stupid shit like Date Movie and Deuce Bigalo would win every year.
Date Movie scared me. Not because it was bad, but because I couldn't stop laughing. I knew it was bad, so bad that it hurt to laugh, yet I couldn't stop myself. There's just something about that movie that's really fucking hilarious.


I think part of it was because it's sorta as if the guys from MST3K took the movies in question and made fun of them, then incorporated their 'improvements' into one giant move. At least, that's what I tell myself to keep from going nuts.:headbang:

It's better than if the public chose. If the American public chose who won the Oscars, stupid shit like Date Movie and Deuce Bigalo would win every year.
When the public chose, it was Star Wars:Revenge of the Sith (http://www.pcavote.com/nominees_fi.shtml). Or you could argue that the public chooses on top grossing, in which case it was still Revenge of the Sith (http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2005&p=.htm).

Each award is judged on a different criteria. The Oscars are perhaps given more weight than they should, but the awards really only have to mean as much as you want them to. Hollywood gives it the weight because of the real value that the awards and nominations have on the revenue and 'value' it gives the winners. So, since there is a tangible dollar sign on the award (except Actress in a Leading Role, apparently) they understandably give it a great deal of attention.

I believe you can get recordings of the original few Oscar ceremonies where the then common host Bob Hope constantly made fun of the fact that it was Hollywood giving awards to itself, and the whole thing was taken a lot more lightly.

But really, if you're not into the movies than there isn't a reason in the world you should give a rats ass about the Oscars, just like if you're not into football (American style) there isn't a reason in the world you should give a rats ass about the Super Bowl. I'm pretty into movies (duh) and I only occasionally watch the Oscars. Even this Oscars I only watched the last third, though that was because I thought it started at seven. Most of the time you have a horse in the race, so to speak.

I can't say that I understand the "OOOOooh, there's J-Lo" part or the "Who are you wearing" part, but to each thier own I guess.

Crash's problem was nothing else in the movie came close to matching Danial (the locksmith) and Lara's story arc, and that's resolved in the middle of the movie. However, I would bet that was all the vast majority of the acadamy voters saw. And seriously, nothing is beating that.

Hmm. When I saw Brokeback Mountain all I could think was.. Meh. It's average.
I haven't seen Crash yet, but it seems a much better movie.

Crash's problem was nothing else in the movie came close to matching Danial (the locksmith) and Lara's story arc, and that's resolved in the middle of the movie. However, I would bet that was all the vast majority of the acadamy voters saw. And seriously, nothing is beating that.
I'll go ahead and throw up a spoiler alert, if anyone cares.

I think that the Danial story coming to it's resolution where it did was done that way as a signifier. It was the most obvious and naked of the reversals, but it was also very well earned. It was at a turning point in the movie that the stories where going to collide. By putting that resolution where it was it set up the more complex collisions that happen in the rest of the movie. The Danial resolution was the more overt, and the one that came the closest to being Maudlin (invisible bullet proof cloak? It worked, they earned it, but by itself it would have come off cheesy as hell. It's a testiment to the filmmakers that they pulled that off so well.) That comes where it does to tell the audience that they are not going to be tricked, but the stories are going to collide, it is the down payment that buys Officer Hanson (Ryan Phillipe)'s reversal at the end. That one story, that reversal is really what ties the knot of the film. I don't think that you can unravel it and still have it be such an accomplishment. The Daniel story alone would have made it a good short, but not a good movie. (and it's not about length).

Honestly, I didn't think any of the nominations were wonderful... but I did think Brokeback should have won.

Crash was simply trying too hard... The themes were the end to the means of the film, and it felt far too obvious. There was also a critic that phrased the character development in a way that I couldn't put my finger on until I read it: every character had *exactly* two sides. Not necessarily round characters, but simply coins.

Brokeback Mountain, the only thing I found bad with the movie was the pacing. (At least it was a vast improvement from the short story.)

The other nominees, though, a lot worse could be said than for Crash... Munich's sex/flashback scene was one of the worst contrived scenes I've happened to see this year.



The upset that really pissed me off, though (and made me lose all trust in the Academy) was NOT best picture, however. It was Animated Feature.

How the hell did Miyazaki lose!?

When the public chose, it was Star Wars:Revenge of the Sith (http://www.pcavote.com/nominees_fi.shtml). Or you could argue that the public chooses on top grossing, in which case it was still Revenge of the Sith (http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2005&p=.htm).

Ok, but still. ROTS definitely didn't deserve to win. It was a great movie, but it felt like a bit more of the same.

Honestly, I didn't think any of the nominations were wonderful... but I did think Brokeback should have won.

Crash was simply trying too hard... The themes were the end to the means of the film, and it felt far too obvious. There was also a critic that phrased the character development in a way that I couldn't put my finger on until I read it: every character had *exactly* two sides. Not necessarily round characters, but simply coins.
I would argue that it wasn't as obvious as all that, but that's matters of perspective. The coin thing is fair enough, though that's the handicap of ensemble story telling of this sort. I don't think it was as cut and dry as all that, but again matters of perception and at the very least a founded criticism.

Brokeback Mountain, the only thing I found bad with the movie was the pacing. (At least it was a vast improvement from the short story.)
That was one of the things that I liked about Brokeback Mountain, a quicker pace would have betrayed the narrative. Like I had said earlier, it was a broad story told with subtlty, which means that it takes longer to unfold. Matters of perception again, though. But I have to say I liked the slower pace of that film.

The other nominees, though, a lot worse could be said than for Crash... Munich's sex/flashback scene was one of the worst contrived scenes I've happened to see this year.
That's the only one I didn't see, though I wanted to because Tony Kushner wrote it. But I had seen Sword of Gideon and wasn't left wanting, really, so...



The upset that really pissed me off, though (and made me lose all trust in the Academy) was NOT best picture, however. It was Animated Feature.

How the hell did Miyazaki lose!?
Exposure, and I'm willing to bet that there where more than a few Nick Park fans amongst the voters. This is one of the ones where I saw all the films in the catagory. I thought that Howl's Moving Castle was going to win, but wasn't totally suprised that Curse of the Wererabbit did instead.

Maybe they felt it was time to give it Nick since Miyazaki got it for Spirited Away, which I never saw.

Ok, but still. ROTS definitely didn't deserve to win. It was a great movie, but it felt like a bit more of the same.
That's the thing, though, it's popular appeal, different criteria. I agree, though, it wouldn't be my choice and I'm still a Star Wars fan...

I haven't seen either Crash or Brokeback but I did read that the producers of the eventual winner spent almost as much on 'oscars promotion' as they did on actually making the thing in the first place. I don't know; there's just something not right about that.


Most nauseating thing for me was George Clooney's speech; has he not seen Team America?

He shouldn't even have been up there anyway, considering the performance he was judged upon was nothing exceptional. It was a blatant all-round back-slap for him being 'politically aware', whatever hollywood morons think that means.

The other nominees, though, a lot worse could be said than for Crash... Munich's sex/flashback scene was one of the worst contrived scenes I've happened to see this year.



I saw that the other day and that bit almost ruined the film for me. Up until then I thought it was an excellent film. What on earth was Spielberg thinking?