Crash- Page 5

[robbiej]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 10:32am

I'm glad Crash won for two reasons:

1. It helped me win the Oscar poole (I'm wrong about the 'e' on the end of it, aren't I?); and

2. I don't think I could have taken another smug, self-satisfied speech from the Botoxy Diana Ossana.

Updated On: 3/6/06 at 10:32 AM

[NYadgal]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 10:36am

Hope you won BIG, Robbie!

Hooray for winning the pool...

[robbiej]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 10:39am

No 'e'. I shall edit!

Unfortunatley, it wasn't a money pool. HOWEVER, because my best friend and I were tied until the last award, and since he's the worst winner on the face of the planet (and I rarely ever win in our competitions), it was worth more than any dollar amount.

It was fun to humiliate him at the end of the night!

[NYadgal]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 11:19am

Bragging rights!

[robbiej]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 11:24am

Damn right!

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 11:32am

I have my own issues with CRASH, but I don't believe it's fair to say its message is as simplistic as "racisim is bad." Though the movie is built on contrivance (yes, like MAGNOLIA and GRAND CANYON, but two films it evokes), it is not simplistic or simple-minded, and turns inside out all kinds of complicated PC issues, and mixes in post 9/11 fear and loathing of Arabs and black/Latino frictions that are often ignored. I saltue it for NOT saying something so bald as "racism" is bad. Look how far we've come from far more simplistic melodrama like IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT and GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER to the gnarly, hard to pin down world of CRASH.

I don't believe it's justifiable to say that Hollywood chose the "safer" film. If Fox and other right wing pundts gloat over the dising of BROKEBACK, well, I be they haven't seen the flawed but ambitious CRASH. It's far more dangerous to the Fox view of America -- all's well with black folks as long as we have Condoleeza at the top.

And may I say what no one else has yet voiced here: Isn't CRASH the perfect post-Katrina movie? Doesn't its damned if you do/damned if you don't attitude toward the African-American experience in this culture (rich and poor, you may be screwed) have special resonance as we watch a major American city fail to rebuilt itself to re-embrace its black population?

Finally, whatever its weaknesses, Ms. Bullock's line, "I wake up angry every day..." so captures this era in America.

Updated On: 3/6/06 at 11:32 AM

[bschneid76]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 11:59am

My opinion is that Ang Lee won best Director, therefore Brokeback Mountain should win the award. Otherwise, they should have given Paul Haggis best director then. That's the way I see it. You really technically can't have a best picture without the director. I say lets do away with awards. I used to disagree with George C Scott and those who appauled the Oscars but I am beginning to see why they felt this way. Why single out someone, when there were so many "great" films. I am glad Robert Altman got his Oscar, after losing it for Gosford Park. Truly one of the greatest directors ever!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 12:20pm

Oh, I know. I love Gosford Park, and it will always be one of my favorites.

As for best director and best movie, I disagree. That has to do with (I think) the transition from script to screen, and if you switched directors, you'd have two totally different movies.

Part of me is glad Crash won, because I've never thought BM was that good of a movie. Great acting, but Best Film needs more than that.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 1:46pm

"Where were all of you when Passion of the Christ was completely snubbed?"

Um, where were you? Do a thread search and there are HUNDREDS of posts of opinions about this film. It got exactly as many nominations as it deserved. Well, maybe three too many.

[roquat]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 1:59pm

I've never believed that "whoever wins Best Director should also win Best Picture" philosophy--if that's the case, why have a Best Director award at all? The Best Picture award is supposed to recognize all of the elements of a film, of which the director is only one component--an important one, yes, but not the only one. Films like MARTY and DRIVING MISS DAISY, for example, surely won the award because of their writing and acting, not their direction.

As far as CRASH vs. BROKEBACK--I can see why the Academy went the way it did (apart from the massive last-minute CRASH campaigning). CRASH had an ambitious structure (as opposed to BROKEBACK's fairly traditional liner narrative), multiple stories and characters to hold interest, and plenty of showy dramatic scenes (almost every one a confrontation), whearas BROKEBACK's power was in reactions, pauses, and what WASN'T said. (This was also probably why BROKEBACK didn't win any acting awards--the Academy tends to undervalue restrained, naturalistic acting in favor of easily visible showmanship.) Personally, I loved both films, and this is the first year I can remember where at least one of the Best Picture nominees wasn't an embarrassment. If the bloated, 5-million decibel KING KONG had scored a BP nomination, I would have seriously lost it.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 2:06pm

I know it was probably never going to happen, but I really wanted Munich. I think it deserved it.

Updated On: 3/6/06 at 02:06 PM

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 2:15pm

Wow, SG. I have never disagreed with you so much.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 2:20pm

Oh my god, penguin, does this mean the love affair is over? Well, we'll always have Sondheim...



On a serious note, what didn't you like about Munich?

[Kitzarina]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 2:21pm

Just don't bring up "My Humps" if you value your testicles, SG.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 2:23pm

No, it is not. I love a little disagreement now and then. And there IS always Sondheim.


The second part, I really can't get it all out here. Basically everything but the acting.
I am not generally fond of Speilberg, and it was a VERY Speilberg film. I was particularly put off by what I actually saw as a message in favor of terrorism.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 2:27pm

Phew, thank god. I couldn't live living this without you.



I didn't get that at all from the movie (the terrorism is good thing). What I got from it is that revenge is a neverending cycle and it's futile because no one is ever going to win or be right anymore. (That's a very simplified version of my thoughts after seeing the movie.)

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 2:30pm

I thought that was the "external message" which was the message Speilberg was trying to send. Somehow though the internal reaction I got was the total opposite. Something about that movie said- "if you don't go far enough, this will happen" Also the "rape/murder" love scene was unbearable. Bana's slow motion sweat was too much for me.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 2:34pm

I have no problems with the slow-mo/sweat stuff. But that's not because I'm thinking it's good filmmaking.

Looking back, I honestly can see your point and where you would see that. I'm just still not getting that vibe at all.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 2:39pm

I plan to watch it again on DVD. Maybe I can find some redemption in it then.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 2:43pm

You should! Hopefully you'll see something nicer in it the next time you watch.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 2:45pm

Then I will have to take back a PROLONGED rant I gave on the podcast.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 2:49pm

Uh-oh, there was ranting involved? Well, you can't take back a rant, so you'd better just stick to your opinion. I mean, you wanted want to look stupid or anything.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 2:51pm

I rant sometimes. Later I can rant about how much I hate rants. Generally I have strong opinions, but am always open for new insight so a rant today may be a "eh" tomorrow.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 2:51pm

Well, you don't want to get that blood pressure up, so you should probably take a day off of the ranting once in awhile.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 3/6/06 at 2:53pm

Not gonna happen.