Crash's Upset- Page 4

[Jane2]

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:27am

Good point, Zepka, thanks!

and thanks to all for the debate, I'm so tired, see y'all tomorrow.

[Princeton78]

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:28am

When it comes right down to it, if you ask an average American who does not live in NYC, LA, Boston, Chicago, Atlanta etc. which film won 'Best Picture' 2 weeks from now, my bet is that you'll be hard pressed to find someone who can give you the correct answer.

I wish 'Brokeback' had won, and I do feel that there was a bit of a backlash from the Academy which caused the loss. The backlash may have been homophobic, or it could be for other reasons, such as over-hype.

The Academy Awards have always been political, unpredictable, and sometimes, dead wrong. Remember the outcries when Spielberg won the directing Oscar moments before 'Shakespeare in Love' took Best Picture over his 'Saving Private Ryan?' Or how about when the Academy was finally ready to recognize Martin Scorscesse (sp?) for his direction of 'Gangs of New York?' Poor Martin was halfway to the stage when he realized that it was Roman Polansky's name that was called. There have been a million accusations of production companies buying Oscars or actors being 'rewarded' with Oscars for a body of work for a current mediocre performance.

I think that last night, they got all of the acting categories wrong as well as best picture, and i'm upset about that, and I am a bit hurt, and Priest's article makes perfect sense to me, but it's over. It ain't gonna be redone. There ain't gonna be a recount. Just remember, when it comes down to it, that guy or gal from about 50 miles north of St. Louis really cares a lot more about what Reese Witherspoon wore than what took home 'Best Picture.'

*gets off soapbox*

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:30am

"i was reminded. anyone see Capote? i haven't, but what's Philip Seymore Hoffman's character like? wait, he's... GAY?!?! OH MY GOSH WHO LET HIM WIN?!?!"

Yes - he portrayed Capote as an asexual, witty but physically harmless New York effete intellectual - a "sissy" who does what he has to in order to get his book finished. Gee, a "sissy," that's never been done before. (I realize his performance is more complex than this, but the upshot is that he wasn't a macho cowboy.) Also, frankly Capote wasn't at all about his sexuality - I don't think it's a gay film but a film about an obsessed writer.

Hoffman isn't the first actor to win for playing a gay man - William Hurt for playing a flamboyant drag queen in Kiss of the Spider Woman, and Tom Hanks won for playing a victim/opera queen who of course tragically dies of AIDS in Philadelphia. Gays are fine with many if they are harmless, or if they are villains - then it's an "acting trick." But macho cowboys who do manly things and (gasp) have sex?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:31am

That article is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. Why is it that some minorities - in whatever capacity - like to act like victims? They like to alienate themselves, they like to cry foul when really, there's nothing to cry foul over.

This argument is tired and pointless.

I didn't care for CRASH - I thought all the other films were better - but can I appreciate that people love the movie? YES! It has apparantly touched many, many people. And what, if CRASH didn't win, would there be other people complaining that the academy is racist? Please. Get over it. It's an award for ART. That's almost an oxymoron in itself.

And really guys - if the Academy was so "homophobic", they wouldn't have voted Philip Seymour Hoffman best actor. If they're not going to award a "Gay" movie, they're not going to award an actor for playing a famous homosexual. This argument is really irritating, and completely unfounded.

And what if CRASH won by 5 votes? Is the Academy still homophobic?

Jesus Christ - some people can never win. I hate people like the person who wrote that article.

[NYadgal]

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:32am

Um, he was kidding, Pseudolus...

Updated On: 3/7/06 at 12:32 AM

[ToBeingAnUsForOnce]

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:33am

I just have this to say...

It is being said that Hollywood is homophobic for not choosing Brokeback as the winner for best picture.

If Crash had lost, people would be accusing Hollywood of not being able to deal with racism.

Either way, everyone gets mad.

[Luscious]

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:33am

Addy, you're just as stuck on your position as I am on mine. I honestly and truly believe that homophobia was the cause for BROKEBACK'S Oscar loss. Sorry, but that's what I think, and how I feel. And you don't. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. I never said that CRASH was a piece of crap that didn't deserve its nomination, but I do believe that's it's the least deserving Best Picture winner since THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH. I know that many people were moved and enlightened by it, but I'm not one of them. I probably feel much the same way about CRASH as you do about BROKEBACK. What and how a particular movie makes us feel is such personal experience. Who we are, where we've been, where we're at, and where we're going has so much to do with the how any given film affects us. That's the wonder that is the movies. And that's why I love them.

Updated On: 3/7/06 at 12:33 AM

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:35am

"And really guys - if the Academy was so "homophobic", they wouldn't have voted Philip Seymour Hoffman best actor. If they're not going to award a "Gay" movie, they're not going to award an actor for playing a famous homosexual. This argument is really irritating, and completely unfounded."

Read my post above for an answer to this.

"And what if CRASH won by 5 votes? Is the Academy still homophobic?"

Well, masybe, or maybe just stupid, but it wouldn't be the first time. (Rocky over Taxi Driver, Network and All the Presidents Men, natch!)

[harris007]

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:36am

Thank you Munk was hopeing you'd throw your 2 cents in

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:38am

Pseudolus - The answer? Please. It's just your opinion.

Frankly, if the academy were homophobic, BROKEBACK wouldn't have garnered the most nominations. Philip Seymour Hoffman wouldn't have won. Ang Lee wouldn't have won best director. It absolutely would not have won best screenplay, and Felicity Huffman surely wouldn't have been nominated for best actress.

GET OVER IT.

[NYadgal]

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:40am

Luscious, here's the thing: I liked Brokeback. And I have posted that feeling in other threads. (I just never felt it was the best picture)

I am open to considering lots of different reasons why a movie might have won or why another might have lost. I am not discounting that homophobia may have played a part.

I DO, however, find statements like the one in the article saying that the movie lost BECAUSE IT WAS GAY to be ridiculous, and not worthy of such complete acceptance.

I have never written about Crash. It's irrelevant to me which movie won best picture. I am just tired of being called homophobic because Brokeback wasn't my favorite movie or because I can see reasons why it might not have won. I think it's demeaning to a very large number of people to be told that if we don't fall lock-step into the acceptance that some of the gay community are looking for with Brokeback that we are homophobic or anti-gay.

I understand that the movie was important to many people. But, I just ask that consideration be given to the fact that it might have lost the Academy Award because it WASN'T the best movie.

Updated On: 3/7/06 at 12:40 AM

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:41am

Amen to you too, Addy.

I thought the whole lot of us liberals tried to shy away from Dubya's "You're either with us or you're against us." mentality!

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:44am

"I just have this to say...

It is being said that Hollywood is homophobic for not choosing Brokeback as the winner for best picture.

If Crash had lost, people would be accusing Hollywood of not being able to deal with racism.

Either way, everyone gets mad."

Tobeing - the academy has a long history when it comes to racism. There are the positives (McDaniel winning the Oscar in 1939) but also the negatives, such as for many years no black nominees.

In 1989, Spike Lee made a great film about racism - DO THE RIGHT THING. It ended up on many critic's list of the best films of the 1980s, but Lee was ignored. He later made MALCOLM X, which is very good but more problematic, and Denzel got nominated but little else.

DO THE RIGHT THING was a movie that very much confronted racism head on, and it angered a lot of people. CRASH starts with a good premise but presents it all in a fake and sentimental package. It's soft to chew and easy on the digestion, much easier than two young hunk cowboys having sex.

This year all the movies were about something, so they chose the movie that was easiest to digest. It is quite possible that homophobia played a role in this choice.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:45am

I just want to state (though it's pretty freaking obvious) that no one in this thread is anti-gay. In fact, it's all hag fags/stag hags and gays. So, we can drop that angle.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:48am

Whoa! Crash was easy to chew and digest???? Tell that to the girl a few rows behind me who started screaming at the screen, she got so worked up! Tell that to all my friends who like me got angry, laughed, bawled, and had the film on their mind for days.

You are GRASPING now.

[ToBeingAnUsForOnce]

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:48am

And if Crash had lost there would still be just as many people out there saying that Hollywood is racist as there are people right now saying that Hollywood is homophobic.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:50am

Yes, the intelligent ones of course can recognize that.

Unfortunately, some people always want to be victimized. If BROKEBACK had won best picture, they would be complaining that the acceptance speech was too short, or something absurd.

And to those of you still saying that the reason it didn't win was because of homophobia, what do you say of Ang Lee's BEST DIRECTION win?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:51am

If BBM had won, there would STILL be people complaining that the Academy is homophobic because Gylenhaal and Ledger were overlooked. The only thing that would have made some of these people happy were if George Clooney had announced he was a 'mo in his acceptance speech.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:53am

Oh, Bennett, don't even joke about that. He's the love of my life.

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:53am

"Pseudolus - The answer? Please. It's just your opinion.

Frankly, if the academy were homophobic, BROKEBACK wouldn't have garnered the most nominations. Philip Seymour Hoffman wouldn't have won. Ang Lee wouldn't have won best director. It absolutely would not have won best screenplay, and Felicity Huffman surely wouldn't have been nominated for best actress.

GET OVER IT. "

I wasn't clear that I was referring to the fact that the men who win for playing gay play effeminite, stereotypical gay, safe and asexual. They don't play straping young hunky cowboys who have hot sex on the range. Playing gay is OK for actors if it is a trick, kind of like young engenues playing hookers. (Shirley Jones or Julia Roberts, anyone?)

The # of nominations is irrelevant to the discussion of homophobia. I don't think the composer or cinematographer are gay anyway. After BBM picked up just about every award imaginable, the Academy would definitely have looked like homophobic fools if BBM didn't have those nominations, or if Lee or the screenplay had lost. Ang Lee won every important directing award there was, as did the BBM screenplay. To not award the film for those would have been too obvious and huge a slap to be ignored - they HAD to give the movie those awards based upon precurors.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:57am

Now you are just making grand, general assumptions.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:57am

Jerby, how is the weather in NY?

It is raining her in Los Angeles.

[ToBeingAnUsForOnce]

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:58am

"To not award the film for those would have been too obvious and huge a slap to be ignored - they HAD to give the movie those awards based upon precurors."

You're talking like it was a whole big scheme. It wasn't a group of people sitting at a table saying "Hmmm! How can we award the 'gay' movie the least amount of awards possible while not looking suspicious?" It was votes cast from many different types of people.

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:58am

Sorry, JRB, but I am not grasping. Having your emotional buttons pushed is not the same as having your intellect stirred or being honestly emotionally moved. My experience of CRASH was that it was cheaply manipulative. Obviously yours was different, and I won't question that But I am hardly alone in my analysis. Here is the LA Times film critic on CRASH. (And he is much nicer to it than the NY Times was.)

Kenneth Turan: For "Crash's" biggest asset is its ability to give people a carload of those standard Hollywood satisfactions but make them think they are seeing something groundbreaking and daring. It is, in some ways, a feel-good film about racism, a film you could see and feel like a better person, a film that could make you believe that you had done your moral duty and examined your soul when in fact you were just getting your buttons pushed and your preconceptions reconfirmed.

Kenneth Turan on CRASH and the Oscars

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/7/06 at 12:59am

Now you are making probably the stupidest, most pointless "points" I have ever read in my life.

You are so set on believing that gays were wronged in this CRASH win. Would you feel the same if GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK WON? What about CAPOTE?

Saying that the Academy only gave the award to Ang Lee because everyone else did, and if they didn't, they would come across as homophobic is the most naive and irresistably stupid comment I have ever read on these boards. If they wanted to snub the film because they are homophobic, they're not going to award the director of the "gay movie." They would have given the award to someone safe, like Michelle Williams. You are approaching laughable status.