CULTURE - CRASH
Roger Ebert rarely writes articles about politics, current events, or awards shows these days, so, when I logged on to his website, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that he had written one. The arguments the article makes about why "Crash" was selected over "Brokeback Mountain," implied or otherwise, seem weak, and Roger thinks that others who voted for "Crash" did so because they recognized the same "brilliance" (excuse me while I break into uncontrollable laughter as I use the words "Crash" and "brilliance" in the same sentence) in "Crash" as he did, a fact which hasn't been established:
The fury of the 'Crash'-lash
BY ROGER EBERT / March 6, 2006
LOS ANGELES -- One of the mysteries of the 2006 Oscar season is the virulence with which lovers of "Brokeback Mountain" savaged "Crash." When the film about racism actually won the Oscar for best picture Sunday, there was no grace in their response. As someone who felt "Brokeback" was a great film but "Crash" a greater one, I would have been pleased if either had won.
But here is Ken Turan in the Los Angeles Times, writing on the morning after: "So for people who were discomfited by 'Brokeback Mountain' but wanted to be able to look themselves in the mirror and feel like they were good, productive liberals, 'Crash' provided the perfect safe harbor. They could vote for it in good conscience, vote for it and feel they had made a progressive move, vote for it and not feel that there was any stain on their liberal credentials for shunning what 'Brokeback' had to offer. And that's exactly what they did."
And Nikki Finke, in the LA Weekly: "Way back on Jan. 17, I decided to nominate the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for Best Bunch of Hypocrites. That's because I felt this year's dirty little Oscar secret was the anecdotal evidence pouring in to me about hetero members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences being unwilling to screen 'Brokeback Mountain.' For a community that takes pride in progressive values, it seemed shameful to me that Hollywood's homophobia could be on a par with Pat Robertson's."
Yes, and more than one critic described "Crash" as "the worst film of the year," which is as extreme as saying John Kerry was a coward in Vietnam. It means you'll say anything to help your campaign. (Actually, the critics in question were not "campaigning" for BBM, and some of their criticisms of Crash were valid).
What is intriguing about these writers is that they never mention the other three best picture nominees: "Capote," "Good Night, and Good Luck" and "Munich." Their silence on these films reveals their agenda: They wanted "Brokeback Mountain" to win, saw "Crash" as the spoiler, and attacked "Crash." If "Munich" had been the spoiler, they might not have focused on "Crash." When they said those who voted for "Crash" were homophobes who were using a liberal movie to mask their hatred of homosexuals, they might have said the same thing about "Munich."
This seems simply wrong ((WHAT seems wrong? That because Turan's "safe harbor" argument could have applied to the other three pictures, the argument is thus transparent and therefore false (i.e. homophobia had nothing to do with it? This argument makes a certain sense, to the extent that Ebert is saying that some Brokeback supporters, given the "li-brul"ness of the other movies, would have cried homophobia no matter which of the five won. But Ebert's argument does not tell us how or why "Crash" became the "spoiler" IN THE FIRST PLACE, after BBM had won practically every other award. Did it become the spoiler b/c voters were sick of BBM? Its strident supporters? The fact that BBM was about rural life Because of Lions' Gate's, ahem, extremely aggressive marketing campaign? Because of the mere fact that Crash took place in L.A.? Because it APPEARED to speak to liberal values (but nothing more?)? Because, yes, of homophobia? I don't have any anecdotal evidence (nor does Roger) to explain Crash's win, but I suspect some or all of the above propositions(along with plain, old Oscar caprice), played a role (i.e. some voters WERE sick of BBM, etc). We'll never know, one way or the other. ))
Consider Finke's "anecdotal evidence" that puts Hollywood's homophobia on a par with Pat Robertson's. Pat Robertson? This is certainly the most extreme statement she could make on the subject, but can it be true? How many anecdotes add up to evidence? Did anyone actually tell her they didn't want to see the movie because it was about two gay men? (Back to the chicken and the egg dialogue about homophobia there, Roger - does a homophobe have to use those words to be called a homophobe? Did you think that in "Crash," a character had to use a racial epithet to be properly called a racist? Maybe you should read your review again).
My impression, also based on anecdotal evidence, is that the usual number of academy voters saw the usual number of academy nominees, and voted for the ones they admired the most (therein lies the problem. I can admire something without necessarily thinking it's the best film of the year. The Best Picture Oscar should reward the latter film, not the former). In a year without "Brokeback Mountain," Finke, Turan and many others might have admired "Crash." Or maybe not. But it's a matter of opinion, not sexual politics.
"Crash" It is not a "safe harbor," but a film that takes the discussion of racism in America in a direction it has not gone before (indeed, rarely has the discussion been so reductive) in the movies, directing attention at those who congratulate themselves on not being racist, including liberals and/or minority group members. It is a movie of raw confrontation about the complexity of our motives, about how racism works not only top down but sideways, and how in different situations, we are all capable of behaving shamefully (yes, but how it was ABOUT that was nothing special).
"Good Night, and Good Luck," "Capote" and "Munich" were also risky pictures -- none more so, from a personal point of view, than "Munich," which afforded Steven Spielberg the unique experience of being denounced as anti-Semitic. "Good Night, and Good Luck" was surely a "safe harbor" for liberals, with its attack at a safe distance on McCarthyism -- although it carried an inescapable reference to McCarthyism as practiced by the Bush administration, which equates its critics with supporters of terrorism.
"Capote" was a brilliant character study of a writer who was gay, and who used his sexuality, as we all use our sexuality, as a part of his personal armory in daily battle.
It is noticeable how many writers on "Hollywood's homophobia" were able to sidestep "Capote," which was a hard subject to miss, being right there on the same list of best picture nominees. Were supporters of "Brokeback" homophobic in championing the cowboys over what Oscarcast host Jon Stewart called the "effete New York intellectual"? (in championing the actors, or the movie? Perhaps some merely thought one was better than the other. Perhaps not. Either way, the supporters' motives, overal, can be divined as readily as the "Crash" supporters' motives-that is to say, not readily, I guess).
Of course not. "Brokeback Mountain" was simply a better movie than "Capote." And "Crash" was better than "Brokeback Mountain," (bull) although they were both among the best films of the year. That is a matter of opinion. But I was not "discomfited" by "Brokeback Mountain." Read my original review. I chose "Crash" as the best film of the year not because it promoted one agenda and not another, but because it was a better film (than maybe one other Oscar-nominated film of 2005).
The nature of the attacks on "Crash" by the supporters of "Brokeback Mountain" seem to proceed from the other position: "Brokeback" is better not only because of its artistry but because of its subject matter, and those who disagree hate homosexuals (Who is anectodalizing whom now?) Its supporters could vote for it in good conscience, vote for it and feel they had made a progressive move, vote for it and not feel that there was any stain on their liberal credentials for shunning what "Crash" had to offer.
BTW, there are thousands of people who saw both, who saw what both had to offer, and simply concluded, without any agenda, that BBM was the better film. 600 top ten lists were compiled for the films of 2005 - Brokeback was at or near #1 of the average of these lists, and "Crash" didn't make it to the top 15 (most of the lists were made by people who saw, at most, 100 2005 films). Cinemascope, which asks audiences to rate films, revealed that BBM was given a significantly higher grade than Crash (by the significantly higher amount of people who saw BBM than Crash).
The anger (of not only BBM fans, but of Munich, Capote, and GN&GL fans) may be misdirected, and in some cases even disingenuous, but it is not illegitimate. It is not illegitimate to ask, once again, what the Academy failed to see (it would have seen the light by picking ANY of the other 4) that the rest of the world had no difficulty seeing.
The fury of the 'Crash'-lash
BY ROGER EBERT / March 6, 2006
LOS ANGELES -- One of the mysteries of the 2006 Oscar season is the virulence with which lovers of "Brokeback Mountain" savaged "Crash." When the film about racism actually won the Oscar for best picture Sunday, there was no grace in their response. As someone who felt "Brokeback" was a great film but "Crash" a greater one, I would have been pleased if either had won.
But here is Ken Turan in the Los Angeles Times, writing on the morning after: "So for people who were discomfited by 'Brokeback Mountain' but wanted to be able to look themselves in the mirror and feel like they were good, productive liberals, 'Crash' provided the perfect safe harbor. They could vote for it in good conscience, vote for it and feel they had made a progressive move, vote for it and not feel that there was any stain on their liberal credentials for shunning what 'Brokeback' had to offer. And that's exactly what they did."
And Nikki Finke, in the LA Weekly: "Way back on Jan. 17, I decided to nominate the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for Best Bunch of Hypocrites. That's because I felt this year's dirty little Oscar secret was the anecdotal evidence pouring in to me about hetero members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences being unwilling to screen 'Brokeback Mountain.' For a community that takes pride in progressive values, it seemed shameful to me that Hollywood's homophobia could be on a par with Pat Robertson's."
Yes, and more than one critic described "Crash" as "the worst film of the year," which is as extreme as saying John Kerry was a coward in Vietnam. It means you'll say anything to help your campaign. (Actually, the critics in question were not "campaigning" for BBM, and some of their criticisms of Crash were valid).
What is intriguing about these writers is that they never mention the other three best picture nominees: "Capote," "Good Night, and Good Luck" and "Munich." Their silence on these films reveals their agenda: They wanted "Brokeback Mountain" to win, saw "Crash" as the spoiler, and attacked "Crash." If "Munich" had been the spoiler, they might not have focused on "Crash." When they said those who voted for "Crash" were homophobes who were using a liberal movie to mask their hatred of homosexuals, they might have said the same thing about "Munich."
This seems simply wrong ((WHAT seems wrong? That because Turan's "safe harbor" argument could have applied to the other three pictures, the argument is thus transparent and therefore false (i.e. homophobia had nothing to do with it? This argument makes a certain sense, to the extent that Ebert is saying that some Brokeback supporters, given the "li-brul"ness of the other movies, would have cried homophobia no matter which of the five won. But Ebert's argument does not tell us how or why "Crash" became the "spoiler" IN THE FIRST PLACE, after BBM had won practically every other award. Did it become the spoiler b/c voters were sick of BBM? Its strident supporters? The fact that BBM was about rural life Because of Lions' Gate's, ahem, extremely aggressive marketing campaign? Because of the mere fact that Crash took place in L.A.? Because it APPEARED to speak to liberal values (but nothing more?)? Because, yes, of homophobia? I don't have any anecdotal evidence (nor does Roger) to explain Crash's win, but I suspect some or all of the above propositions(along with plain, old Oscar caprice), played a role (i.e. some voters WERE sick of BBM, etc). We'll never know, one way or the other. ))
Consider Finke's "anecdotal evidence" that puts Hollywood's homophobia on a par with Pat Robertson's. Pat Robertson? This is certainly the most extreme statement she could make on the subject, but can it be true? How many anecdotes add up to evidence? Did anyone actually tell her they didn't want to see the movie because it was about two gay men? (Back to the chicken and the egg dialogue about homophobia there, Roger - does a homophobe have to use those words to be called a homophobe? Did you think that in "Crash," a character had to use a racial epithet to be properly called a racist? Maybe you should read your review again).
My impression, also based on anecdotal evidence, is that the usual number of academy voters saw the usual number of academy nominees, and voted for the ones they admired the most (therein lies the problem. I can admire something without necessarily thinking it's the best film of the year. The Best Picture Oscar should reward the latter film, not the former). In a year without "Brokeback Mountain," Finke, Turan and many others might have admired "Crash." Or maybe not. But it's a matter of opinion, not sexual politics.
"Crash" It is not a "safe harbor," but a film that takes the discussion of racism in America in a direction it has not gone before (indeed, rarely has the discussion been so reductive) in the movies, directing attention at those who congratulate themselves on not being racist, including liberals and/or minority group members. It is a movie of raw confrontation about the complexity of our motives, about how racism works not only top down but sideways, and how in different situations, we are all capable of behaving shamefully (yes, but how it was ABOUT that was nothing special).
"Good Night, and Good Luck," "Capote" and "Munich" were also risky pictures -- none more so, from a personal point of view, than "Munich," which afforded Steven Spielberg the unique experience of being denounced as anti-Semitic. "Good Night, and Good Luck" was surely a "safe harbor" for liberals, with its attack at a safe distance on McCarthyism -- although it carried an inescapable reference to McCarthyism as practiced by the Bush administration, which equates its critics with supporters of terrorism.
"Capote" was a brilliant character study of a writer who was gay, and who used his sexuality, as we all use our sexuality, as a part of his personal armory in daily battle.
It is noticeable how many writers on "Hollywood's homophobia" were able to sidestep "Capote," which was a hard subject to miss, being right there on the same list of best picture nominees. Were supporters of "Brokeback" homophobic in championing the cowboys over what Oscarcast host Jon Stewart called the "effete New York intellectual"? (in championing the actors, or the movie? Perhaps some merely thought one was better than the other. Perhaps not. Either way, the supporters' motives, overal, can be divined as readily as the "Crash" supporters' motives-that is to say, not readily, I guess).
Of course not. "Brokeback Mountain" was simply a better movie than "Capote." And "Crash" was better than "Brokeback Mountain," (bull) although they were both among the best films of the year. That is a matter of opinion. But I was not "discomfited" by "Brokeback Mountain." Read my original review. I chose "Crash" as the best film of the year not because it promoted one agenda and not another, but because it was a better film (than maybe one other Oscar-nominated film of 2005).
The nature of the attacks on "Crash" by the supporters of "Brokeback Mountain" seem to proceed from the other position: "Brokeback" is better not only because of its artistry but because of its subject matter, and those who disagree hate homosexuals (Who is anectodalizing whom now?) Its supporters could vote for it in good conscience, vote for it and feel they had made a progressive move, vote for it and not feel that there was any stain on their liberal credentials for shunning what "Crash" had to offer.
BTW, there are thousands of people who saw both, who saw what both had to offer, and simply concluded, without any agenda, that BBM was the better film. 600 top ten lists were compiled for the films of 2005 - Brokeback was at or near #1 of the average of these lists, and "Crash" didn't make it to the top 15 (most of the lists were made by people who saw, at most, 100 2005 films). Cinemascope, which asks audiences to rate films, revealed that BBM was given a significantly higher grade than Crash (by the significantly higher amount of people who saw BBM than Crash).
The anger (of not only BBM fans, but of Munich, Capote, and GN&GL fans) may be misdirected, and in some cases even disingenuous, but it is not illegitimate. It is not illegitimate to ask, once again, what the Academy failed to see (it would have seen the light by picking ANY of the other 4) that the rest of the world had no difficulty seeing.
posted by EnterCenter at 1:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home