Haggistan
Okay, this will be the very last post about the Oscars, I promise. I'm even sick of hearing myself talk about the Oscars.
But there was some summing up to do, I felt, after last night's blitzkreig of disillusionment and disappointment. Yes, my least favorite film of 2005 has won the Academy Award for Best Picture. I'm learning to deal with it.
Some across the Web have implied that I care too deeply about such a triviality. Well, they are probably correct. It doesn't really matter, in a Big Picture way, what movie wins. But speaking as someone who works in a video store...The films that win these huge awards do remain in the public consciousness, do become a part of film history. People remember them.
It has not been an exclusive list for some time. Dumbass, unworthy winners like Forrest Gump, A Beautiful Mind, Chicago and Gladiator have long-since tarnished the title of Best Picture of any given year (as if The Greatest Show on Earth and Oliver! hadn't done so already).
But still, Crash will stand as one of the notable, important films of 2005. This reflects poorly on the film industry and on the American public in general. It is a shamefully shallow, trite, meaningless piece of puffery. If this is where the American people are at, intellectually, on the issue of race, then we're all Doomed with a capital D.
Okay, so, I'm not the only one who thinks so. An Oscar attendee (who shall remain anonymous) told me today that the audience was not particularly in Paul Haggis' corner. I believe his exact quote was, "I don't know who all voted for Crash, but none of them were in that room." The mystery nominee also told me that Jake Gyllenhaal was visibly upset at Brokeback Mountain having lost to Crash. "Any of the other nominees would have been fine," he allegedly said. "But not Crash."
The real girlie, backstabbing bitch-fighting was between the makers of Best Picture Crash and those who brought us Brokeback Mountain, the clear favorite, up until a couple of hours ago.
I asked Crash producer Cathy Schulman backstage what she thought about the already sizeable bitterness I was hearing about her flick eclipsing Brokeback. "Well," she sniffed, holding her Oscar (which, if you ask me, says it all), "I loved their film. Sorry they can't feel the same for us."
Yeah, but, you see, Cat...their film was good. Right? So that's why you liked it. Remember? When words like "good" or "bad" actually line up with real-world concepts and qualities? They don't have to love your film just because you made it. You are not a beautiful unique snowflake. Deal with it.
And those are just the mean-spirited comments from other Academy Awards attendees. They have a good reason to be nice...They're standing 10 feet away from the people they're shitting on.
Accordingly, everyone in the general public seems equally dumbfounded and aghast in the cold light of day. Kenneth Turan at the LA Times essentially calls the Motion Picture Academy cowards for picking Crash and avoiding conflict about the gay themes of Brokeback.
I do not for one minute question the sincerity and integrity of the people who made "Crash," and I do not question their commitment to wanting a more equal society. But I do question the film they've made. It may be true, as producer Cathy Schulman said in accepting the Oscar for best picture, that this was "one of the most breathtaking and stunning maverick years in American history," but "Crash" is not an example of that.
I don't care how much trouble "Crash" had getting financing or getting people on board; the reality of this film, the reason it won the best picture Oscar, is that it is, at its core, a standard Hollywood movie, as manipulative and unrealistic as the day is long. And something more.
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.
Folks, read this entire Kenny Turan article. He totally fucking nails it, right on the head. This is everything I've been thinking and saying about Crash since I saw it in the Fall.
It took the film winning Best Picture for me to discover that I'm not alone. I've been in my little bubble of Crash hatred, thinking the entire rest of the world adored this movie, and now that it has won real recognition, the truth is coming out. Morons have advocated this silly piece of shit for months, with sensible people simply remaining out of the conversation, not wanting to make people feel bad or start a fight. But now that the notion of Crash as a geniunely worthwhile piece of filmmaking has become a real possibility, the daggers are coming out.
There's always inevitable Best Picture backlash. All movies that take the prize become somewhat less esteemed in the years that follow - American Beauty, Million Dollar Baby, The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago, even Titanic...Can we say that any of these movies are still regarded as the absolute BEST of their respective years?
Is Haggis' film doomed to join the list of ludicrous Oscar flubs, along with Marisa Tomei's Supporting Actress Oscar for My Cousin Vinny and Ron Howard's bizarre win for A Beautiful Mind (compared at the time by Robert Altman to watching your mother-in-law drive your new car off of a cliff)? Probably. Only time will tell.
One more thing I'll mention about Crash. Today, I took a short break from work and went to move my car, to avoid getting a parking ticket. Turning the key in the ignition, it seemed like the engine was taking far too long to actually turn over. It was struggling. This was odd, because I had just taken the car in for service, so it should be working fine. When I accelerated, the vehicle lurched. I figured, though the dial said I had a little less than a quarter-tank left, that I must be out of gas.
I only made it halfway to the local gas station before the car lurched to a halt. Right in the middle of an intersection (Pico and Prosser, for locals). Before I even knew what was really happening, a group of five guys had all rushed over to help me push the car across the street and to the Shell Station. I didn't have to motion for help, ask a soul...nothing. (Okay, afterwards, one of the guys hit me up for a few dollars and another tried to sell me coloring books. But they didn't ask for anything before helping me, which is all that really matters).
These were strangers, of a variety of races and creeds, and they all pitched in to help me for no good reason. I didn't even have to ask. (And, no, I wasn't even blocking their cars. They were just helpful passers-by).
No one expressed any racist sentiments, or any anger at all. No motorists flipped me off or got in my face. Does this mean racism and misplaced anger doesn't exist in Los Angeles? Of course not. It just means that Paul Haggis is full of shit, and LA is nothing like the teeming cesspool of racial hatred that exists in his overripe imagination. If the real world were like Crash, I'd have been beaten up by angry motorists, sexually molested by the LAPD when they arrived in the scene and kidnapped by an evil old Chinese guy for use as slave labor.
6 comments:
Okay. So I just read the Turan article. As much as I agree with what he had to say about Crash there's a lot in his article that doesn't add up. A friends girlfriend recently suggested I was homophobic because I didn't think Brokeback was any good and it really pissed me off. I thought then, as I do now, that such a criticism was not only unjustified, but was downright cowardly.
Brokeback lost because it peaked too soon and oversaturated the market. If the Oscars were held a few weeks ago it probably would have won, but the facts were that the populist Brokeback wave had already started to roll back by the time people were casting their votes.
Besides, contrary to what is said in the article, if Brokeback is at all an important film it is only because it was the first major Hollywood picture to capitalize on circumstances which allow such films to do well. It didn't create those circumstances... it didn't break any rules... it's not in any way incendiary... it's just a movie that came along at the right time to benefit from what was already in motion.
It sure does suck that Crash won though (well, not really, as I think it's frickin' hilarious) and yeah, I was disappointed that Clooney felt the need to reference seventy year old victories as though they were a reflection on the values of the current academy, but brokeback's loss was not the result of homophobia.
Ben...you concern me. You really do. I feel like, every time you leave me a comment, you're trying to excuse your own intolerant, closed-minded point of view. Frankly, I'm getting a bit sick of it.
Before, it was defending the positions of rabid pro-lifers. And now it's crudely dismissing "Brokeback Mountain."
Now, I don't think that disliking "Brokeback Mountain" makes you a homophobe, and neither I nor Kenny Turan said any such thing. That's a strawman you've created.
What the article says, and what I fully agree with, was that the decision was between a movie that is truly groundbreaking - a gay romance that's not focused on the gay aspect, but on the romance - and a movie that pretends to be groundbreaking but is actually shallow and essentially fraudulent.
The fact that the first place you go is denying homophobia is telling and, I've got to say, highly questionable.
Also, you're wrong and Clooney's right. Hollywood is historically on the correct side of social issues, and they continue to be with their defense of gay rights, freedom of speech and tolerance.
That's interesting. I feel like every time you respond to one of my comments you're looking for something that isn't there. I'm really unsure why, but you manage to miss the point every time. It's kind of incredible to watch and is looking more and more like bullying.
I never defended rabid pro lifers. I never defended rabidness of any kind actually. I said it is to over simplify things to say that everyone who has 'pro life' sympathies is a fundamentalist religious zealot. I said that the abortion conflict is more complicated than just pointing fingers from both sides. ...I still say this.
I also didn't dismiss Brokeback. I didn't enjoy it much, but that's a matter of taste. What I said is that while it is a good thing that a love story between two men can find a large, mainstream audience, this victory does not belong to Brokeback itself, but to a society that has progressed enough that it is prepared to enjoy this sort of film. Brokeback's being produced, released and then becoming a massive hit may reflect societal changes for the better, but it did not create them.
Moving right along. I never said that you or Turin think I'm a homophobe, but thanks for the reassurance. Turin does say however that homophobia played a part in Brokeback's best picture snub... which I think was dumb of him. Which, unfortunately brings us to the following remark from you.
"The fact that the first place you go is denying homophobia is telling and, I've got to say, highly questionable."
Okay. This I actually take serious offense to. What I said was relevant to the discussion. It's not like I said "I'm no homophobe... but them queers sure are funny." I was making a point about the cynicism of those who attach an issue to a film to so great an extent that they become hypocritically intolerant of those who don't share their enthusiasm for it. I'd like you to apologize for that remark. I don't necessarily expect you to... but really, that was opportunism and hackery on your part, and it was deeply offensive.
"Also, you're wrong and Clooney's right."
Uh... dude. What I said about Clooney was said in agreement with what's written in the article. Turin writes with reference to Clooney's remarks that "it is easier to congratulate yourself for a job well done in the past than to actually do that job in the present." I wasn't saying that the Academy don't have a history they can take pride in. I was saying that paying lip service to past successes doesn't make up for present failures.
Obviously, I don't mean to offend you. I found that statement telling merely because it wouldn't occur to me to even bring up homophobia in terms of disliking "Brokeback," and the Turan article accuses the Academy of a failure of NERVE, not of a failure of TOLERANCE.
Man, we do this game every time. You come on here and make bold argumentative statements after my articles, and then when I take issue with you, you back off and claim I'm putting words in your mouth.
Additionally, I'm not sure what "present failure" George Clooney should have apologized for. All he said was that Hollywood had historically been on the right side of some issues, and I said he is correct in that statement. That was my only point.
Not sure what your point is with "Brokeback." It's not groundbreaking because people are just more open to gay themes in movies than before? Well, that may be true, but is "Brokeback" not significant merely for being the first major film to break down some of these barriers? At least, more significant than the safe-n'-easy "Crash"? Or are shifts in society completely independent of arts and culture?
"Obviously, I don't mean to offend you."
This fact was not obvious at all. All the same, I'm glad to hear it.
"I found that statement telling merely because it wouldn't occur to me to even bring up homophobia in terms of disliking "Brokeback," and the Turan article accuses the Academy of a failure of NERVE, not of a failure of TOLERANCE."
From Turan's article: In the privacy of the voting booth... people are free to act out the unspoken fears and unconscious prejudices that they would never breathe to another soul, or, likely, acknowledge to themselves. And at least this year, that acting out doomed "Brokeback Mountain."
Does this comment not refer to homophobia? I must have missed something.
"Man, we do this game every time. You come on here and make bold argumentative statements after my articles, and then when I take issue with you, you back off and claim I'm putting words in your mouth."
Nonsense. I have neither amended nor apologized for a single thing I said my initial post. I stand by all of it. If I've had to clarify one or two things it is only because you seem to have such a hard time reading my posts without letting your preconceptions get in the way of actually understanding them. Sorry if that looks like backing off. It isn't.
"Well, that may be true, but is "Brokeback" not significant merely for being the first major film to break down some of these barriers? "
I argued for something similar to this in my first post. It's certainly significant for being the first film of it's kind... but I don't perceive it as having broken down any barriers.
"Or are shifts in society completely independent of arts and culture?"
No, they're not. Take a bow all arts and culture prior to the release of 'Brokeback Mountain' for your contributions to its accessibility.
"Additionally, I'm not sure what "present failure" George Clooney should have apologized for."
I don't know. Ask the guy who wrote the article. Again, I didn't suggest he should apologize for anything. Again, yes, you put words in my mouth. Stop doing it and I'll stop bringing it up. My point, and I believe the point being made in the Turan article, is that the Academy can not afford to continue patting itself on the back for it's former 'nerve'. It's actions now are what count. And when those actions include awarding Crash best picture then you and I can agree that there's a problem... no matter what they may have done for race relations in 1939.
So okay... once again I'm bummed out that you immediately turned hostile when I attempted to discuss something with you. Perhaps against my better judgement I was taken by surprise. Once again I'm sorry that you are so quick to interpret my words in strange ways that don't reflect their true meaning and that allow you to unnecessarily go on the attack. It's a major fucking drag. I hope that if I decide to comment at your blog again we won't find ourselves going down this same road. But right now I'm going to bed. Have a good one.
How is saying that you're wrong and George Clooney is correct "hostile." You come on here and say that I'm wrong and you are correct, and that's not "hostile." If my frankness bothers you, maybe you should stop coming on here and challenging me all the time.
Also, you've now parsed the argument down to a point where it is nonsensical. "Brokeback Mountain," you say, didn't break down barriers...it was merely the first film of its kind to depict a gay romance in this way.
That, my friend, is what is known as Breaking Down Barriers. When you are the first to do something, you have broken down a barrier. Maybe other films had weakened that barrier before you. Maybe the time was just right. But the REASON is immaterial...That barrier has now been broken BECAUSE someone was the first to do it.
Finally, Kenny Turan said that their unspoken fears and prejudices caused them to vote for "Crash." This does not neccessarily mean they hate fags. Maybe they are AFRAID that Middle Americans will stop caring about the Oscars if they start awarding gay films. Maybe they are PREJUDICED against films that do not flatter the audience or end on a positive, upbeat, feel-good note.
I don't feel that Turan was accusing Hollywood of homophobia. I think he was accusing them of being weak.
Post a Comment