Crash v.s. Brokeback Mountain; Biggest Best Picture Snub in Years

[footballhenry]

I saw every nominee except Munich (still need to see it, wasn't in theater when I tried to see it though). I absolutely love film, and the films nominated this year for Best Picture are all gems. I could care less what mainstream America thinks of these films because the issues raised (homophobia, racism, indoctrinating fear,etc.) and the quality and true brilliance of these films are more important that popular opinion, or box office numbers. Personally I rank them as follows:

1. Brokeback Mountain

2. Good Night and Good Luck

3. Crash

4. Capote

5. Munich (haven't seen it but I THINK it may be #2 if its as good as I expect)

Rather than give my reasoning or opinion, heres an excellent article that gives rise to the debate and reason for the Brokeback snub. (To the conservatives and christians here, try to challenge your mind a little bit and look at the other side of this, thats what Im trying to do as a raised christian conservative). I just think that on merits of film alone this is a huge upset, regardless of whether you call it a 'gay' film or not.

The Brokeback Mountain Oscar Snub

by Michael Jensen, March 7, 2006

Sunday night, Hollywood spent over three hours congratulating itself for its tolerance and progressiveness. But when it came to awarding the Best Picture, Hollywood's cowardly actions proved louder than its pretty words.

Two days after Crash's history-making upset over Brokeback,

a debate rages over why the upset happened. Was it homophobia? Was Crash simply a better movie? Did the far right's attack on Hollywood's morals frighten the voters? Or did Brokeback simply peak too soon?

First, the facts.

During the awards' season leading up to Sunday night's Oscars, Brokeback Mountain became the most honored movie in cinematic history. It had more Best Picture and Director wins than previous Oscar winners Schindler's List and Titanic combined. Just to name a few, Brokeback won various awards at the Golden Globes, the BAFTA's, Venice Film Festival, NY Film Critic's Circle, LA Film Critics, National Board of Review, and the Independent Spirit Awards. (Click here for a complete list.)

Meanwhile, of the major awards, Crash managed to win only the SAG Award, the Chicago Critics award, and an Image Award. And Crash won the Chicago honor mostly because Chicago-area film critic Roger Ebert relentlessly pushed it. Even then, Brokeback was the runner-up. How did Crash fare in all of the awards Brokeback won? It mostly didn't, rarely even showing up as a nominee. In fact, before the SAG awards, Crash barely merited mention as an Oscar contender.

Before Sunday night's upset, no film that had won the Writer's Guild, Director's Guild, and Producer's Guild awards did not go on to win the Academy Award for Best Picture. Additionally, the film with the most total Oscar nominations almost always wins the top prize; only four times in the past twenty-five years has the Best Picture winner not also been the film with the most nominations. This year Brokeback had the most nominations

Along with all these awards, Brokeback had also won the Golden Globe, all but assuring that it would win at the Oscars too. Only once, in 1973, did a film not even nominated for the Golden Globe's Best Picture go on to win the Academy Award (that movie was The Sting, and it wasn't nominated because of a mix-up at the Golden Globes). Crash did not receive a Golden Globe nomination.

Like most eventual Best Picture winners, Brokeback Mountain was by far the highest grossing film of the five nominees. It has earned $120 million worldwide, while Crash has taken in less than half that. Box-office performance has always been a factor in how the Academy votes.

One other fact: The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is a conservative institution. It is not necessarily conservative in the political or religious sense of the word, but rather in that its members are firm believers in tradition and precedence. By every measure of previous Oscar winners, Brokeback should have been the movie announced by Jack Nicholson. Since it wasn't, there must be a very compelling reason for Crash to have won instead.

Was it Crash's critical acclaim? To be fair, Crash did come out quite some time ago and it is common knowledge that Oscar favors, or at least remembers, movies released late in the year. Was it possible that Crash's earlier critical acclaim had been overlooked by virtually every others arts organization that dispenses awards? Perhaps once Academy voters were reminded of Crash's critical acclaim, they felt compelled to give it the Best Picture.

Turns out that can't be the case. Here again, Brokeback was clearly the frontrunner. Every year, both Premiere Magazine and Entertainment Weekly rank the year's movies according to the reviews they received. Brokeback came in first on both lists. Three other Best Picture nominees—Good Night, and Good Luck, Capote, and Munich —also placed in the Top Ten on both lists. Meanwhile, Crash ranked number thirty-six on Premiere's list, and down in the fifties on EW's. A half-dozen critics even gave it outright pans, saying it was a movie to be avoided.

Not exactly a critical darling, eh?

That means that in order for the Academy voters to have chosen Crash over Brokeback, they had to overlook the fact that Brokeback was the favorite by almost every measure the Academy has used for seventy eight years. And they had to be willing to overturn decades of Academy tradition as well. Let's be clear about something else: this disregard for tradition and precedence didn't happen because of a changing of the guard. It's not a case of new, fresh blood forcing the Academy to change their old, tired ways. Indeed, it is the old guard that upended their traditions in order to propel Crash past Brokeback.

Nor is this a discussion about the merits of Brokeback Mountain versus Crash. Art is subjective, and a Crash fan's opinion is every bit as valid as someone who loved Brokeback. What isn't subjective are the facts stated above.

The question remaining then is why did they Academy pass over Brokeback for Crash? Given the facts, there seems to be only one answer: good old-fashioned homophobia, or at least Hollywood 's fear of being perceived by Middle America as too tolerant of gay people, which is another kind of homophobia. Or perhaps it was some combination of the two things. But nothing else seems to fit the facts.

If rank homophobia was the reason, it seems Tony Curtis apparently spoke for many voters when he said he had no intention of seeing the movie and that it offered nothing “unique.” Since he hadn't seen it, it's hard to know on what basis Mr. Curtis made his claim. But clearly many Academy voters did not see anything particularly unique about it either.

Everyone watching knew this was a chance for the Academy to take a stand on what is arguably one of the most controversial issues of our time. Battles are being fought at ballot boxes, in courtrooms, schools and homes all around the country. Sunday night offered a chance for Hollywood to weigh in with their support.

Up until Jack Nicholson opened that envelope virtually everyone -- even the Las Vegas odds-makers, felt it a near certainty Hollywood do just that.

But at the last second, the Oscar voters blinked. Or perhaps like a white person publicly professing their support for a black candidate, only to then vote for their white opponent in the privacy of the voting booth, Academy voters never intended to vote for Brokeback.

Some Crash supporters have argued the Academy had to choose between honoring two very worthwhile movies, one confronting racism, one homophobia, both subjects the Oscars have overlooked in the past. And while it was a difficult choice, they argue, it was a fair decision.

Hogwash. Hollywood has already honored numerous movies that confront racism. In the Heat of the Night won back in 1967, nearly forty years ago. Schindler's List won in 1993. Other previous winners depicting racism have included Gandhi, Driving Miss Daisy, and Westside Story. And Halle Berry's Best Actress win was supposed to be the final nail in Hollywood's racist past. The point isn't to argue that racism is no longer worthy subject-matter, only that it is not groundbreaking, especially not nearly enough to overcome Brokeback's reasons for winning.

Indeed, a gay story, much less a love story, has never even been in serious contention for an Oscar. Hell, there hasn't even been a mainstream movie about a gay love story. Given just how groundbreaking Brokeback is, its being passed over for Crash -- a movie few cared about until six weeks ago -- only heightens the fact that homophobia is one of the obvious reasons for the Academy having done so.

Professional awards analyst Tom O'Neil thought he saw something unusual brewing in Hollywood over the past several weeks. “Something weird is going on among Oscar Voters,” O'Neil wrote in The Envelope, an online site run by the Los Angeles Times. "Crash and Good Night, and Good Luck have their passionate supporters who gush their honest love of those best-picture nominees, but most non-Brokeback votes I hear from Oscar voters are really anti-Brokeback." And that translates to anti-gay.

Kenneth Turan, also of the Los Angeles Times, sees something similar in the aftermath of Crash's upset. “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.”

In retrospect, it's hard not to feel a little stupid for hoping that Brokeback would emerge victorious. America truly seemed to be changing on the issue of homosexuality. For every joke that ridiculed the “gay cowboy” movie, there was a joke mocking the guys who wouldn't see it. Only things haven't progressed as much as thought.

Some argue Hollywood can't be antigay since the top acting prize went to Philip Seymour Hoffman in Capote. But I put that right up there with Tom Hanks' wins for Philadelphia (as a dying gay man) and William Hurts' win for Kiss of the Spiderwoman (arguably not even gay, since Hurt's character says he wants to be a woman). This is not meant to take anything away from Hoffman, but nonetheless it sure appears that Hollywood, like America, has a much easier time accepting gays when they confirm all their stereotypes of effete, lisping, asexual men. But a movie about two masculine guys in love? That's apparently a different story.

Some might even argue that not giving Hoffman the Oscar would have been a travesty, given that he had won virtually every other Best Actor award leading up to the Oscars. How could the award be denied to the man who was so clearly the frontrunner?

But that certainly didn't stop Academy voters when it came to selecting the Best Picture.

There is a second, more nuanced explanation for the Brokeback snub. As the presenters made clear during the telecast, Hollywood is feeling defensive about declining box-office revenue. And since the nominations were announced in January, much has been made about Hollywood supposedly being “out of touch” with mainstream America. Indeed, the day of the Oscars, CNN ran a piece called “Out of Touch” wherein a reporter visited a small town in rural America to ask if anyone had seen, or would see, Brokeback. The answer for most, of course, was an indignant, “No!”

Folks in Hollywood may fear the competition presented by today's varied entertainment choices. Perhaps they were feeling uncomfortable with being seen as so different from the heartland. Or maybe it is the confluence of the two. Whichever the reason, it was Brokeback and the gay community they sacrificed to “save” themselves.

No doubt, had Brokeback won, the media would be reporting that Hollywood had proven they were wildly out of touch. Now the story is that even Hollywood isn't crazy enough to give an Oscar to “that” movie. For gay men, that makes us damned if we'd won and damned that we didn't.

What's so disappointing about this for so many gay men is that Brokeback was our movie. For years, we've been presented as prancing, mincing stereotypes, pathological killers, or suicidal depressives. Mel Gibson even threw us out of a tower in Braveheart. But with Brokeback, we had finally been given a movie that reflected the real experience and emotions of many of our lives, even if those reflections weren't happy. And we were even led to believe that our movie had crossed over and would be honored as Best Picture.

In retrospect, it's arguable that winning final prize was never really an option, at least not at this time and place in history.

But the story isn't likely to end here. Like the Democrats trying to negotiate the tricky waters of gay rights, Hollywood 's snub of Brokeback is likely to please no one. Fundamentalist Christians are unlikely to suddenly decide Hollywood does share their values. And by selecting Crash, Hollywood alienated legions of fair-minded Americans who know a cop-out when they see it.

Nor is gay America taking this lying down. Indeed, a backlash against the backlash is already brewing. Come back tomorrow and we'll talk about it.

http://www.afterelton.com/movies/2006/3/snub3.html

I think I may be changing my opinion on this social area, I dont know. I used to think quite harshly of gays (its wrong, immoral etc.), then thats kind of subsided as I see them more as friends and people now, like anyone else. Feedback.

Oh and Crash was a great film, but it had a feeling of been there done that to me. In fact I was quite shocked that it was even nominated for an Oscar (didn't even get a Golden Globe nod), so it winning is pretty shocking even just on the considerations of what each film achieved thus far.

[Prosperity]

but its about GAY people -typical conservative response

[footballhenry]

but its about GAY people -typical conservative response

:laugh: Im waiting for those(though not all conservatives are like that I hope). Im conservative, well I guess moderate?(still figurin it out) but why does being conservative warrant homophobia? It shouldn't, I think we should all stride to undertand and respect other perspectives to an extent. We'd be a better society if we did.

[TheDoyler23]

I saw both Crash and Brokeback, and while they were both very good, the latter was better.

[Prosperity]

:laugh: Im waiting for those(though not all conservatives are like that I hope). Im conservative, well I guess moderate?(still figurin it out) but why does being conservative warrant homophobia? It shouldn't, I think we should all stride to undertand and respect other perspectives to an extent. We'd be a better society if we did.

True, but what gets me is that the people who do say that (and there are a lot of them) haven't even seen the movie. Those same people will also point the gross revenues of movies and try to use that as the only factor to judge a movie. I haven't seen the movie myself, but everyone I know that has said it was great.

PS Munich was good but there were a few movies I saw that were definitely better (Crash and Syriana for example)

[The Evil Genius]

I only got to see Crash, out of the 5 that were nominated. While I liked Crash, I did think that some of the scenes were contrived. Not sure if they makes it less worthy though....

As an aside, I didn't recognize her in the role, but did anyone notice Marina Sirtis, of Star Trek TNG fame, played the shopkeepers wife in that movie?

[smashmowf]

I saw Capote and Crash....in my opinion Crash was great, Capote was very good....I found that even though the main character in Capote was a homosexual it was not a main function/idea of the movie.....he was a great writer that just happen to be homosexual.....Now Brokeback Mountain? Call it phobia but I have no interest in watching a story about two dudes poking each other in the chocolate canal and then establishing families...doesn't interest me.

Another thought to consider is how many superstars were in Crash...I would think that may affect the selection too.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Question:

Would Brokeback Mountain have been anything more than an average tragic romance if it wasn't about two men? What I mean is, it seems to be a pretty generic theme (like Romeo and Juliet or the love story in Titanic) with a different twist (two men).

[Chopper Dave]

I don't think any snub could top Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan.

[rincewind]

Question:

Would Brokeback Mountain have been anything more than an average tragic romance if it wasn't about two men? What I mean is, it seems to be a pretty generic theme (like Romeo and Juliet or the love story in Titanic) with a different twist (two men).

No, if it was a run of the mill romance (man/woman) everybody would have hated the two main characters since they were cheating - for some reason they get a free pass, not to mention sympathy, because they are gay.

[SkinInsite]

Or Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction/The Shawshank Redemption.

[Grimm]

Both these movies were garbage, it just goes to show that all that matters anymore is hype surrounding something and not the actual content of the thing being hyped

[skindogger47]

Question:

Would Brokeback Mountain have been anything more than an average tragic romance if it wasn't about two men? What I mean is, it seems to be a pretty generic theme (like Romeo and Juliet or the love story in Titanic) with a different twist (two men).

THANK YOU!!! If it weren't a "queer" movie, it wouldn't have warranted all this attention! Oh and by the way, I don't like it because it's a movie with cowboys, and I hate 'em all, gay or not.

[Chopper Dave]

Or Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction/The Shawshank Redemption.

Wow. I don't even remember that one. Three awesome movies. Thing is, I don't have a problem with any of them winning. They were all on par, IMO (I personally like PF and SR better, but they're all great movies), and any of them are Oscar-worthy. SPR was CLEARLY better than SiL.

[skindogger47]

I don't think any snub could top Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan.

that is an accurate assumption.

[SkinInsite]

Wow. I don't even remember that one. Three awesome movies. Thing is, I don't have a problem with any of them winning. They were all on par, IMO (I personally like PF and SR better, but they're all great movies), and any of them are Oscar-worthy. SPR was CLEARLY better than SiL.

Yeah i guess you are right. There was a great run of great movies from the early to mid 90's.

Then we get The English Patient(gag), Titanic (ugh) and finally Shakespeare in Love. Not suprisingly i got dragged to everyone of them.

[rincewind]

Or Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction/The Shawshank Redemption.

No way in HELL the academy would give that award to Pulp Fiction. Now, Shawshank - you may have a point.

[ntotoro]

Brokeback Mountain had no character development at all, a romance that had no logic behind it and seemed completely happenstance, had little flow and dragged at a snail-like pace, had ok-to-good acting (not great by any stretch, unless Heath Ledger playing an emotional cripple is considering genius by someone) and the dialog was almost out of Sesame Street.

Yet it lost Best Picture because of homophobia... ?

It was an ok movie. Not great. The only thing it really had going for it was scenery and I can get that off a postcard.

[TC4]

Well this is from movie critic Roger Ebert on the same subject:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060306/OSCARS/603070301

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.

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. 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?

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. 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.

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 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.

"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"?

Of course not. "Brokeback Mountain" was simply a better movie than "Capote." And "Crash" was better than "Brokeback Mountain," 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.

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. 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.

[Loki]

Question:

Would Brokeback Mountain have been anything more than an average tragic romance if it wasn't about two men? What I mean is, it seems to be a pretty generic theme (like Romeo and Juliet or the love story in Titanic) with a different twist (two men).

That was the point I was going to raise. I don't thinkl it was a case of homophobia. As a matter of fact I think the reasonhtne movie gained som much momentum was because it was about gay men. Outside of that fact it was a very regular movie at best.....

[Mooka]

I only saw Crash and Munich so I can't really comment, but I enjoyed Crash. I'll admit after seeing it I wasn't thinking picture of the year, but it was very good. I have no desire to see any of the other films, look a bit boring.

There's no bigger snub then Shawshank Redemption not winning a single oscar or Titanic winning anything, 3+hrs of looking at my watch. As good as it gets, LA confidential, even Boogie Nights, all much better then Titanic.

[Fatty P For The Pulitzer]

I agree with Dave, Shakespeare over Private Ryan has got to be the biggest. As for Brokeback over Crash, maybe to you personally it is a huge snub. But overall, it's nowhere near a snub. When the experts were all saying in the days leading up that it was pretty much a pick-em between the two, it's not a snub. I can't really comment though on how I felt. I'm glad Crash won, I thought it was a very good movie. I have not seen Brokeback, nor do I have any desire to see it whatsoever for the same reasons given above. It looks to me like a very generic, infidelity love story, with great scenary and camera work. Even if it weren't about two gay guys, it just did not interest me at all. The only reason there is an uproar over it is because people think Hollywood copped out because it is a gay love story, not because Crash wasn't as good. Ebert's article hit it spot on, imo.

[Mr. Nostril]

I saw Crash and Munich, and wasn't a huge fan of either.

Munich had 1 awful scene for every 2 great scenes.

Example:

They almost blow up that little girl: great

They almost blow up Eric Bana: great

That sex scene where he remembers scenes from munich: awful

Crash - It's like the sitcom treatment of racial issues. The type of thing that does more harm than good. People who would relate to this type of racism don't care, and people who do care about racism find it easy to differentiate themselves from the people in this movie. For every stereotype it pretends to tear down it perpetuates another one.

It is a very pretty stylistic movie(I'm not going to say well shot, because I have issues with how it's style reflects the subject matter), but even that I don't feel good about, because all the positive stylistic elements of the movie are just rip offs of Magnolia.

My top 5 movies of 2005:

1. The Squid and the Whale(not winning original screenplay was the academy's biggest snub this year)

2. King Kong

3. Junebug

4. Sin City

5. Millions

I might be accused of just buying into box office numbers and popular opinion by putting King Kong on my list. But the other 4 movies I've listed made a total of 89 million.

Sin City - 74 mill

The Squid and the whale - 7 mill

Millions - 6 mill

Junebug - 2 mill

[TC4]

All of this makes me think of a quote by actor Charlton Heston, when he said that there are probally more closeted conservatives in Hollywood that there are closeted gays

[Darth Tater]

Question:

Would Brokeback Mountain have been anything more than an average tragic romance if it wasn't about two men? What I mean is, it seems to be a pretty generic theme (like Romeo and Juliet or the love story in Titanic) with a different twist (two men).

Bingo!