Copyright © 2003-2006 Movies Kick Ass. All Rights Reserved
| What went wrong for "Brokeback Mountain"? Spain and Canada legalized same sex couple marriage, Elton John married his lifelong partner David Furnish, New England states held various civil unions between homosexual couples... The year 2005 earned the unofficial title of "gay year" due to major changes in countries' legislations and the public eye to a point where it became obvious that a film featuring two cowboys who fall in love and shed the image Marlboro has consistently tried to perpetuate would win the Oscar. Early on from its production stages "Mountain" was subject of backlash fear, since it touched a very delicate manner (homosexuality) and was bringing it not only to mainstream, but even to (gasp) critics notice. It won Best Picture at the Venice Film Festival and in a surprising move, Hollywood decided to embrace it with the same fervor Europe had bestowed upon it. This was a shaky basis since now it can be argued that America (which is going through a very bad public image situation)was trying to become as liberal and open minded as the old continent, even if deep inside they didn't feel it. Once the film was released State side it earned a surprising cultural status small only in comparison to its universal critical acclaim. The so called "red states" banned it and encouraged the victimization of the whole gay community that turned it into a cause and a violation of their rights, in a move I can only compare to the disgusting campaign Mel Gibson used for "The Passion of the Christ" which being a poor film almost earned its director's canonization on the hands of the millions of Christian fanatics who as if owners of a time machine claimed the violent story was how the events had truly unfolded. Let it be stated clear that I consider "Brokeback Mountain" vastly superior to Gibson's brainwashing melodrama and it was my pick among the nominees for Best Picture by a landslide, but in the same way of the religious epic it drew its strength from an audience that chose to believe the film had been made exclusively for them. That is the problem when films about social issues turn into issues themselves, the only element most of the Best Picture nominees share. The cast and its famed director graced magazine covers, appeared in every show and became staple for late night comedians. As the year ended, the film headed almost every critics' list, sweeping awards in an unprecedented roll last seen with "Schindler's List" almost fifteen years ago, it went on to win the rare perfect trifecta at the Golden Globes (Picture, Director, Screenplay), the British Academy Award, the prestigious Directors Guild Award and the Broadcast Film Critics top honors, all of them customarily accurate prognosticators of Oscar night. What most people failed to see was that they weren't really getting the feeling of the film itself. Because it is the first major award contender that directly addresses gay themes, it acquired an aura of importance (not self importance since Ang Lee's work is always able to be humble in spite of its undeniable majesty) and all of a sudden it was no longer a film, but a social phenomenon. Box office numbers falsely led to the idea that everyone was embracing the film and instead of considering the fact that some saw it based on previous work of the director and cast, or just out of curiosity, chose to believe that it was "the" missing link in the wide acceptance of homosexuality. The lead actors were being called brave and ground breaking (adjectives both Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal supported) for the kissing scenes, which only enforced the idea of homosexuality as a monstrosity worthy of awards for those who dare to play them (no wonder why gay actors choose to remain in the closet). These elements were misleading and instead of building security ended up contributing to an increased homophobia which might've cost the film Hollywood's most coveted award. Somehow, without realizing how everyone ended up contributing to the crash (pun intended) and burn of one of the most, unjustly, controversial films in history, "Brokeback" supporters not only feel it lost the award, they feel the Academy denied it to them. What went right for "Crash"? When you think about the way this film survived a whole year in the minds of Academy members (it was released last spring and had a successful, relatively quiet, running during the 2004 Toronto International Film Festival) it instantly shatters all conceptions that have named December the best moment to make an impact on the awards circuit. Director/writer Paul Haggis had a great showing at the 2004 Oscars where the film he wrote "Million Dollar Baby" appeared out of nowhere and swept the major categories (no award for Haggis though) following the same surprising pattern "Crash" had this year. When you think about it, the film must've sounded like a joke at first. A huge cast made up of such widely respected thespians as Sandra Bullock, Ryan Philippe, Thandie Newton, Jennifer Esposito and Brendan Fraser in an important ensemble piece a la "Traffic" and "Magnolia" set in the city of Los Angeles which represented the worst and the best of humanity at once (it is no coincidence that the Best Picture has gone to films set in LA two years in a row, these people love to honor themselves). It wasn't featured in almost any of the lists come December, it had already been released on DVD and the only real fanatics it had in show business were influential critic Roger Ebert and Oprah Winfrey. Well maybe "only" was lightly used in the previous statement since these two always make sure they are heard. No major Golden Globe nominations, the SAG ensemble was expected and then came January 31st. The Academy Award nominations were announced and "Crash" was a relatively shocking nominee in Best Picture, Best Director with Matt Dillon earning what many thought would be the only important nod the film had chance of getting as Best Supporting Actor. It must be noted that it obtained a Best Editing nomination, "Brokeback" didn't and no film, since 1980's "Ordinary People" has won Best Picture without being in contention for this award. Still, this was probably something just Oscar freaks noticed, little did we know it would become something as unusual as the costume anecdote back in 81, when a confident Warren Beatty whose epic "Reds" was the frontrunner, stated that whichever film won Best Costume Design would win Best Picture. Curiously it happened that way and unfortunately for Beatty the film that got the award was "Chariots of Fire". Nobody felt its presence was threatening, until a few weeks ago when it became the spoiler everyone was talking about. Keeping up with the similarities to "Million Dollar Baby". The film gained notoriety from the presence of breakout star Terrence Howard, who was nominated as Best Actor for "Hustle & Flow", but campaigned for both films. While "Brokeback" had a snobby feeling of classic stylization, "Crash" was urban, hip and accessible. The underdog slowly became top dog and that is why it wasn't such a big surprise when it won. It certainly isn't a masterpiece, but it's a well made film that fooled people into buying the important ideas it exposed. Unfortunately for the people who worked in it (who were inarguably the most excited winners of the night) their film will go down in history along the names of "Around the World in 80 Days" and "A Beautiful Mind" as some of the most undeserving films to be named Best Picture. It won because it makes a safe social statement, the Academy knew there would be "Brokeback" backlash and spared itself from more controversy by giving it a top award, but not "the one". Again, another theory leads me to believe that once again the Academy voted with its heart as it often chooses to do. "Brokeback Mountain" is a sweeping romance, but some people might've discovered the fact that if it wasn't for the fact that it's a love story between men, the film would've gone completely undetermined by everyone. We are no longer in a time when a doomed affair on its own is able to draw the crowds unless it has the "freak" element, which is the unfortunate way the press has treated Ang Lee's poem. And even more important some so called liberals must've wondered if "Brokeback" would be he film that really made the change or should they wait for the next big one? (Which we all know is coming and Steve Carrell might be responsible for it) Even if you really like it, sometimes it's hard to root for the leads, I too felt that their love being restricted because of society was awful, but I was more affected by the suffering of their wives who had no fault and became the real victims of the film. I, like the Academy, love the unfairness in the way women are treated especially when they are wives and mothers who give better performances than the men as does the stunning Michelle Williams. But I know of course that the Academy relishes in keeping them as victims and by acknowledging their talent, also recognizes their inability or their utter lack of interest in making a change and striving for better conditions. So can be said for the tragic cowboys. While in "Crash", even a car thief, turned accidental slave smuggler, gets his chance at redemption and his victims get to grasp for an instant the American dream. In the end what happened? Was Tinseltown rewarding the fake morality it tries to preserve? Did it decide to stop the social advantages the "acceptance" of homosexuality would bring? Did they vote with their hearts? Or what the hell, has the Best Editing Oscar suddenly become the most coveted award in the film industry? Share your opinion. |
| Oscar 2005 Predictions Fashion Post-Show Column |