Annie Proulx (BBM author) lashes out!!!

[strandinthewind]

Go get em darlin' :eek:


'Brokeback' author: We were robbed
Annie Proulx rips 'Crash,' Academy

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Annie Proulx, whose 1997 short story inspired the film "Brokeback Mountain," has penned a scattershot blast in a British newspaper unleashing her anger over the film's best-picture Oscar loss.

Proulx criticizes Oscar voters and the Academy Awards ceremony in the 1,094-word rant, which appeared in Saturday's issue of The Guardian, a liberal paper boasting 1.2 million readers daily.

The best-picture Oscar went to "Crash," which focuses on race relations in Los Angeles.

Academy members who vote for the year's best film are "out of touch not only with the shifting larger culture and the yeasty ferment that is America these days, but also out of touch with their own segregated city," Proulx writes. (Read her Guardian column here.)

The 70-year-old Pulitzer-prize winning author points out that "Brokeback," which was nominated for eight Academy Awards, was named best picture at the Independent Spirit Awards one day before the March 5 Oscars.

"If you are looking for smart judging based on merit, skip the Academy Awards next year and pay attention to the Independent Spirit choices," Proulx advises.

She even lashes out at Lionsgate, the distribution company behind "Crash."

"Rumour has it that Lionsgate inundated the academy voters with DVD copies of Trash -- excuse me -- Crash a few weeks before the ballot deadline," Proulx writes.

She decries the "atmosphere of insufferable self-importance" inside the Kodak Theatre, the Oscars site, and describes the audience as a "somewhat dim LA crowd." The show, she writes, was "reminiscent of a small-town talent-show night."

"Clapping wildly for bad stuff enhances this," Proulx writes.

She notes that "Brokeback's" three Oscar wins, for original score, adapted screenplay and direction for Ang Lee put it "on equal footing with King Kong."

When Jack Nicholson announced "Crash" as the best-picture winner, "there was a gasp of shock," Proulx writes.

"It was a safe pick of 'controversial film' for the heffalumps," she writes, using the elephant-like "Winnie the Pooh" character to describe academy voters.

"For those who call this little piece a Sour Grapes Rant," Proulx concludes, "play it as it lays."

Calls by the Associated Press to Proulx's Wyoming home and her literary agent, Elizabeth Darhansoff, were not immediately returned Tuesday.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/15/film.proulx.ap/index.html

[JazmenFlowers]

I agree with some of what she says, but, to me, she comes across as a bitter, sore loser. Let it go. The movie is a milestone already. What she's saying doesn't help it's fight.

[wondergirl9847]

How very klassy of her. :rolleyes:

Why a British newspaper...why not an American newspaper?

How we act in defeat shows our true character.

[strandinthewind]

Interestingly, even if she is having her sour grapes (which she sort of admits), is what she said true?

[carrie721]

yikes. she's entitled to her sour grapes, but i really don't think brokeback's loss detracts from the huge impact it's had on our culture.

[cliffdweller]

"Rumour has it that Lionsgate inundated the academy voters with DVD copies of Trash -- excuse me -- Crash a few weeks before the ballot deadline," Proulx writes.

This? Poor form.

I agree, Crash was pretty bad and unworthy of the best picture Oscar, but she really just sounds like a bratty 11 year old here, and it does not help her crusade at all.

[Rickypt]

I'm already on record that picking Crash as Best Picture was a disgrace, and I believe that discomfort with homosexuality played a partial role.

However, I find Proulx's rant to be in extremely poor taste. She has every right to express disappointment and her belief that BB was a better film, but this is not the way.

I've read her entire piece, and she implies that the message of BB Mountain is more important than that of Crash. This is untrue and I think a very unwise statement to put out. The messages are equally important; it's just that BB Mountain was a far better movie.

[Moony]

This? Poor form.

I agree, Crash was pretty bad and unworthy of the best picture Oscar, but she really just sounds like a bratty 11 year old here, and it does not help her crusade at all.
You are definitely on point. I can see why she would be frustrated, but Proulx is making a huge deal of nothing really. Sure, Crash was a ****ty film. Yes, in my opinion, Brokeback Mountain deserved Best Picture. But in all honesty, who gives a crap what the Academy does these days? It's not to be taken that seriously (at least, in my view).

[JazmenFlowers]

I haven't seen Crash so I can't really compare. I agree with RickyPT that the problem lies in her high school note swapping way of taking jabs at someone else's work in such a derogatory way...resorting to this kind of stuff makes me really look at her in a different light.

It would serve Proulx and BBM far better if she had made her point in the same fashion she made her point about love with her short story.

[cliffdweller]

I've read her entire piece, and she implies that the message of BB Mountain is more important than that of Crash. This is untrue and I think a very unwise statement to put out. The messages are equally important; it's just that BB Mountain was a far better movie.

I disagree a bit. I tend to believe that BB's message is more relevant, timely, and problematic, therefore the more dire message to be addressed in the here and now. Racism, while not eradicated from the face of the earth by no means, is still not as prevalent an issue right now. Homosexuals are being denied basic, human rights just because of their sexual preference, it is mandatory that this issue be dealt with immediately just as Civil Rights was such an issue back in the 60's and 70's. Homosexual liberation is this era's new Civil Rights debate and it needs to be treated as such.

[strandinthewind]

I think BBM's loss was not totally or even significantly due to the gay theme. I think Crash garnered more votes for two reasons:

1. The others siponed some of BBM's votes and

2. Crash had an all star cast and many votes for say Bullock or some other ensemble player.

So, I do not see BBM's loss as an insult to gaydom.

[cliffdweller]

I think BBM's loss was not totally or even significantly due to the gay theme. I think Crash garnered more votes for two reasons:

1. The others siponed some of BBM's votes and

2. Crash had an all star cast and many votes for say Bullock or some other ensemble player.

So, I do not see BBM's loss as an insult to gaydom.


"gaydom" :laugh:

What is more all-star than Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal? Crash had some tired, sorry-ass actors like Sandra Bullock (whom you've mentioned as a "star") and Matt frickin' Dillon who I loathe (sorry Livia!). Sandra Bullock's okay, but yeesh, she ain't that great.

[JazmenFlowers]

I think BBM's loss was not totally or even significantly due to the gay theme. I think Crash garnered more votes for two reasons:

1. The others siponed some of BBM's votes and

2. Crash had an all star cast and many votes for say Bullock or some other ensemble player.

So, I do not see BBM's loss as an insult to gaydom.
plus it dealt with a lot of Hollywood-ish themes, from what I understand.

[JazmenFlowers]

I disagree a bit. I tend to believe that BB's message is more relevant, timely, and problematic, therefore the more dire message to be addressed in the here and now. Racism, while not eradicated from the face of the earth by no means, is still not as prevalent an issue right now. Homosexuals are being denied basic, human rights just because of their sexual preference, it is mandatory that this issue be dealt with immediately just as Civil Rights was such an issue back in the 60's and 70's. Homosexual liberation is this era's new Civil Rights debate and it needs to be treated as such.
I disagree a bit. Racism is just as prevelant now as it was then. I think the public's consciousness of racism is just watered down.

I think they are both issues that are very important and very prevelant.

[strandinthewind]

"gaydom" :laugh:

What is more all-star than Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal? Crash had some tired, sorry-ass actors like Sandra Bullock (whom you've mentioned as a "star") and Matt frickin' Dillon who I loathe (sorry Livia!). Sandra Bullock's okay, but yeesh, she ain't that great.

Well, like her or not, Bullock is very popular :shrug: ALso, Cheadle is popular amongst the academy set as well. I think the presence of those stars (Dillon, Bullock, Cheadle all have appeared many times with their names above the title which is the def. of star :shrug: ) siphoned enough votes. I think that along with Crash being an LA movie and the the others feeding off each other for votes, enabled Crash to win. Surely, some people refused to vote for the gay cowboy movie, but I think those were not that many. i wish we could see the voting.

[strandinthewind]

plus it dealt with a lot of Hollywood-ish themes, from what I understand.

It def. was a Hollwood movie, etc., which I think helped it.

Note - I did not really like Crash, I am just thinking about why it won.

[strandinthewind]

I disagree a bit. Racism is just as prevelant now as it was then. I think the public's consciousness of racism is just watered down . . . .

I agree to a point, but I think things are drastically better than even ten years ago and they are continuing to improve, and that applies to both public acceptance of gaydom and the erasure of racism.

[wondergirl9847]

Racism is more subtle these days. There's less blatant KKK-like behavior, and more of the under-the-breath comments and stuff. A woman pulling their purse closer to them when passing a black person on the street...that kind of thing.

Homophobia is like racism was back in the day....blatant. People using the Q word and stuff. I hate to say this, but my parents both have used words I don't approve of and I've called them on it. My dad's a hardhead, but my mom used the phrase "Jewed down" once and I said "Mom, don't say that." She looked at me like "WTH?" and I told her what it inferred. She's not used it again, that I can recall. :) My grandparents (well, my Pop has left us, but my grandmother is still here) have also used phrases and words I despise. Also, that whole "No mixin' the races" BS. I just tune them all out. LOL I love and respect my family, but I don't subscribe to some of their beliefs. My parents grew up in a different era, so it's understandable, but I still get pi$$ed when I hear stuff.

[cliffdweller]

I disagree a bit. Racism is just as prevelant now as it was then. I think the public's consciousness of racism is just watered down.

I think they are both issues that are very important and very prevelant.


I think both issues are important too, but I'm talking about basic rights here, rights afforded to everyone accept homosexuals. The gay marriage ban was a slap in the homosexual community's face, it was like saying, "sorry, but not only do we disavow your lifestyle, culture, community, and everything you hold to be sacred, we also believe you to be 1/3 human." Or maybe it was 2/3, you know the percentage slaves were considered to be human back in the 1800's?

Anyway, it's for those reasons that I think gay rights is a much more urgent issue than racism these days even though racism is still a cancer on humanity that needs to be eradicated too. Thank the gods for the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's affording African Americans civil liberties they were entitled to but denied for so long. However, the tide has turned. I don't think we can live in a true democracy when homosexuals' basic human rights are infringed upon because some people in high places (with even higher religious beliefs) don't agree with their sexual preference and lifestyle. They think that homosexuality is a moral outrage, however the true moral outrage is that we have allowed our government to rule on the principals of moral legislation with no secular line of demarcation.

[strandinthewind]

I think both issues are important too, but I'm talking about basic rights here, rights afforded to everyone accept homosexuals. The gay marriage ban was a slap in the homosexual community's face, it was like saying, "sorry, but not only do we disavow your lifestyle, culture, community, and everything you hold to be sacred, we also believe you to be 1/3 human." Or maybe it was 2/3, you know the percentage slaves were considered to be human back in the 1800's?


I agree, but the other strides by the gays and their supporters have been stellar. I mean even W did not rescind the Executive Order Clinton signed that made it illegal to fire a Federal employee because they are gay. I mean that is huge given the administrations pandering to the far right, which is what the DOMA and subsequent Constitutional Amendment proposal was, though something like 2/3 of Americans supported it on the state level, which makes the far right's efforts mainstream.

[Nixxxed]

Are Annie's remarks all part of the ad campaign started at this site?:

http://davecullen.com/forum/

Here's the actual ad: http://davecullen.com/brokebackmountain/img/ad-final.jpg

I don't really understand why they're doing this. I mean - would "we" have taken out a similar ad to say the Mac should have won that "Silver Springs" Grammy in 1998?

And on a side note, I had no idea Annie P. was 70! :eek: I'm even more impressed with her now for some weird reason, despite these off-the-cuff remarks.

[Rickypt]

I disagree a bit. I tend to believe that BB's message is more relevant, timely, and problematic, therefore the more dire message to be addressed in the here and now. Racism, while not eradicated from the face of the earth by no means, is still not as prevalent an issue right now. Homosexuals are being denied basic, human rights just because of their sexual preference, it is mandatory that this issue be dealt with immediately just as Civil Rights was such an issue back in the 60's and 70's. Homosexual liberation is this era's new Civil Rights debate and it needs to be treated as such.

All good points. Where I stray from this is that I didn't personally find BB Mountain to be 100% relevant to the current gay experience and found the message to be a little dated. And intentionally so, given when it takes place. But that would get me back into the BB Mountain debate, which I've retired from.

Even though I hated the film, I thought that Crash's point wasn't just that racism exists and is a bad thing, but that it exists among all ethnic groups, bubbles just under the surface, and keeps all of us from realizing our full humanity. With more subtlety and good writing, it could have been a really powerful movie.

[DavidMn]

I saw both and thoroughly enjoyed both of them.

[elie]

In my opinion, both messages were equally relevant and urgent. The fact that actions against racism have been taken for years, does not make it a dated issue. But in my honest opinion, that has not very much (I am not saying "nothing", just not very much) to do with the criteria for winning or losing an oscar. The awards show is not an Amnesty International contest on the most important issue of nowadays. The best movie has to -supposedly- win, and that was not Crash. A movie that is so schematic and simplistic can not meet my criteria for the best picture of any year, regardless its opponents at the awards. And even though I am not gay, I absolutely loved BBM (but then again, if I may be completely honest, I would have to agree with Ang Lee that is not even a gay movie. I thought that it was a movie about love and desperation, that just used a different vehicle -a gay affair- to express those themes).
I don't know why Crash won - maybe it was good marketing and promotion, maybe the All-star cast, maybe the homophobia even- but it is certainly not the first time that the best picture of the year wins the Oscar (I would cite as examples "Chicago", "Beautiful mind" from the recent history).
And I would never for one minute think that the oscar loss diminishes the impact, importance and greatness of a movie. If so, then we would all think that "Traffic" is inferior to "The Gladiator" and "The pianist" inferior to "Chicago", which IMO is certainly not the case.

As for the homophobia issue, as I said above, I don't know (and I don't think any of us knows) to what extent it influenced the outcome, but it is there. However, I am not sure that a "gay" movie (I already said that I think that was not the point) winning best picture would change much. I can see how it would make the gay community happy, but I 'm afraid it takes more than an Oscar to get past prejudice and sexual racism.

PS. I certainly don't mean to sound disrespectful to any gay people. I just think that the significance attributed to the awards is exaggerated. The real problems (and the real solutions) lie elsewhere.

[Boots]

Why did Crash win? It had exceptional writing, beautiful acting, and a hard hitting arc that could leave you on the edge of your seat. It dug deep into the psyche of our society and purged concepts about racism we never knew we had. It had stunning, sweeping moments of anger, horror, sorrow. I'm sorry there are some who don't understand this. Sometimes the typical epic film, like Brokeback Mountain, as wonderful as it was, dazzles you with a heartbreaking story and gorgeous cinematography, but it doesn't hit the nerve that "Crash" did. I also got tired of Hollywood straining themselves to pat themselves on the back regarding getting Brokeback made. Considering we can't even get same sex marriages on the agenda in this country, that many people are still homophobic and will condescend to those sweet young gay men in the film who cannot live the life they want...but they wouldn't ever want them to get married...that their family is not a family, but something that God condemns. So, I've got a problem with the way some people perceive this film. Crash shows a basic, human condition in today's post 911 society that we cannot deny.

There was word that Brokeback didn't get the award, due to the possibility that some academy members felt that men cheating on their wives - and even cheating on their own feelings - was a big snag.

It's good to see a film like Crash get the top honor. To those who don't agree...too bad. I had to suffer through "Titanic" and "The English Patient"...both top Oscar winners in their day, and I ...for the life of me...could NOT understand why those two manipulative, crappy, sappy, films took home best picture.

[DavidMn]

Why did Crash win? It had exceptional writing, beautiful acting, and a hard hitting arc that could leave you on the edge of your seat. It dug deep into the psyche of our society and purged concepts about racism we never knew we had. It had stunning, sweeping moments of anger, horror, sorrow. I'm sorry there are some who don't understand this. Sometimes the typical epic film, like Brokeback Mountain, as wonderful as it was, dazzles you with a heartbreaking story and gorgeous cinematography, but it doesn't hit the nerve that "Crash" did. I also got tired of Hollywood straining themselves to pat themselves on the back regarding getting Brokeback made. Considering we can't even get same sex marriages on the agenda in this country, that many people are still homophobic and will condescend to those sweet young gay men in the film who cannot live the life they want...but they wouldn't ever want them to get married...that their family is not a family, but something that God condemns. So, I've got a problem with the way some people perceive this film. Crash shows a basic, human condition in today's post 911 society that we cannot deny.

There was word that Brokeback didn't get the award, due to the possibility that some academy members felt that men cheating on their wives - and even cheating on their own feelings - was a big snag.

It's good to see a film like Crash get the top honor. To those who don't agree...too bad. I had to suffer through "Titanic" and "The English Patient"...both top Oscar winners in their day, and I ...for the life of me...could NOT understand why those two manipulative, crappy, sappy, films took home best picture.It's good to see someone defend Crash like youre doing. Good for you.:)

[sparky]

Sure homophobia had something to do with BBM not winning. I know a lot of AMPAS members and more than one talked to groups of people on sets and in offices and heard "I am not going to watch that fag movie and I won't vote for it." There are a LOT of members who refused to watch it, period. And they weren't shy about gloating about it. The Oscars are, at their heart, a popularity contest as well. People vote for movies their friends are in and their friends worked on. Considering the number of actors in Crash and the fact that it was filmed in LA, it got a lot of votes for that reason as well.
That is a simple flaw in the process of such awards contests.

As for Annie Proulx's comments, she has a right to her opinion, and I couldn't agree with her more. It's refreshing to see someone not afraid to speak their mind and be politically incorrect. I may not agree completely that Crash was Trash, but it certainly was a low brow, manipulative, made for television feeling film. It isn't great cinema, and won't be remebered as such. It completely dumbed down the issues, and save for a few scenes, didn't say anything new about the subject. It isn't changing anyone's minds or hearts. It was like a greatest hits version of racial tension. All of my black and latin friends found it to be kind of embarrassing. BTW, it was always planned to be a TV pilot. That's why Lion's Gate dropped the cash to send out 130,000 screener copies. They are trying to make it into a television franchise.

To answer Chuck, I am a member of the Dave Cullen forum. The reason we did the ad was to make a point that AMPAS is the only major body that didn't give the film Best Picture. And to offer thanks to the people involved for making a movie that truly has changed the lives of countless people in the world. I don't know that Crash has generated a forum of over 3000 people
who can raise 24 grand in two days to make a statement. I doubt people are going to see Crash 20 times. I have talked to a few people who have told me seeing BBM has been the pivotal moment of their lives. Perhaps it sounds extreme or silly. But then again we are not only living in an age where it is almost prohibited by law to express an unpopular or "politically incorrect" opinion, but also in an age where anyone who is passionate about anything is an object of ridicule.

Also, if AMPAS really wants to be taken seriously, they ought not have their
members making statements in the press that they refused to watch a nominated film. That's another thing we are taking on. The head of the organization is such a jackass he doesn't know how many letters they have gotten. They are praying people will just shut up about it. Doubtful. Extremly doubtful.

[dissention]

Why did Crash win? It had exceptional writing, beautiful acting, and a hard hitting arc that could leave you on the edge of your seat. It dug deep into the psyche of our society and purged concepts about racism we never knew we had. It had stunning, sweeping moments of anger, horror, sorrow. I'm sorry there are some who don't understand this. Sometimes the typical epic film, like Brokeback Mountain, as wonderful as it was, dazzles you with a heartbreaking story and gorgeous cinematography, but it doesn't hit the nerve that "Crash" did. I also got tired of Hollywood straining themselves to pat themselves on the back regarding getting Brokeback made. Considering we can't even get same sex marriages on the agenda in this country, that many people are still homophobic and will condescend to those sweet young gay men in the film who cannot live the life they want...but they wouldn't ever want them to get married...that their family is not a family, but something that God condemns. So, I've got a problem with the way some people perceive this film. Crash shows a basic, human condition in today's post 911 society that we cannot deny.

There was word that Brokeback didn't get the award, due to the possibility that some academy members felt that men cheating on their wives - and even cheating on their own feelings - was a big snag.

It's good to see a film like Crash get the top honor. To those who don't agree...too bad. I had to suffer through "Titanic" and "The English Patient"...both top Oscar winners in their day, and I ...for the life of me...could NOT understand why those two manipulative, crappy, sappy, films took home best picture.

"Crash" is a quintessential bad movie. Bad in every way; from the writing to the direction, down to the cinematography that strains to be "realistic" and "gritty" but only ends up being an exercise in annoying those who can see through the filmmakers delusions of grandeur to the superficial sludge that it truly is. It's so eager to be taken seriously that it fails to realize how insistently manipulative it is in it's quest for intellectual recognition on a social level. Maybe it should have concentrated on being a good movie instead of aspiring to be The Greatest Race Film of All Time when the material being worked with was amateurish and on par with the deconstruction of racism found on Channel One during Black History Month.

Paul Haggis takes more characters than can be counted on two hands, tosses them into a blender with contrived situations and woefully cliched observations about race, and spreads the resulting batter out onto a few reels of film that don't even run for two whole hours. The characters resemble no human beings I've met in my lifetime, they're merely caricatures constructed from Haggis' idea of what racists and victims of racism, one in the same to him, hence the labored point to the whole idiotic mess, are like. Not one of his chracters is onscreen long enough to be cared about, even though it would be nearly impossible for such a feat to be accomplished since each one of them embodies the sort of stereotyping that Haggis spends so many minutes preaching against from atop his soapbox. I'm convinced that he saved a pair of boxing gloves from his last movie, "Million Dollar Baby," just so that he could beat us over the head with this one.

He gives us the rich white woman who is afraid of the scary negroes, oh my. The racist cop. The black man who acts like a white man. The Middle Eastern family that runs a convenience store. The ghetto homies who thieve all around town. It's patently offensive, and lazy, to be preached at about racism and stereotyping when the very people who are doing the preaching are doing the exact thing they're decrying, and doing it with such a somber face. All of it ends up resembling an exercise in middlebrow horse-beating by humdrum dumdum's who wouldn't know racism from flotsam if they were asked to identify both.

The performances leave one with the impression that the actors have been bitten by some pesky bug that implanted the idea that they're making something of incredible importance into their consciousness. They take equal part in the moralizing being done, and gleefully so because it also gives them the perfect opportunity to yell & scream at each other for 100 minutes in some remarkable, if obvious, attempts at Oscar-baiting. How else would one explain Don Cheadle, earnest to the point of unintentional hilarity, uttering such howlers like "I think we miss that touch so much that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something"? It's embarrassing. The type of thing one would expect from a film student who was just inspired by Magnolia, completely unaware that even that flick was aped from Robert Altman.

I'm not trashing the movie because it's so brash and because it insists on shoving the "message" down the audiences throat, either. Lars von Trier does that in every one of his movies and I love them. The difference is that he confesses to it almost immediately in his movies, whereas swill like "Crash" tries to be sly and shifty about it, attempting to pass off what you're viewing as realistic and no more preachy than hearing a white man refer to a black man as "nigger" in real life. That's absurd. And crass and self-defeating. Grotesque, actually.

I also must admit that I've been trying very hard not to make a crack about how apt the title of the movie is. I almost succeeded.

[Nixxxed]

To answer Chuck, I am a member of the Dave Cullen forum. The reason we did the ad was to make a point that AMPAS is the only major body that didn't give the film Best Picture. And to offer thanks to the people involved for making a movie that truly has changed the lives of countless people in the world. I don't know that Crash has generated a forum of over 3000 people who can raise 24 grand in two days to make a statement. I doubt people are going to see Crash 20 times. I have talked to a few people who have told me seeing BBM has been the pivotal moment of their lives. Perhaps it sounds extreme or silly. But then again we are not only living in an age where it is almost prohibited by law to express an unpopular or "politically incorrect" opinion, but also in an age where anyone who is passionate about anything is an object of ridicule.

Hey Sparks!

Thanks for the info. Although now I'm more confused than when I first asked my question about the campaign. And here's why:

Starting 15 seconds after the best picture Oscar was announced every headline I read for the next 2 days said "Brokeback snubbed for BP" or something along those lines. And then, the body of most of the stories listed or referenced all the other BP awards that went to BBM, hence the "snub".

So, why did your campaign focus on this (in my eyes) widely-reported fact, instead of focusing on why it happened - which is what you listed in your first paragraph? You have firsthand proof, and I'm sure many others do as well. Why isn't it a "Homophobic Hollywood" campaign, getting all this *really* out in the open? Or is that coming next?

And then there's the whole issue of how $24-grand could help the community in so many other ways. But I realize that's a double-edged sword - small vs. big picture outlook.

And I'm not dissing - like I said, just don't understand. :wavey: :xoxo:

[Moony]

Sparky and Diss are back? I think I just had an orgasm

[trackaghost]

Why did Crash win? It had exceptional writing, beautiful acting, and a hard hitting arc that could leave you on the edge of your seat. It dug deep into the psyche of our society and purged concepts about racism we never knew we had. It had stunning, sweeping moments of anger, horror, sorrow. I'm sorry there are some who don't understand this.

I understood Crash. I think it's insulting to say that I and others didn't like it because we didn't understand it. I also understood it was heavy-handed, muddled and completely unoriginal. As for acting, I personally didn't find any of the performances in that movie as moving or heartbreaking as Heath Ledger's in Brokeback or as brilliant and thoughtful as Philip Seymour Hoffman in Capote.

Edit: Oh and Matt Dillon is far more brilliant in Factotum than in Crash.


Crash shows a basic, human condition in today's post 911 society that we cannot deny.

That everyone is basically racist?


It's good to see a film like Crash get the top honor. To those who don't agree...too bad. I had to suffer through "Titanic" and "The English Patient"...both top Oscar winners in their day, and I ...for the life of me...could NOT understand why those two manipulative, crappy, sappy, films took home best picture.

I thought Crash was every bit as manipulative as those films.

[trackaghost]

Sure homophobia had something to do with BBM not winning. I know a lot of AMPAS members and more than one talked to groups of people on sets and in offices and heard "I am not going to watch that fag movie and I won't vote for it." There are a LOT of members who refused to watch it, period. And they weren't shy about gloating about it. The Oscars are, at their heart, a popularity contest as well. People vote for movies their friends are in and their friends worked on. Considering the number of actors in Crash and the fact that it was filmed in LA, it got a lot of votes for that reason as well.
That is a simple flaw in the process of such awards contests.


I'm sure there are lots of different factors to why Brokeback didn't win, Fox bombarding Academy members with screeners probably didn't hurt either. It's just a damn shame really, although I think when people look back in years to come it will be Brokeback Mountain that's remembered.

[sparky]

Hey Sparks!

Thanks for the info. Although now I'm more confused than when I first asked my question about the campaign. And here's why:

Starting 15 seconds after the best picture Oscar was announced every headline I read for the next 2 days said "Brokeback snubbed for BP" or something along those lines. And then, the body of most of the stories listed or referenced all the other BP awards that went to BBM, hence the "snub".

So, why did your campaign focus on this (in my eyes) widely-reported fact, instead of focusing on why it happened - which is what you listed in your first paragraph? You have firsthand proof, and I'm sure many others do as well. Why isn't it a "Homophobic Hollywood" campaign, getting all this *really* out in the open? Or is that coming next?

For a few reasons. Number one, witness the sour grapes label tossed at Annie Proulx. There have already been articles about the campaign portraying the contributors as "bitchy queens" when there was nothing bitchy about it.

Number two, many people were involved in the campaign - I had very little to do with it other than giving money. Some people wanted an attack ad, but the main point we wanted to make was to thank the filmmakers. We wanted them to know that it was our Best Picture. In spite of AMPAS.

Number three, there is an organized letter writing campaign about the voting process. Most of this refers to the widely publicized reports about quotes given by the relics Tony Curtis and Ernest Borgnine. Those two proudly proclaimed they refused to see it, and Borgnine in particular rallied about its very existence. It was decided among the leaders of the forum that this direct to the Academy approach was best in dealing with the voting process. The AMPAS is after all a body of people made up of 6500 members. The only way to address them directly is through the office. As far as anecdotal stories go, that and 4 bucks will get you a Starbucks. The printed quotes are best. Even Sarah Jessica Parker admitted on Conan that she didn't have time to watch the movies and voted anyway.

And then there's the whole issue of how $24-grand could help the community in so many other ways. But I realize that's a double-edged sword - small vs. big picture outlook.

There's also the whole issue of how the money you're spending on the internet could feed starving children all over the world. Right ? Or help someone with HIV. That's a double edged sword, suggesting what people should do with their money, no ?

:wavey: :xoxo:

Back at ya ! :wavey:

[sparky]

Where I stray from this is that I didn't personally find BB Mountain to be 100% relevant to the current gay experience and found the message to be a little dated. And intentionally so, given when it takes place. But that would get me back into the BB Mountain debate, which I've retired from.



Ryan, I won't attempt to debate you on this one. I can't say it is 100% relevant either. But outside of urban centers, very very little has changed. Go to the Dave Cullen forum and look under My Brokeback Story. There are thousands of men all over the world living the exact same story as the characters in that movie. The exact same story. I hazard to say there are more of them than there are gay ghetto dwellers.

[markolas]

I think it's great to see somebody on "our" side actually get *mad* for a change. I'm sick of the PC, wet noodle, "can't we all just get along" attitude. There are times when you need to "lash out," and I think now is one of those times, not just in relation to BBM.

And to anyone who thinks this is inconsistent with Buddhist spirituality, you should try reading some Buddhist literature besides Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama. :nod: ;)

[elie]

@ Trackaghost and Dissention.
I totally agree with your posts (Dissention, not that it is of any importance, but the only part I don't agree with your review is the Lars von Trier part. I can't stand the guy, and funnily enough, pretty much for the same reasons you said you love his movies).
I too understood Crash, and the reason I didn't like it was certainly not that I didn't understand it. What's there not to understand?? It was so overly schematic, simple, naive and in-your-face that a 6 year old kid would have gotten the message. In every scene (in every scene, I repeat) there was some flat, shallow character making obvious yet pompous comments about racism- imagine "Traffic" (a masterpiece, IMO) being filled with statements such as "drugs are a bad thing" or "Just say no".:rolleyes:

However, I didn't entirely hate it, because contrary to what others said, I liked Matt Dillon's character and I liked his performance. But that is not enough to make it a Best picture award worthy movie. What I mean to say is that if it hadn't been for the nominations and the awards it got, it wouldn't be bashed so much in general. It would just be a normal, a bit simplistic, not so good movie that belongs on TV, IMO. But at the Oscar race, it beat BBM, which is -regardless of its theme- a movie that can be called without hesitation, great . Heath Ledger's performance is just heartbreaking and the direction is genial - affectionate, subtle and serious and not for one second pompous or full-of-itself, if I may say that.

[DavidMn]

"Crash" is a quintessential bad movie. Bad in every way; from the writing to the direction, down to the cinematography that strains to be "realistic" and "gritty" but only ends up being an exercise in annoying those who can see through the filmmakers delusions of grandeur to the superficial sludge that it truly is. It's so eager to be taken seriously that it fails to realize how insistently manipulative it is in it's quest for intellectual recognition on a social level. Maybe it should have concentrated on being a good movie instead of aspiring to be The Greatest Race Film of All Time when the material being worked with was amateurish and on par with the deconstruction of racism found on Channel One during Black History Month.

Paul Haggis takes more characters than can be counted on two hands, tosses them into a blender with contrived situations and woefully cliched observations about race, and spreads the resulting batter out onto a few reels of film that don't even run for two whole hours. The characters resemble no human beings I've met in my lifetime, they're merely caricatures constructed from Haggis' idea of what racists and victims of racism, one in the same to him, hence the labored point to the whole idiotic mess, are like. Not one of his chracters is onscreen long enough to be cared about, even though it would be nearly impossible for such a feat to be accomplished since each one of them embodies the sort of stereotyping that Haggis spends so many minutes preaching against from atop his soapbox. I'm convinced that he saved a pair of boxing gloves from his last movie, "Million Dollar Baby," just so that he could beat us over the head with this one.

He gives us the rich white woman who is afraid of the scary negroes, oh my. The racist cop. The black man who acts like a white man. The Middle Eastern family that runs a convenience store. The ghetto homies who thieve all around town. It's patently offensive, and lazy, to be preached at about racism and stereotyping when the very people who are doing the preaching are doing the exact thing they're decrying, and doing it with such a somber face. All of it ends up resembling an exercise in middlebrow horse-beating by humdrum dumdum's who wouldn't know racism from flotsam if they were asked to identify both.

The performances leave one with the impression that the actors have been bitten by some pesky bug that implanted the idea that they're making something of incredible importance into their consciousness. They take equal part in the moralizing being done, and gleefully so because it also gives them the perfect opportunity to yell & scream at each other for 100 minutes in some remarkable, if obvious, attempts at Oscar-baiting. How else would one explain Don Cheadle, earnest to the point of unintentional hilarity, uttering such howlers like "I think we miss that touch so much that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something"? It's embarrassing. The type of thing one would expect from a film student who was just inspired by Magnolia, completely unaware that even that flick was aped from Robert Altman.

I'm not trashing the movie because it's so brash and because it insists on shoving the "message" down the audiences throat, either. Lars von Trier does that in every one of his movies and I love them. The difference is that he confesses to it almost immediately in his movies, whereas swill like "Crash" tries to be sly and shifty about it, attempting to pass off what you're viewing as realistic and no more preachy than hearing a white man refer to a black man as "nigger" in real life. That's absurd. And crass and self-defeating. Grotesque, actually.

I also must admit that I've been trying very hard not to make a crack about how apt the title of the movie is. I almost succeeded.Nice to see you again!:wavey: