David
an observation that I have is that this guy isn't just bitter. He is
totally outraged that Brokeback didn't win best film. As a matter of
fact, I also see that what he is saying is that Hollywood is
homo-phobic and that's why they voted for Crash. To go even further,
his commentary is something that journalists try to avoid as a matter
of course because while there is nothing wrong with taking sides, you
at least need to avoid an appearance of impropriety or in other
words, you need to be balanced in your speech, even if not in your temper.
Now I want to go out on a limb here and say something & I don't want
anyone thinking I'm homophobic , because I'm not & have a number of
gay friends who I respect dearly. But I think the reason Kenneth
Turan might be so virulent in his treatment is that he may be gay
himself, and sees this as one more snub from his peers in some way.
His intemperance in the article is too outraged, so I think there's
something in back of his anger.
His reasoning also for Brokeback being best also strikes me as
shallow and his frontal attack on Crash is unreal, in this context.
thanks for sending me the read
Rich===========================
At 02:57 PM 3/8/2006, David Kusumoto wrote:
Below is the previously mentioned "analysis" of what happened Sunday
night by Kenneth Turan of the L.A. Times. I think it would be safe
to say that he's a tad bitter.
-koose.
======================
LOS ANGELES TIMES - ANALYSIS
THE ENVELOPE
March 6, 2006
'BROKEBACK' DREAMS CRASH AND BURN
AS THE ACADEMY'S VOTERS PLAY IT SAFE
By Kenneth Turan, Times Staff Writer
SOMETIMES you win by losing, and nothing has proved what a powerful,
taboo-breaking, necessary film "Brokeback Mountain" was more than
its loss Sunday night to "Crash" in the Oscar best picture category.
Despite all the magazine covers it graced, despite all the red-state
theaters it made good money in, despite (or maybe because of) all
the jokes late-night talk show hosts made about it, you could not
take the pulse of the industry without realizing that this film made
a number of people distinctly uncomfortable.
More than any other of the nominated films, "Brokeback Mountain" was
the one people told me they really didn't feel like seeing, didn't
really get, didn't understand the fuss over.
Did I really like it, they wanted to know. Yes, I really did.
In the privacy of the voting booth, as many political candidates
who've led in polls only to lose elections have found out, 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."
For Hollywood, as a whole laundry list of people announced from the
podium Sunday night and a lengthy montage of clips tried to
emphasize, is a liberal place, a place that prides itself on its
progressive agenda.
If this were a year when voters had no other palatable options, they
might have taken a deep breath and voted for "Brokeback."
This year, however, "Crash" was poised to be the spoiler.
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.
So for people who were discomfited by "Brokeback Mountain" but
wanted to be able to look at themselves in the mirror and feel as if
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.
"Brokeback," it is worth noting, was in some ways the tamest of the
discomforting films available to Oscar voters in various categories.
Steven Spielberg's "Munich"; the Palestinian territories' "Paradise
Now," one of the best foreign language nominees; and the documentary
nominee "Darwin's Nightmare" offered scenarios that truly shook up
people's normal ways of seeing the world.
None of them won a thing.
Hollywood, of course, is under no obligation to be a progressive
force in the world.
It is in the business of entertainment, in the business of making
the most dollars it can.
Yes, on Oscar night it likes to pat itself on the back for the good
it does in the world, but as Sunday night's ceremony proved, it is
easier to congratulate yourself for a job well done in the past than
to actually do that job in the present.
----Original Message Follows----
From: David Kusumoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: David Kusumoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: ANALYSIS: Should'veseen signs of "Crash" coming
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:36:20 -0800
As I noted to another MoPo friend earlier:
The "Crash" win was a still a stunner. Never mind that I didn't
like "Brokeback" as a Best Picture winner, I was still open-mouthed
shocked. A string of victories akin to "Saving Private Ryan" and
then "clipped" on Oscar night? I agree though -- when the SAG
awards were given out, I thought to myself Brokeback wasn't a sure
thing, but still a safe bet. LA and NY film critics' choices never
affect most Academy members (though they do help hone down
finalists), but the Globes, SAG and more recently, BAFTA, do have an
impact. (Many stars show up to such affairs.)
I just didn't want "Crash" to be the picture to knock Brokeback off
its pedestal because other pictures were better. My personal choice
was not "Crash" but "Capote." But of course my opinion doesn't matter.
I also never figured in the residency of Academy members being
overwhelmingly LA. I didn't know the figure (80%) was that
high. This may explain why NY-based directors such as Scorcese and
Woody Allen haven't won a Best Director or Best Picture award since
1977. Funny this anti-NY-trend hasn't hurt foreign directors who've
won Best Picture or Best Director, e.g., Bertolucci, Polanski,
Forman, Ang Lee, Attenborough, etc.
You guys should read Kenneth Turan's mildly bitter analysis in the
L.A. Times. He seemed especially perturbed about what happened.
-koose.
----Original Message Follows----
From: "JR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David Kusumoto"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [MOPO] ANALYSIS: Should've seen signs of "Crash" coming
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 13:30:14 -0500
While this is an excellent analysis of the process and the innner
workings of the Awards, the simple fact is that more members of the
Academy liked CRASH than they did BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. It may have
been a matter of one vote difference between the two of them, or it
may have been hundreds. I'm not sure we'll ever know or that it really matters.
-- JR
----Original Message Follows----
From: David Kusumoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: David Kusumoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: ANALYSIS: Should've seen signs of "Crash" coming
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 09:00:31 -0800
In today's Hollywood Reporter, the movie bible out here (vs.
Variety, which is national, industry-diverse, esp. for plays and
musicals, and more New York-centric).
-koose.
=================
THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER
Should have seen signs of "Crash" coming
March 8, 2006
By Martin A. Grove - Analysis
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Looking back at how "Crash"
climbed over "Brokeback Mountain" to take the best picture prize at
the Academy Awards on Sunday, the question isn't "Why didn't we see
it coming?" but, "Why didn't we believe we were seeing it coming?"
Despite the fact that "Brokeback" had swept the most meaningful
awards races from December through February, the buzz was that
"Crash" was gaining momentum while "Brokeback" was losing steam.
Nonetheless, most Hollywood handicappers just weren't willing to
believe the Oscar outcome would differ from all those earlier votes
by members of the Producers Guild of America, the Hollywood Foreign
Press Assn., the Broadcast Film Critics Assn. and the British Academy.
What some insiders are saying privately is that many Academy members
felt so threatened by "Brokeback's" gay cowboy romance they couldn't
bring themselves to view it even on DVD. As a result, many votes
reportedly were cast much later in the game than is usually the case
-- by which time "Crash" was being perceived as a worthy alternative.
There also may have been fewer votes to count if reports are true
that as many as 20% of Academy voters didn't send in their ballots.
If that's what happened -- the public will never know, of course,
since the Academy never reveals the voting results -- it becomes
easier to understand how "Brokeback" got trumped by "Crash."
With 6,188 voting members of the Academy, if 20% of them abstained
from voting that would remove 1,238 votes from the mix and leave
just 4,950 to determine the outcome. In a race where every vote
typically counts, that alone could dramatically alter the results.
Actors, meanwhile, make up the Academy's biggest branch. There are
1,359 actors who vote and they represent nearly 22% of the Academy's
membership.
It's a safe bet that they preferred "Crash" to "Brokeback" since the
Screen Actors Guild in late January gave "Crash" its Best Ensemble
Cast award, its equivalent of a best picture honor.
It was the only important vote that "Brokeback" missed out on, but
it sent a signal that the movie wasn't resonating with actors.
By sending about 110,000 "Crash" DVDs to SAG's full membership,
Lionsgate made sure that all of the guild's members had an
opportunity to watch the film at home. This was the first time
anyone had ever sent DVDs of an Oscar contender to the full SAG
membership. Because this marketing technique worked so well, other
distributors are likely to adopt the same approach next year.
It's worth noting, however, that the reason Lionsgate was
comfortable doing this was that "Crash" had opened in theaters last
May and had gone into DVD in September. The DVDs sent to SAG members
didn't need to be specially watermarked or encrypted because awards
season piracy wasn't something Lionsgate was worrying about at that point.
In future campaigns, however, studios with films opening
theatrically in November or December will find themselves at a
disadvantage since promotional DVDs have a much greater risk of
being pirated. Their distributors will have to weigh the pros and
cons of sending them on DVD to all SAG members.
"Crash" had an additional advantage with SAG and other union members
because it was shot in the Los Angeles area. Unlike "Brokeback,"
which filmed in Canada, "Crash" provided jobs for actors and other
L.A. based workers, who are increasingly frustrated by "runaway"
productions that travel to far-flung locations where cheaper costs
and tax deals are increasingly helping producers stretch their budgets.
Moreover, because "Crash" was a story dealing with complex racial
relations in Los Angeles, it was something that L.A.-based Academy
members could easily relate to.
Nearly 80% of the Academy's membership lives in the L.A. area and
Lionsgate was very perceptive to recognize how important a
constituency that could be for "Crash."
All of these were factors that should have told Hollywood
handicappers that "Crash" was a very strong contender that would
give "Brokeback" real competition for best picture. But that message
didn't really get across.
"Brokeback" was boosted by a steady stream of big victories over the
entire awards season. In past years, that level of success would
typically have translated into Oscar gold for "Brokeback." Not so
this time around.
Beyond the film's sensitive subject matter, it's also possible that
Oscar voters rebelled at the prospect of looking like the last group
to jump on the "Brokeback" bandwagon.
In applauding "Crash" over "Brokeback" Academy members were saying,
in effect, that you can't take their votes for granted.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
