ultimatebrokebackforum.com forum

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN => The Impact on Society & Ourselves => Topic started by: CellarDweller115 on December 08, 2007, 11:15:56 AM

Title: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: CellarDweller115 on December 08, 2007, 11:15:56 AM
This thread is set up to continue the conversations had in the original "Awards Aftermath" thread.

It is for discussion of the aftermath of "Brokeback Mountain" being overlooked as Best Picture in favor of "Crash".

Forum rules apply.

Remember to respect the views/opinions of your fellow posters!

Thank you!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: DanRWentzelJr on December 08, 2007, 11:37:09 AM
Here's the link to the original, wonderful, Entertainment Weekly, October 25, 2007 article with a couple of key excerpts.  Please go read the whole thing at your leisure:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20153963,00.html

Quote
In the weeks before the 78th annual Academy Awards, Brokeback Mountain producer Diana Ossana already suspected what few outside Hollywood could imagine: Her film was going to lose the Best Picture race. ''Several people told me they knew a lot of Academy voters who just refused to see the film,'' says Ossana, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Larry McMurtry. This tragic love story between two men had dominated the critics' awards and banked $178 million worldwide. It even captivated sellout crowds in states like Oklahoma and Ohio — just not, apparently, in Academy screening rooms. ''What are they afraid of?'' McMurtry asked Ossana. ''It's just a movie.''   But Brokeback was more than a movie. It was a phenomenon that commanded the cultural conversation for months, from Jay Leno to YouTube to the cover of The New Yorker. More important, it proved that straight audiences would snap up tickets to a same-sex romance.

Quote
Brokeback could have done the same for gay film. It wasn't just a hit, but the first unabashed gay romance to cross over to mainstream audiences. It also obliterated an ancient Hollywood phobia that playing gay would kill an actor's career. Not only did stars Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal both score Oscar nominations, but Ledger is playing the Joker in next summer's Batman sequel, The Dark Knight. Gyllenhaal will be starring opposite Tobey Maguire in Brothers. ''It's been extraordinary,'' Gyllenhaal says of life post-Brokeback. ''It has taken me to a different place in my career. Nothing but wonderful, positive things have come out of that experience.''

Quote
Even one (Harvey) Milk movie is a step in the right direction, and a hint that Brokeback's achievements did not go entirely unnoticed. ''There's just no way Brokeback didn't break down significant barriers about the way [independent] financiers think,'' London says. ''If there was some sense that gay subject matter doesn't work, we wouldn't be making Milk.'' London — who is, for the record, straight — suspects that if this movie is successful, the industry will realize that there's gold in gay film. ''Maybe Milk will make clear that audiences are way less conservative about this than conventional wisdom holds,'' he says. ''I don't think audiences care as much about distinctions in sexuality as generations did 20 years ago.'' One can only hope. Brokeback's Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar have carried the almost impossible weight of cinema history. It would be nice if they could share the burden.


Here is the letters that ran in the November 23, 2007 issue of Entertainment Weekly in response.

Quote
With ''Out of Sight,'' the truth finally comes out: Brokeback Mountain lost the Best Picture Oscar due to Hollywood homophobia.
Ira Gilbert
New York City

Brokeback Mountain received more Oscar nods (eight) than any other movie in 2006. The same electorate gave it three Oscars, including directing and screenplay. (No picture won more that year.) If Academy members were recoiling in distaste from Brokeback, as the article suggests, they picked an odd way of showing it.
Bruce Davis
Executive Director, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences


Some of the films you mentioned (The Crying Game, Boys Don't Cry, Transamerica) focus on characters who are transgendered, not gay. These are not the same: The former concerns gender identity; the latter, sexual orientation.
Andrew Matzner
Roanoke, Va.

Bruce Davis still doesn't get it.  Actually, he and Sid Ganis probably do, but Davis has had to explain this away for 2 years now.  It's probably a reflex.  Maybe he's due for another round of letters saying we haven't forgotten and history will never forget (since he denied receiving many letters when it actually happened).

I wrote my own letter to Entertainment Weekly indicating my own conversations with my friend Barry, an Academy member of the Art Directors branch, about his witness to a late homophobia-phobia panic by people he knew in the Academy -- irrational fear of what backlash Hollywood might suffer if the Academy awarded BBM Best Picture (which he felt had a lock on the Best Picture award until then), the basic facts as we knows them involving other Academy members like Tony Curtis and Ernest Borgnine, and general commentary about the different voting rules between the Motional Picture Academy, the Television Academy and Critics, and AMPAS members being able to vote on awards for movies which they haven't seen and in categories for which they have no expertise.  I included the analogy involving an American gymnast or figure skater being denied a gold model because of a low score submitted by a judge who hadn't seen the performance or even refused to see it.  It probably won't be published, but it feels good just to tell the truth.

In this day and age simply telling the truth and repeating the facts instead of the official spin is a dangerous act, isn't it?  In any event, I'm sure Mr. Davis and the Academy would still appreciate your letters as would Entertainment Weekly.  :)

Wouldn't it have been simpler for Bruce Davis, Sid Ganis and the Academy to simply have issued after the result, after the Daily Variety Ad, a statement saying, "We are appalled that homophobia played even the tiniest role in the Best Picture balloting.  If even one vote was influenced by fear and ignorance, that was one vote too many.  The fact that a handful of our members went public with their fear and ignorance is appalling.  Their views do not reflect the views of the Academy leadership or the Academy as a whole, and we apologize to anyone who may have been offended by the actions of these individuals."

Wouldn't that have been easier?  Even a statement like that today would still be welcome.  Even setting aside the whole debacle of Academy members voting on films they haven't seen and in categories in which they have no expertise (the ignorance part of the fear, hate and ignorance that goes into homophobia), and without debating these rules, a simple statement such as I have outlined would have made the issue go away and put the onus on a handful of Academy members.

If ardent Crash supporters like Oprah had just stated, "I believe Crash was the best film of the year, and I voted for it, and I'm delighted it received the Oscar for Best Picture for I hope more people will now see it.  However, I am equally outraged that homophobia played any part in the contest, and certain Academy members who went public with their prejudices should be ashamed of themselves.  Homophobia and prejudice is unacceptable whether it is in society or within certain members of the Academy."

Anything simple like that, and the supporters of Crash could have had their cake and eaten it too.  The Academy could have moved on.  But, like the Academy always does, and guilty-liberals often do (and I am at times a guilty-liberal myself), it is seemingly (mistakenly seemingly) easier to ignore the problem and hope it goes away.  I'm sure the Academy never thought people would still talk about the issue, and film historians will be referring to it as a fact for decades.

Some Academy members may have recoiled in distaste, which Bruce Davis implies is the only issue, but others acted cold-bloodedly in what they believed was in Hollywood's and therefore their best interests.  The homophobia-phobia that my Art Director and Academy-member friend Barry discussed with me.  It was this cold-bloodedness that doomed Citizen Kane and High Noon.  It is ironic that the cold-blooded members of the Academy who vote for Ang Lee, but against Brokeback Mountain, to avoid a backlash, ended up with another type of backlash anyway.  The Academy snubbing reminds me Clinton's support for"Dont' Ask, Don't Tell" or support for DOMA.  Apologists told me Clinton HAD to take those actions to save himself.  I still don't believe it.  I never expected the so-called American "Family" Association to give Brokeback Mountain an award.  When people you think are on your side stab you in the back or throw you under the bus, the tire iron hurts that much more.

Would an official Academy apology now be "too little, too late" now? It's late for sure, but I actually think it might be healing.  Of course, admitting the problem might require an actual amends like changing the voting rules.  The Academy still hasn't apologized for Citizen Kane and High Noon losing Best Picture because of fear of a backlash.  Don't expect an apology for this anytime soon, though one would be welcome by me.

In any event, it is liberating to hear the truth being told even if it cannot change what happened two years ago.  Go Dianna. We all know which film was the "best" and we all know why it "lost".

I hope everyone is having a peaceful, merry and happy holiday season.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on December 08, 2007, 12:12:36 PM
Awesome post!   ;D
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 09, 2007, 11:38:10 AM
Great post to start Part 2!

I also sent a letter to EW about Bruce Davis' comments.
I won't know, but am curious to know if he actually took it upon
himself to write a letter to EW about this, or EW contacted him
for one.  If they did not, you can see how quickly the academy is
to pounce upon any notions of homophobia.  Interesting.

I also sent a letter directly to him as well, which I doubt will
be responded to, but I thought he should know that people
are not buying his/ampas' position about this.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on December 11, 2007, 11:11:14 AM
I don't know if anyone ever mentioned the "Mad TV" sketch where Bobby Lee and Ike Barinholtz go see all 5 nominated films in one day.  (It reruns on Comedy Central, and may be on You Tube.)  They hate "Capote," they start a fight in "Munich," I can't remember "Good Night & Good Luck," and for "Crash," they open the theater door and hear "You're a racist!" "No, YOU'RE a racist!", look at each other, say "Nope!" and don't even go into the theater.  (LOL!)  "Brokeback" is the only one of the movies that they actually pay attention to (and, of course, get so moved that they wind up making out).  Still, they stay till the end.  I found this sketch really interesting--clearly, these guys were making a statement amidst all the jokes about what film they thought was the best.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 11, 2007, 12:47:44 PM
" I can't remember "Good Night & Good Luck,"

For this film they sit down, hear some of the dialogue and then they just look at each other and both say "BORING!" and they get up and leave.

I also found MAD-TV to be the only program that dealt with making light of ALL the other nominees in 2005 in a comedic way.  For example, and this one just infuriated me, the ELLEN show was supposed to do a sketch for EACH of the five picture nominees, one each day, and then the audience would vote on the one they liked best.  They did one for Brokeback, of course, and one for Capote and Good Night and Good Luck, but, when it came to Crash and Munich, Ellen said those movies were too serious to be made light of and they did a generic awards sketch instead...what?  Whose bright idea was that?  First of all, the themes of homophobia, capital punishment, and freedom of the press are okay to be made light of, but not anti-semitism and racism.  What she was really saying was "our writers weren't smart or clever enough to poke fun at those two films, so we copped out.

I can't verify they didn't do other sketches, but I know that Mad-TV also did a combination spoof of Capote and Walk the Line, which was quite amusing.  And the guy who played Capote was just as good as PSH, in my opinion.

It was scheduled to be broadcast "before" the oscars, but for whatever reason they did not air it until afterwards, which made an even sharper point considering the outcome, but Mad-TV also did a sketch called "Brokeback 2:  The Cowgirls", in which you might expect, it dealt with two lesbians that were hot for each other.  I might not have it exactly right, but the tagline for the sketch was "See Brokeback 2: The Cowgirls.  This time it's okay."

Again, Mad-TV was making a satirical point and I applaud them for it that year. 

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on December 11, 2007, 03:12:15 PM
I still like to see people's reactions to this upset. Its still keeping me informed. Good Night and Good Luck was a very well done movie. Yet I found it to miss the true impact that time took on people's lives. Clooney should have pushed the connection with the current President and his approach to "Freedom" with that of Fascism.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on December 14, 2007, 11:17:43 PM
Not sure if this was ever posted here, but I just ran across it tonight so thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention:

http://www.afterelton.com/archive/elton/movies/2006/3/backlash.html
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on December 18, 2007, 11:40:42 PM
A cool article on dailykos back in the spring of '06.

Last paragraph is the best:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/10/15192/7043
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on January 02, 2008, 05:27:06 PM
So for my birthday/Christmas I got an electronic book and game called "Obsessed with Hollywood."  2500 questions, and you turn on the switch and it starts directing you to a question #, which you answer A, B, C, or D; it "grades" you, and moves on to the next question.

I'm still going through all the questions (which seem very random in terms of grouping), so have no idea if there are any "BBM" questions, though I've not found any pics yet.  Question 1470, however, gets a "spotlight" box of 1/2 a page, next to a picture of Mr. Haggis and co-producer clutching Oscars in front of a big gold statue.  Here is the text, verbatim:

"This poignant examination of racial tensions in Los Angeles, co-written and directed by Paul Haggis, divided critics and moviegoers in a way few movies have before or since.  Famed Chicago Sun Times critic Roger Ebert immediately dubbed it the best film of the year, while L.A. Weekly's Scott Foundas called it the worst film of the year.

The film's intersecting storylines focus on several different characters over the course of a thirty-six hour period.  These diverse characters include carjackers, a sadistic bigoted cop, a television producer and his wife, the Los Angeles district attorney and his racist wife, a Latino locksmith, among others.

When awards season came, the controversy surrounding the film only became louder.  The film was awarded numerous prizes at too many awards ceremonies to mention.  (Italics mine.)  Perhaps the most significant honor the film received was an Oscar for Best Picture.  (Once again, the film's destractors cried foul and protested this.)

What is the name of this controversial film?"

I appreciate that Andrew Rausch (who has no e-mail address but is an author of several other film books and "an independent filmmaker") acknowledged the controversy and diversity of opinion, but he totally skirts the real reasons WHY the film--and it's "acclaim"--was controversial.  Yes, it did win several writing awards, but hardly any Best Picture citations at "numerous prizes at too many awards ceremonies to mention"--unless three (including the SAG win) is considered "numerous."  Also, he makes no mention there of The Other Film Which Was Supposed To Win And Had Swept 20+ International Best Picture Citations. 

However, this author also claims that Big Daddy in "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof" has polio (isn't that Brick, his son?), and that Streisand has 2 Oscars for acting.  (She has 2 nominations and 1 win; her other Oscar win came for writing Best Song, "Evergreen.")  I've answered less than 50 questions, and I've already found these 2 errors, so I guess we shouldn't expect too much from it. 

Nonetheless...
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on January 05, 2008, 06:08:58 PM
Are you sure it didn't say "too FEW to mention"?   ;)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 09, 2008, 02:14:16 AM
I got an email from AMPAS today!

------------------------------------------------

John-

The BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN screening will be held on Monday, August 4th at 7:30pm at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater.  We will be inviting all cast and crew members, though invitations have not yet gone out.  (If you have any suggestions for direct contacts please let me know.)  I'd be happy to talk to you about a small costume display, but I'll need to postpone that until after Oscar season.  Let's email again in March.  In the meantime, save the date.

Randy

---------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.davecullen.com/forum/index.php?topic=27940.0 (http://www.davecullen.com/forum/index.php?topic=27940.0)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Marc on January 09, 2008, 12:08:30 PM
In "Cat on a hot tin roof," Big Daddy has cancer. 

I don't know the film well, and didn't realize Brick had polio.  I do remember him on crutches, though.  Seems like an obvious metaphor for his crippled emotional development, but perhaps that belongs on another thread.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on January 09, 2008, 10:38:33 PM
Is it karma that the Oscar show might be canceled this year because of the writers' strike?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on January 09, 2008, 10:54:11 PM
I wish I could remember the site where I saw it, but I recently came across some guy in Hollywood commenting on the stupidity of many Oscar voters.  He was saying that some AMPAS members are refusing to screen "There Will Be Blood" because the title doesn't appeal to them.  He went on to say that you wouldn't believe the reasons many members give for not watching eligible movies.  Is that group hopeless or what?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on January 09, 2008, 11:30:37 PM
As has been said before, screening tapes/DVDs--which were originally designed to make AMPAS members' voting more "convenient"--has instead made it more political, and more prone to bullshit.  If they were doing this right, they should have screenings of all the nominees, and you only get a ballot after you've seen all the nominees.  That way, you wouldn't have people "refusing" to see certain films. 

So, does this mean that Daniel Day-Lewis is going to probably lose Best Actor again, clearing the way for Johnny Depp to finally take home The Golden Ball-less Wonder? 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Marge_Innavera on January 10, 2008, 07:23:57 AM
Is it karma that the Oscar show might be canceled this year because of the writers' strike?

I'd like to be high-minded here; but my reaction is something like Queen Eleanor in Lion In Winter:

"I never poisoned her.... oh, I prayed that she'd drop dead and I smiled a little when she did."
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on January 10, 2008, 09:37:37 AM
The number of quotable lines in "The Lion In Winter" is beyond belief.  It's amazing how often a Hepburn-intoned, withering "How NICE for YOU" comes in handy in life.  (Definitely describes my attitude towards "Crash"-lovers.)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: freetraveller on January 10, 2008, 10:19:32 AM
As has been said before, screening tapes/DVDs--which were originally designed to make AMPAS members' voting more "convenient"--has instead made it more political, and more prone to bullshit.  If they were doing this right, they should have screenings of all the nominees, and you only get a ballot after you've seen all the nominees.  That way, you wouldn't have people "refusing" to see certain films.

(...)

Exactly. If the ability of AMPAS' members to still vote in a category even without having seen all nominees in that category is not enough to discredit the overall Academy selection process, I don't know what is.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on January 10, 2008, 04:35:21 PM
Playing devil's advocate here, but how many people vote in real life without any understanding of the issues or people they're voting on? If knowledge was a prerequisite, voting would involve about 1% of the population, real or reel.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on January 10, 2008, 05:23:23 PM
Fair question; I think it's a little bit different when you're a member of a group ostensibly designed to reflect or reward excellence in your field or profession.  Voting in a national election is indeed a right, and SHOULD be a responsibility; as a representative of the AMPAS, you should be even more responsible since you've accepted membership and its accompanying responsibilities.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on January 10, 2008, 10:30:01 PM
As has been said before, screening tapes/DVDs--which were originally designed to make AMPAS members' voting more "convenient"--has instead made it more political, and more prone to bullshit.  If they were doing this right, they should have screenings of all the nominees, and you only get a ballot after you've seen all the nominees.  That way, you wouldn't have people "refusing" to see certain films. 

So, does this mean that Daniel Day-Lewis is going to probably lose Best Actor again, clearing the way for Johnny Depp to finally take home The Golden Ball-less Wonder? 

Yea, beginning in 1976, members were required to sign in at screenings of all the movies nominated for Best Foreign Film before casting a ballot in that category.  I believe that is still the rule today.  Why this can't be extended to the BP category I have no idea.

As to Daniel Day Lewis, he can still win Best Actor, just as Ang Lee was able to win Best Director despite all those voters who refused to see BBM.  The members liked Lee personally and had HEARD what a fine piece of directing it was, so they could vote for him and still shun the movie they objected to on a personal level. 

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on January 11, 2008, 07:26:09 PM
Oops, the old "no editing nom = no BP win" canard has reared its ugly head again, this time aimed at "Atonement" and "American Gangster."

http://goldderby.latimes.com/

And the best picture is . . . one of these ACE Eddie noms?
As every Oscarologist knows, the editing award is often the best indicator of what wins best picture. Nominations announced today are bad news for "Atonement" and "American Gangster," which got snubbed. But these pix made the cut for best editor dramatic film: "The Bourne Ultimatum," "Into the Wild," "Michael Clayton," "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood." Nominees in the comedy/musical slot: "Hairspray," "Juno," "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End," "Ratatouille" and — hooray! — "Sweeney Todd."


"Atonement" and "American Gangster" will likely not win best picture, but for other, more logical reasons.  One of them is that neither has so far won any Best Picture awards from film critics' groups (as opposed to the dozens BBM won).  Funny how that is never pointed to as being a reliable barometer, yet the lack of an editing nom is (it should be pointed out that the nominations here are not from the Academy itself but from the ACE).
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on January 13, 2008, 07:43:22 AM
Here's an article I found in which an actual Academy member admits to not having yet seen many of the potential nominees a mere few days before ballots are due.  Now, I realize this is a little different from not having seen all of the five actual nominees and yet still voting in the category, but it does indicate one of the serious problems with the Academy Awards.  How can one take seriously an award for excellence in which many of the potential candidates are never even seen?

http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2008/01/heres-what-some.html


. . . how many movies he hadn't seen as of Tuesday of this week — four days before ballots were due. He hadn't seen "There Will Be Blood," "Michael Clayton," "Diving Bell and the Butterfly," "The Savages," "Away from Her" or "La Vie en Rose," among others.

But I also heard the same from a member of the producers' branch who I chatted with on Tuesday.

"Too many movies came at us at the end of the year!" he shrieked. "I haven't seen lots of them! I did watch 'Atonement' and it was OK, but it's really moved to the back burner. I'll tell you what I thought was good: 'Demon Barber,' that 'Fleet Street' one. At the end of this week I'll have a better idea. Let's talk then." Alas, we didn't have a chance to chat before today, the day ballots are due.

"Sweeney" is the number-one choice of a voter who works in the PR industry, but I didn't find his thoughts about it very encouraging.

"Every year the movie I love most and put at number one on my ballot is the one that gets screwed," he said. "Last year it was 'Dreamgirls.' And the movies I hate the most are the ones that get nominated. The most overrated film this year is 'Michael Clayton.' I can't believe how mediocre and stupid it is. I hate it, so that means it'll automatically get nominated. And 'Into the Wild'? Oh, please!"

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lola on January 13, 2008, 10:54:02 AM
(http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/images/2008/01/12/oscar_pq_1a.jpg)

This guy doesn't sound too professional, the whole article sounds kind of odd!  Without knowing his name, it is hard to comment. 

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/michael_clayton/

Michael Clayton got excellent reviews!

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on January 15, 2008, 11:21:27 AM
Now THAT was the best awards ever! I caught the last 3-4 minutes of the GGs and saw 2 (yes, TWO) awards given out. Way to go!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on January 16, 2008, 12:11:29 AM
Well, that does show the subjective nature of these things, since I hated "Atonement."  I'd easily pick "Michael Clayton" or "Into the Wild" as a Best Picture nominee over that one.  Still, when a film like "Brokeback" picks up more than 20 Best Picture awards, that definitely indicates a film's quality, I'd say.  No film this year has that kind of track record, though I think "No Country For Old Men" is up around 8 or 10 "best picture" citations, which is more than any other film has racked up.  So far, that's almost the only sure shot; every other film has been lauded by some, dismissed by others. 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: ingmarnicebbmt on January 16, 2008, 01:50:51 AM
Well, that does show the subjective nature of these things, since I hated "Atonement."  I'd easily pick "Michael Clayton" or "Into the Wild" as a Best Picture nominee over that one

Absolutely!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on January 18, 2008, 11:50:22 PM
In this week's Entertainment Weekly, various critics came up with their recommended "Strike Survival Guides."  Owen Gleiberman has chosen 10 movies, one of which is Brokeback Mountain.   :)

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on January 19, 2008, 09:29:20 AM
Our criticism of Oscar voting, in particular, that some noteworthy Oscar voters refused to see Brokeback Mountain but voted anyway, in contravention of academy rules, has led me, among others, to encourage a system similar to what the academy employs in the Best Foreign Language and documentary categories, i.e., that it must be verified that the voter has seen all the nominees in a category before being allowed to vote.

I repeat all of this because there is now a HUGE controversy over this years short-listed eligible films in the Best Foreign Language film category, in particular, that clearly outstanding films were ruled ineligible (Lust, Caution), weren't put forward by their national panel (La Vie En Rose) or did not maker the most recent cut (Four Months, Three Weeks and Two Days...and Persepolis).  So it seems the poor old AMPAS has problems with its rules in just about every category


Here's a link to an article discussing the controversy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR2008011803357.html


The crux of the problem:  It is mostly "old fogies" who have the time available to screen all the prospective nominees, and they often reject films with "edgy" content, even though those films have won multiple awards, e.g.,  Four Months...  with its realistic depiction of abortion.   

(Sort of reminds of us the same sort of situation with BBM, i.e., that it lost for Best Picture because of it's realistic depiction of same-sex love.)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on January 21, 2008, 01:49:53 PM
I went down the list of finalists for the Best Foreign Language film, and didn't recognize hardly any of them.  Ridiculous, in a year that's given us (just to name a few) "The Bubble" "The Kite Runner" "La Vie En Rose" "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" and "Persepolis."  (I haven't seen the last 2, but they're on a lot of year-end "best of" lists.) 

The nominees come out tomorrow, and frankly it seems the media is hardly even noticing it.  Just as well; maybe with the strike, the ceremony will be crippled beyond belief. 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 22, 2008, 10:35:41 AM
As for this year's Oscar nominations, I was glad to see two BBM alumni nominated who SHOULD have been nominated for BBM, in my opinion--Marit Allen nominated for costume design (La Vie en Rose) and Dylan Tichenor for film editing (There Will Be Blood).

My favorite of the BP nominees is Atonement, another film about unrequited love, although I haven't seen Michael Clayton yet.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on January 23, 2008, 11:19:17 PM
As for this year's Oscar nominations, I was glad to see two BBM alumni nominated who SHOULD have been nominated for BBM, in my opinion--Marit Allen nominated for costume design (La Vie en Rose) and Dylan Tichenor for film editing (There Will Be Blood).

My favorite of the BP nominees is Atonement, another film about unrequited love, although I haven't seen Michael Clayton yet.

Very perceptive of you to catch those, and nice to see them getting the recognition they deserve.  I never understood all this negativity towards BBM's editing.  Every shot is held for maximum effect and for just the right amount of time.  It certainly beats the Cuisinart editing style of Crash.

P.S. I loved Atonement too.  I think it is a beautiful film.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 26, 2008, 04:39:37 AM
I like this poster, but there is such an error on it that
I don't know if I'll ever bring myself to get one--unless I
alter it myself.  Down at the bottom of the ribbon, three
from the end, should have been our boys...  Because it isn't,
I just cannot care about it...

(http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/images/080124.jpg)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on January 26, 2008, 09:40:46 PM
Yea, I wrote a kind of snarky comment on a site talking about that poster.   It went something like this:

Is there any way, short of taking a scissors to it, that one can get the poster without "Crash"?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on January 27, 2008, 08:23:13 AM
William H. Macy describes Heath's performance in BBM as the best he's seen in years.  John Travolta says, "Well, the first movie I saw him in was The Patriot, but then with Brokeback — I don't think anyone will ever beat that performance, I don't know if it's possible."

Hearing these amazing reactions to Heath's performance from some of his brightest peers makes me even doubly angry that actors like Robert Duvall and Mark Wahlberg have admitted (one could almost say "boasted") that they've never seen the film.  Why would any actor not want to witness some of the best his craft has to offer?  With someone like Wahlberg, especially, who is still at the early stages of his career and hopes to be taken seriously as an actor, one would think he would want to study how someone of his own generation tackles a challenging role.  Instead, he lets his homophobia deprive him of watching one of the truly outstanding performances in movie history.  Maybe it's just jealousy. 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on January 27, 2008, 11:26:59 AM

Hearing these amazing reactions to Heath's performance from some of his brightest peers makes me even doubly angry that actors like Robert Duvall and Mark Wahlberg have admitted (one could almost say "boasted") that they've never seen the film.  Why would any actor not want to witness some of the best his craft has to offer?  With someone like Wahlberg, especially, who is still at the early stages of his career and hopes to be taken seriously as an actor, one would think he would want to study how someone of his own generation tackles a challenging role.  Instead, he lets his homophobia deprive him of watching one of the truly outstanding performances in movie history.  Maybe it's just jealousy. 


With Duvall and Wahlberg, who usually play "tough guys," it's just a refection of latent homophobia.  They don't want to be seen as guys who experienced any level of enjoyment from viewing a movie like Brokeback Mountain, a movie that portrays so-called "real men" like themselves as secretly gay.  If Ennis and Jack had been stereotypically limp-wristed then the Duvalls and Wahlbergs would have felt "safe"  watching the movie.  So The Birdcage yes, Brokeback Mountain, no.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on January 27, 2008, 09:55:52 PM
This is from Yahoo News' report on the SAGs, written by David Hermain...

As with the Golden Globes, the Writers Guild has made it clear that its members would not be allowed to work on the Oscars. While stars generally have said they would skip the show rather than cross picket lines, Oscar organizers insist their telecast will take place as scheduled.

Once again, nothing but arrogance from AMPAS' powers.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 28, 2008, 12:15:07 AM
I don't know, I like the fact that "the show will go on".  It's an awards show that celebrates writers as well.  What's the point in picketing a show that would be better off without writers anyway...

WGA had no problem with SAG's show.  You have to pick your battles, awards shows are high profile, but not important to the issue IMO.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 28, 2008, 12:16:03 AM
Some beautiful tributes to Heath at the SAG Awards this evening,
particularly for his work in Brokeback Mountain.  Nice to see.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 28, 2008, 12:36:14 AM
Yes it was very nice Lyle.

I thought the memorial tribute with Heath at the end was ok, but I was hoping for a little more.  Of course the music during the video was a very nice touch.

Daniel Day Lewis made up for my disappointment with the video.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Carissa on January 28, 2008, 01:52:04 AM
Yes it was very nice Lyle.

I thought the memorial tribute with Heath at the end was ok, but I was hoping for a little more.  Of course the music during the video was a very nice touch.

Daniel Day Lewis made up for my disappointment with the video.
Ditto. :)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ben Franklin on January 28, 2008, 02:05:04 AM
Daniel Day Lewis is a wonderful guy!

It's great how much the best of their profession - and DDL certainly is one of the best, if not THE best living actor right now - honor the memory of Heath and are genuinely grieving his loss.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 28, 2008, 10:22:58 AM
Yes it was very nice Lyle.

I thought the memorial tribute with Heath at the end was ok, but I was hoping for a little more.  Of course the music during the video was a very nice touch.

Daniel Day Lewis made up for my disappointment with the video.
Ditto. :)

Agree.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on January 28, 2008, 01:02:53 PM
Yea, I wrote a kind of snarky comment on a site talking about that poster.   It went something like this:

Is there any way, short of taking a scissors to it, that one can get the poster without "Crash"?

I love the poster--it's beautifully designed--but anyone who looks at those titles can see there's a whole bunch there that didn't deserve The Big One.  Take comfort in that now, at least, almost everyone knows it.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 28, 2008, 09:07:15 PM
Yea, I wrote a kind of snarky comment on a site talking about that poster.   It went something like this:

Is there any way, short of taking a scissors to it, that one can get the poster without "Crash"?

I love the poster--it's beautifully designed--but anyone who looks at those titles can see there's a whole bunch there that didn't deserve The Big One.  Take comfort in that now, at least, almost everyone knows it.

That's the thing--we might not agree with all the films there, but we all like some of them as well.  And we wanted Brokeback Mountain to be included in the family.  The one we could point to with pride.  Alas...
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 28, 2008, 10:42:27 PM
Well, even though we can't point to the winner on the poster, we can point to the winner at the Kodak Theatre.  >:D

(http://baycityforums.com/images/JimmyCrash.jpg)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 29, 2008, 03:17:57 AM
John!  I remember that day!
Spent with friends.
Moments to cherish.
Thanks...
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 29, 2008, 12:00:50 PM
Our forum ad appears in Variety today.

The only thing wrong with it is that on the opposite page is an
article about turning 'crash' into a tv series.

click for bigger size:
(http://www.sunponyranch.com/images/DigitalVarietySnapshot sm.JPG) (http://www.sunponyranch.com/images/DigitalVarietySnapshot.JPG)

Will this film never stop haunting us, even in our sadness...
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on January 29, 2008, 12:54:51 PM
Yikes - say it isn't so....  Crash as a TV show!   Unbelievable.

http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/entertainment?type=entertainmentNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B7uKSLYIvxu3zDSUkrYJp2Xj&src=blogBurst_entertainmentNews&bbPostId=A5BSo7nMGgmBDlGD4BwVLlQASDe75Iw6BVCz6el53EHUOnL&bbParentWidgetId=B7uKSLYIvxu3zDSUkrYJp2Xj
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 29, 2008, 01:00:00 PM
I always thought it was more like a bad made for tv movie anyways.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on January 29, 2008, 01:23:46 PM
I always thought it was more like a bad made for tv movie anyways.


Very true.  However, "Friday Night Lights" was a pretty mediocre movie over all, yet the TV show based on the film is outstanding.  So, there is always hope.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on January 29, 2008, 01:26:51 PM
A picture worth a thousand words!  I love it.   ;D
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on January 29, 2008, 06:16:29 PM
When Crash first came out, no pun intended, I heard it was GOING to be a tv series, that Haggis et al had designed it exactly for that.

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing Brokeback as a tv series... could fill in the times between get-togethers.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on January 29, 2008, 07:41:40 PM
Our forum ad appears in Variety today.

The only thing wrong with it is that on the opposite page is an
article about turning 'crash' into a tv series.

click for bigger size:
(http://www.sunponyranch.com/images/DigitalVarietySnapshot sm.JPG) (http://www.sunponyranch.com/images/DigitalVarietySnapshot.JPG)

Will this film never stop haunting us, even in our sadness...

Look at it this way: most people thought that it belonged on TV in the first place, and if it did, it may very well go the way of "The Black Donnellys."  (Go back and read the reviews; for the most part they were savage--towards the show, towards Paul Haggis, towards "Crash," etc.)

Compare that to our ad, and think about what this really shows how a work of art--and its artist--touched people and continues to touch people.   That's the more lasting significance.

Now, since no place in Portland apparently carried Variety,  :o would one of you lovely volunteers send me a spare copy?  I'll pay for the issue and shipping; just e-mail me for the address.  Thanks a million.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: gnash on January 29, 2008, 08:49:20 PM
Well, even though we can't point to the winner on the poster, we can point to the winner at the Kodak Theatre.  >:D

LOL, john you bad boy!! ;) ;D :D :D >:D >:D  that's what i call a special salute.

ugh, we walk by that lit up column all the time. blech.... i wish it was further down, like under the stairs.  :P
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 31, 2008, 11:19:24 AM
Interesting article linked from the awards season thread:

Interesting item here on the nominations and how they get there:  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/movies/2004151951_oscarleftouts30.html

He uses BBM as an example of regretting award choices in the fututre.
(Last paragraph.)

I like the name of the newspaper--The Star-Ledger.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on January 31, 2008, 05:04:47 PM
Got an e-mail from Cinequest, the San Jose film festival I used to regularly attend.  They're breathlessly trumpeting this year's "Maverick" awards, which they give to filmmakers who "don't play by the usual rules" and have built up an unusual and impressive body of work.  Their #1 choice is John Leguizamo, who is a great talent but aside from his work in "To Wong Foo..." "The Groomsmen" "Moulin Rouge" and "Ice Age" I'm hard-pressed to think of lots of significant film work. (Maybe they're counting his award-winning one-man shows that he did for HBO.)

The other honoree is Bobby Moresco, "award winning co-author of 'Million Dollar Baby' and 'Crash.'"  Gads.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on February 02, 2008, 10:43:22 AM
Ah..Crash-bashing just never gets old, does it?

http://www.vanityfair.com/ontheweb/blogs/daily/2008/01/the-oscars-cras.html

Even the film’s most enthusiastic champions (I’m talking to you, Roger Ebert) must cringe at the ignominy of a Crash franchise, compounding the soul-piercing guilt they face every day since the film outmaneuvered Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture nearly two years ago.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on February 02, 2008, 12:11:20 PM
Ah..Crash-bashing just never gets old, does it?

http://www.vanityfair.com/ontheweb/blogs/daily/2008/01/the-oscars-cras.html

Even the film’s most enthusiastic champions (I’m talking to you, Roger Ebert) must cringe at the ignominy of a Crash franchise, compounding the soul-piercing guilt they face every day since the film outmaneuvered Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture nearly two years ago.

And this excerpt from Don Cheadle:

"...The challenge will be to craft the series’ characters in such a way as to get beneath the skin that supposedly differentiates them and create entertaining story lines that show the hurdles and obstacles we all struggle to overcome day to day."

We already have that show.  It's called As The World Turns and it's on every Mon - Fri.  Check your local listings.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 02, 2008, 01:23:34 PM
That article just needed to be posted here in all
it's entirety.  Did my heart good this morning.

January 29, 2008
The Oscars: Crash, the ’05 Scourge That Just Won’t Go Away
by S.T. VanAirsdale

There’s a special place in hell for the creators of Crash, the race-baiting ensemble melodrama that condescended, exploited, and shrieked its way to Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Editing Oscars in 2005. Evidently, there’s also a place on the Starz Network, which announced a deal with writer-producer-director Paul Haggis, co-writer Bobby Moresco, star-producer Don Cheadle, and even jilted producer, Bob Yari, among others, to adapt the film as a television series.

“Crash introduced a whole range of fascinating characters and engrossing, intertwined stories that are ideally suited for developing into a TV series,” Starz programming boss Stephan Shelanski noted Monday in a press release. Haggis wasn’t far behind, saying in the same statement that he initially planned Crash as an episodic show: “I am thrilled it’s coming full circle and can’t wait to see how it expands and transforms.”

Later Monday, Reuters reported that Cheadle would take an active role in rounding up as much of the original cast as possible. Characters portrayed by actors who opt out—think Matt Dillon’s racist cop, or Terrence Howard’s angry TV producer—would likely not appear in the series. Furthermore, Cheadle noted in the statement, the small-screen Crash will engage in histrionics in more attenuated, sustainable doses:

“This series will present an opportunity to delve into many subjects, not just race relations in L.A.,” said Cheadle. “I don’t think you can do 13 episodes on that subject and keep people interested. The challenge will be to craft the series’ characters in such a way as to get beneath the skin that supposedly differentiates them and create entertaining story lines that show the hurdles and obstacles we all struggle to overcome day to day.”

Even the film’s most enthusiastic champions (I’m talking to you, Roger Ebert) must cringe at the ignominy of a Crash franchise, compounding the soul-piercing guilt they face every day since the film outmaneuvered Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture nearly two years ago. On the bright side, the chances for a No Country for Old Men series—with Anton Chigurh popping holes in hayseeds around the Southwest while looking for a new bounty each episode—or a There Will Be Blood series (The Young Daniel Plainview Chronicles, perhaps? The Real World: Little Boston?) just improved dramatically.

S.T. VanAirsdale is the founder and editor of the New York film culture site The Reeler.

CondéNet
Copyright © 2008 CondéNet. All rights reserved.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Zuraffo on February 04, 2008, 12:22:20 PM
Lyle,

I don't know why you still are so obsessed with the Oscar's Loss.

I frankly think it is their loss and I have been so successful at blotting out Oscar from my life that I have completely forgotten about it. None of my friend talk about Oscar no more as any who tried will get blank stares and conversations soon die. In "WTH are you talking abt, WTF is Oscar anyway" kind of way.

In any case I don't think Oscar deserve any attention. Even if I don't hate them for snubbing BBM, it still doesn't measure up. (Japanese's "Departed"? Do they even care?)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 04, 2008, 02:06:27 PM
Zuraffo,

Hey!  Long time no hear!  Hope you are well.

On the one hand, I see you checked in to this thread to see what was happening...lol...
On the other hand, as you can see by that article, I'm not the only one who still thinks
about this...

I don't know if I'd use the word obsessed in my feelings about the oscar loss, but
because I love movies and have followed the oscars as long as I can remember and
because I love Brokeback Mountain, it is certainly something I am quite interested in.
What I decided a long time ago was that, as it is certainly something that I cannot
change, what I "can" do is make sure the reason Brokeback Mountain lost the bp
award is not forgotten.  (The reason being homophobia in large part.)  So, when I see
articles like the one in last November's issue of Entertainment Weekly that state
homophobia was the reason, I can applaud that.  When the next week I see a letter
in the magazine from academy president Bruce Davis refuting it, I can write to him and
to EW and on the internet and rebutt it with all the knowledge I have about it.  This snub
did hurt alot of us and what I can do is always set the record straight, so to speak, so
that the reason is never lost or diluted.

As for the academy and the oscars...  If I blot out the academy it means I am blotting
out something in my life that gives me a great deal of pleasure.  I live in Los Angeles and the
academy has a plethora of film screenings each year in two of the best equipped theatres in the
world for showing any kind of film and any kind of print.  I have seen nearly every film that
I've always wanted to see on a big screen.   And they always show the BEST available prints.
Many times people involved in making the films are there to talk about them.  I got to see
Sidney Poitier at an In the Heat of the Night screening.  I met a dozen people who were
in or worked on one of my favorite films, The Sting, and I got to talk to most of them—
Charles Durning, Dmitra Arliss, Harold Gould, Henry Bumstead, Sally Kirkland and David S. Ward
among them!    I met Arthur Hiller, Feyard Nicholas and Karl Malden in the bathroom!  I saw Olivia
DeHavilland in person for a tribute evening to her!  I saw a restored silent film called Speedy that the
Harold Lloyd family had sponsored.  I saw June Lockhart telling stories—reminiscing about working
with Gary Cooper and Stanley Kubrick’s right hand man telling what it was like to work with him in all
candor and honesty, meaning the good and the bad.  I saw some people who worked and lived for a time
with James Dean when they filmed Giant.  I saw John Schlesinger’s partner (boyfriend, mate, lover—to be
clear) talking about him and Midnight Cowboy.

*****(About the Harold Lloyd screening:  For $5.00 on a rainy L.A. night, I went to the theatre and saw a
spectacularly restored film from 1927.  The silent score was performed by an orchestra.  Afterwards, and
after remarks from all of his relatives, we got to go up to the gallery and see a selection of framed portraits
of the famous people of Harold Lloyd's time that were all autographed to him--a gift that his wife had
occasioned for him.  The one I remember most was Amelia Earhart's.  A signature you could only see in a
certain light because she wrote it on a dark part of the photograph--and considering her fate it was really
eerie.  After that, an unexpected champagne and dessert reception was held.  All for $5.00! )*****

I saw a 50th anniversary commemoration of D-Day hosted by Bob Hope and special guests.  I saw a
two-day GWTW weekend with David O. Selznick's personal print of the film and a six hour "making of"
seminar with film clips, screen tests, etc. which included makers of the film who were still with us at the
time.  I saw a tribute to Richard Rodgers hosted by Julie Andrews.  I saw Jackie Cooper talking about Skippy and The Champ that were made in the early 1930’s!  I've seen exhibitions in the gallery devoted to people
like W.C. Fields or Hitchcock.  All kinds of movie poster displays or photography exhibits.

I could go on for a long time.

So, yes, I desperately wanted Brokeback Mountain to be included on that imperfect list of films
that won Best Picture, because we all want to be part of the family, as I’ve said.  I daresay if we all
personally chose the Best Film of the year we’d have entirely different lists of 80 films.  But each
year the oscars is a way to see and talk about the best films of the year.  To argue about them and
even trash them.  That’s what oscar was designed to do.  And, yes, this one hurt me to the core and
even made me rethink a multitude of things.  If felt like a betrayal, a spouse cheating on you or any
number of other references.

But, as I hope I’ve explained, I get a great deal of pleasure from the academy.  And there are a huge
group of peeople within that academy who absolutely agree with us about Brokeback Mountain.  And
I don’t know if this is a quote from someone else, but on a television commercial once the narrator
begins by saying "If something is loved, it shows."  And on August 4th when the academy has their
screening of Brokeback Mountain, it will be seen by all how much Brokeback Mountain is loved.

Lyle P.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on February 04, 2008, 06:42:08 PM
What I really (REALLY) don't get is, the best thing about "Crash" was the acting, which admittedly was often remarkable in more than one scene, regardless of how one felt about the movie's overall structure, manipulativeness, coincidence, stereotyping, etc.   So, they're making a TV series, and none of the original actors will be in it? Why on Earth would anyone then watch it?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: lauren on February 04, 2008, 07:00:54 PM
What I really (REALLY) don't get is, the best thing about "Crash" was the acting, which admittedly was often remarkable in more than one scene, regardless of how one felt about the movie's overall structure, manipulativeness, coincidence, stereotyping, etc.   So, they're making a TV series, and none of the original actors will be in it? Why on Earth would anyone then watch it?

Hardly anyone saw the film, so I doubt many people are going to watch the series. The film was boring and the TV series will be too--I have no idea why they think this is a good idea. 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lola on February 04, 2008, 07:10:30 PM
What I really (REALLY) don't get is, the best thing about "Crash" was the acting, which admittedly was often remarkable in more than one scene, regardless of how one felt about the movie's overall structure, manipulativeness, coincidence, stereotyping, etc.   So, they're making a TV series, and none of the original actors will be in it? Why on Earth would anyone then watch it?

I posted this in the TV thread;

Crash, the movie which unexpectedly won best film at the Oscars two years ago, is being turned into a TV series.
Thirteen one-hour programmes will be made US cable channel Starz. The show is expected to premiere in August.

Crash focused on racial and ethnic tensions in Los Angeles and was made with a relatively small budget.

Paul Haggis, who co-wrote and directed the original, will be executive producer. Actor Don Cheadle will join the team and could reprise his role.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7215017.stm



As you know (or maybe don't, lol) I liked the movie and I bought it shortly after it came out on DVD.   But never thought it would beat out Brokeback for best picture.  And I agree the acting was what made the movie.

If Don Cheadle does come on board for the series, I think people will tune in, people will probably tune in anyway, this is just the kind of show that alot of people go for.  ::)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Zuraffo on February 05, 2008, 04:51:28 AM
Lyle,

I understand. I haven't been back for a long time. Actually I just checked in after Heath's tragedy.

It is not so hard for me to forget about oscar because it has never been important to me in the first place. It will be nice if AMPAS decided to honor BBM again. Personally I want to see them repeal their erronous decision, and that might bring some satisfaction back. But then again, I have never been a great Oscar supporter. So there isn't any love loss between us.

I accept that in art people are entitled to their preference. All I can say is, so far AMPAS' preferences have been so remote from mine that their endorsement has ceased to carry any meaning at all.

Being obsessed isn't a bad thing. Great artists usually are. I think AMPAS owed you one for being such an ardent supporter. And maybe they can decide to reward you by admitting their mistake. ;) (That will never happen.)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on February 05, 2008, 04:50:49 PM
I don't want to rehash all the points discussed regarding Oscar outrages, e.g., Citizen Kane - like it or hate it, was a great movie - and did not win Best Picture because of pressure from W.R. Hearst, etc.  And there have been all the other outrages, down to the most egregious one, i.e., Brokeback Mountain.

What I would like to ensure is that no one forgets the outrage. 

Despite the horrible, tragic circumstance of his death, I take real satisfaction in reading the various comments on Heath Ledger's career that salute his outstanding performance in Brokeback Mountain, and in some cases, acknowledge that it was ridiculous for that film to be snubbed by the Oscars.

From now on, I want to see the following phrase as often as possible:  "Heath Ledger's legendary performance in Brokeback Mountain."   It was , as Daniel Day Lewis stated, "perfect."

Oscars are often forgotten except by Oscar geeks, and even Oscar geeks pride themselves in their ability to cite the "should have wons."  Heath's tragic and untimely death will continue to add to the legend of this movie.

So while I no longer allow myself to become overheated at the subject, I will continue to stoke this flame as long as there are venues for discussion of "awards aftermath" and "Oscar outrages."  I kinda feel like I'm on a mission!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lola on February 05, 2008, 04:59:23 PM
Your on a mission from God! lol

I remember a friend of mine watched BB with her husband (he is a REAL film buff) his comments on the movie were simply "it was flawless" and it was.

And when we talk of Heath's death we are reminded of that flawless performance.  A performance that was so flawless it didn't win an Oscar and it was in a movie that was so flawless that it didn't win best picture.  :P


My only problem is that it wasn't the cast and crew of Crash's fault that they won, they all worked hard I am sure.  And PSH I am sure worked very hard on Capote and felt he deserved a win.


And the people who are nominated this year are all putting their heart and souls into parts and they are hoping for a win.  And as a fan of many of them, I can't help but cheer them on.

And one day it may be Annie or Michelle or Jake up there again (or Ang) and we will be routing for them, I know I will.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lola on February 05, 2008, 06:20:26 PM
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d145/cccccarol/reeseandjake/ledger_williams.jpg)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: divina on February 10, 2008, 01:00:52 AM
Quote
And one day it may be Annie or Michelle or Jake up there again (or Ang) and we will be routing for them, I know I will.

But never Heath...because they were too cowardly when they had the chance. Sorry but no interest in this farce of a show. Heath was too good for those phonies anyway.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 11, 2008, 02:02:47 AM
Marit Allen, the un-nominated costume designer for Brokeback Mountain,
tonight won the Bafta Award for her costume design of La Vie en Rose.  Of course, her win was bittersweet, but glad she got some
recognition.  I never did understand why she wasn't nominated for
her Brokeback Mountain work, especially when costumes themselves
were a huge plot point in the film.  And I'm not just talking academy here.
I don't think she was nominated anywhere for that work.  Anyway,
her talent was recognized tonight.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: ingmarnicebbmt on February 11, 2008, 04:30:22 AM

Yeah - better late than never...

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on February 11, 2008, 07:29:12 AM
Sorry I wasn't able to put together an event for Oscar Night this year, but there is still an option for anyone in the SF Bay area.



MEMORIAL TRIBUTE TO HEATH LEDGER

(http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r104/sfericsf/DozyCastro.jpg)

SUN-MON FEBRUARY 24-25

Brokeback Mountain

The Castro Theatre
429 Castro Street,
San Francisco, CA 94114

http://www.castrotheatre.com/p-list.html (http://www.castrotheatre.com/p-list.html)

Sunday: (12:30p), 3:10p, 6p, 9p; Monday: 6p, 9p

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Flyboy on February 11, 2008, 06:00:22 PM
Thanks for the info John, now we are SF John, huh? Left the past behind, moving on. Good for you, I do miss my Fav avatar though, haha........you know what I mean......carry on........
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 14, 2008, 12:42:47 PM
After reading today that Heath Ledger was the actor
that the Coen Brothers wanted for the Josh Brolin role
in No Country for Old Men, I just wondered if he had
done it, if he might have been nominated this year.  If
he was, the nominations came on the same day we
heard the news...  Even if he was not nominated, it
might have been worse to see his face connected
with this film that is the favorite to win Best Picture
this year--to see him all month...  And if things happen
for a reason...(?)  Anyway, just things going through
my thoughts today...
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lola on February 14, 2008, 04:20:38 PM
Now that the writers strike is over, the Oscar preps are in full force! Today the Academy announced which of Hollywood's top stars are set to present Oscars come February 24.

They include: AMY ADAMS, JESSICA ALBA, double nominee CATE BLANCHETT, JOSH BROLIN, STEVE CARELL, GEORGE CLOONEY, PENELOPE CRUZ, teen sensation MILEY CYRUS, PATRICK DEMPSEY, CAMERON DIAZ, COLIN FARRELL, HARRISON FORD, JENNIFER GARNER, TOM HANKS, ANNE HATHAWAY, KATHERINE HEIGL, 'Superbad''s JONAH HILL, DWAYNE "THE ROCK" JOHNSON, NICOLE KIDMAN, 'Atonement''s JAMES McAVOY, QUEEN LATIFAH, SETH ROGEN, MARTIN SCORSESE, HILARY SWANK, JOHN TRAVOLTA, DENZEL WASHINGTON and RENEE ZELLWEGER.

Last year's big winners JENNIFER HUDSON, HELEN MIRREN, ALAN ARKIN and FOREST WHITAKER will also take the stage as presenters.

Amy Adams will also perform a nominated song from the hit film, 'Enchanted.'

For the second time, "The Daily Show"'s JON STEWART will host the show, airing February 24 on ABC.

http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/02/58655/index.html
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on February 14, 2008, 08:09:41 PM
Does anyone besides me think Miley Cyrus  could be our next Britney Spears?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on February 19, 2008, 01:54:56 PM
In a recent article in TIME, Richard Corliss examines the Oscar mistakes over the years.  Naturally, he cites Crash's win over Brokeback Mountain as being one of the most egregious (that's in the actual article, not the one on-line).  However, check out what he has to say about Heath in the following paragraph:

Time and again, given the choice between an actor who does great work as a meanie and another who does good work as a cutie or victim, Oscar went for the latter. Marlon Brando's Stanley Kowalski in the 1951 A Streetcar Named Desire is one of the major revolutionary performances in movies; it announced the arrival of the Method actor and the sexy brute in one galvanizing package. Yet Brando lost to Humphrey Bogart in The African Queen. The Academy went for old style over new, as it did in withholding Oscars from Brando's more sensitive brethren, Montgomery Clift and James Dean. Both were multiple nominees; neither won. And like Heath Ledger--who in Brokeback Mountain gave a bold, pioneering performance--neither Clift nor Dean lived long enough to be given an honorary award.At least Clift, Dean and Ledger had the luck to be making serious dramas from Oscar-winning directors.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1713487,00.html
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: cazzyj on February 19, 2008, 02:00:21 PM
After reading today that Heath Ledger was the actor
that the Coen Brothers wanted for the Josh Brolin role
in No Country for Old Men, I just wondered if he had
done it, if he might have been nominated this year.  If
he was, the nominations came on the same day we
heard the news...  Even if he was not nominated, it
might have been worse to see his face connected
with this film that is the favorite to win Best Picture
this year--to see him all month...  And if things happen
for a reason...(?)  Anyway, just things going through
my thoughts today...

I thought I read somewhere he didn't want to do the same role twice?  I haven't seen the movie yet, but would it be similar (in theme only of course, not the actual role because we all know how unique the role of Ennis was) to Brokeback Mountain?  Just wondering on this....if anyone can give me some insight that would be great.

Another thing, IF Heath were to be nominated for the Joker (I have read that elsewhere as well, that he could be a contender considering the buzz surrounding his protrayal), would it mean less considering how he was snubbed in 2006? 

I don't know if the above question belongs in the new Oscar thread or not...but I am wondering about this. 

Thanks!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on February 19, 2008, 03:34:39 PM
I don't know why it would mean less. No-one wins something every time they're nominated or compete. Look at horse racing or boxing or the Olympics. Only one winner per event and often the same competitors vie many times to be the fastest or the best with different results each time.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: cazzyj on February 19, 2008, 03:52:44 PM
I don't know why it would mean less. No-one wins something every time they're nominated or compete. Look at horse racing or boxing or the Olympics. Only one winner per event and often the same competitors vie many times to be the fastest or the best with different results each time.

Yes I agree with you.  I just thought he should have won (if not Heath then Joaquin Phoenix).  PSH was awesome in Capote, but I preferred Heath or Joaquin personally.  And it was made clear (in some posts and articles) early on that Heath wasn't going to win regardless of how utterly amazing his Ennis was.  And how many critics raved about it.   Just wondering out loud.  Thanks for your reply!  :)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on February 19, 2008, 07:42:23 PM
You won't get any argument here about who SHOULD have won. I have a real problem with the idea that actors are nominated for a single role but are voted for based on their body of work. Capote and Walk were good movies and well acted, but NO-ONE did a better job that year than Ledger.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: cazzyj on February 19, 2008, 08:19:02 PM
.... but NO-ONE did a better job that year than Ledger.

In total agreement with you on this.  And so is just about every critic and journalist.  Knowing  (or based on certain articles of course, I don't really KNOW) that Heath wasn't going to win, I just would have preferred to have seen Joaquin win over PSH.  And I love all three actors.  That really isn't my point however...LOL

I just can't help but wonder what will happen next year.  IF he were to be nominated for the Joker, and IF he were to win, to me it would be too little too late Oscar people!  (AMPAS??)  He should have won for BBM, he didn't, now he's gone and NOW you want him to have it?  I guess that's my point....and it's all based on IF.  So, irrelevant I know but I can't help but wonder about it.  Just thinking out loud via my keyboard.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lola on February 19, 2008, 08:27:48 PM
I think Heath was obviously the best candidate to win.  I think PSH was very deserving of his win,  I thought JP was brilliant.  I thought Terrance was great in Hustle and Flow.   Alot of tough competition that year.


But now in hindsight (Heath having died) I really wish he had won.  But like I said before he left something behind much more precious than an Oscar, he left Matilda!   She is his legacy.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: cazzyj on February 19, 2008, 09:41:08 PM
I think Heath was obviously the best candidate to win.  I think PSH was very deserving of his win,  I thought JP was brilliant.  I thought Terrance was great in Hustle and Flow.   Alot of tough competition that year.


But now in hindsight (Heath having died) I really wish he had won.  But like I said before he left something behind much more precious than an Oscar, he left Matilda!   She is his legacy.


You are most definitely right, my dear.  On all accounts, but most especially about Matilda. 

Like I said..just thinking out loud :)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on February 19, 2008, 10:20:19 PM
I take some comfort from my impression that Heath wasn't really in to awards as a means of validating his work. 

I think his fans wanted it for him more than he wanted it for himself.  He said that Annie Proulx's praise - something to the effect that Heath knew Ennis even better than she did - was the greatest reward for him.  I never felt that he was particularly crestfallen because he did not get the Oscar. 

I think many of us were far more disappointed.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on February 19, 2008, 10:21:41 PM
I think that is an awfully heavy burden for that little girl. I just hope she grows up knowing she is loved by her family because of who SHE is and never feeling she has to prove anything because of who her father was. The best thing that can happen for Matilda, in my opinion, is to have Michelle fall in love with some sweet, steady guy, marry him and raise her with a whole herd of brothers and sisters well away from the limelight.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: cazzyj on February 20, 2008, 12:16:56 AM
I take some comfort from my impression that Heath wasn't really in to awards as a means of validating his work. 

I think his fans wanted it for him more than he wanted it for himself.  He said that Annie Proulx's praise - something to the effect that Heath knew Ennis even better than she did - was the greatest reward for him.  I never felt that he was particularly crestfallen because he did not get the Oscar. 

I think many of us were far more disappointed.

you are so right.  It's just my own disappointment (and a bit of bitterness over not only Heath's loss at the Oscar's but Best Picture as well, but I digress....) and I think if he were to be nominated and actually win next year, it would be a bit of a hard pill to swallow for me.  But only because of what transpired in 2006.  Nothing more.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 22, 2008, 12:50:30 PM
I take some comfort from my impression that Heath wasn't really in to awards as a means of validating his work. 

I think his fans wanted it for him more than he wanted it for himself.  He
said that Annie Proulx's praise - something to the effect that Heath knew
Ennis even better than she did - was the greatest reward for him.  I never
felt that he was particularly crestfallen because he did not get the Oscar. 

I think many of us were far more disappointed.

you are so right.  It's just my own disappointment (and a bit of bitterness
over not only Heath's loss at the Oscar's but Best Picture as well, but I
digress....) and I think if he were to be nominated and actually win next
year, it would be a bit of a hard pill to swallow for me.  But only because
of what transpired in 2006.  Nothing more.

cazzyj, in the historical context of winning oscars, it was not to be for
Heath.  Even though it's a performance of a lifetime (see my next post),
the academy rarely rewards young actors with the Best Acting Prize.
(Different in the actress category.)  Only ONE actor under thirty, by a
month or two, has ever won the top prize and that was Adrien Brody in a
split year of voting.  So, no matter how deserved, it just doesn't happen.
So, in context of oscar history it makes sense.  The Best Picture loss is
a different matter entirely...
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 22, 2008, 12:56:42 PM
"Best of the Best of All the Oscar Nominees since 1979:

5. Heath Ledger, “Brokeback Mountain” (2005). I include him (...) because his portrayal of a tightly-wound man unable to suppress his love for another man transcends all questions of sexual orientation. "

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/movies/2008/02/de-niro-daylewis-best-of-the-b.html

Wow, that's out of thirty years or 150 nominations, which include the
actual winners.  From an article by Jack Mathews in the New York Daily
News.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: cazzyj on February 22, 2008, 01:01:33 PM
I take some comfort from my impression that Heath wasn't really in to awards as a means of validating his work. 

I think his fans wanted it for him more than he wanted it for himself.  He
said that Annie Proulx's praise - something to the effect that Heath knew
Ennis even better than she did - was the greatest reward for him.  I never
felt that he was particularly crestfallen because he did not get the Oscar. 

I think many of us were far more disappointed.

you are so right.  It's just my own disappointment (and a bit of bitterness
over not only Heath's loss at the Oscar's but Best Picture as well, but I
digress....) and I think if he were to be nominated and actually win next
year, it would be a bit of a hard pill to swallow for me.  But only because
of what transpired in 2006.  Nothing more.

cazzyj, in the historical context of winning oscars, it was not to be for
Heath.  Even though it's a performance of a lifetime (see my next post),
the academy rarely rewards young actors with the Best Acting Prize.
(Different in the actress category.)  Only ONE actor under thirty, by a
month or two, has ever won the top prize and that was Adrien Brody in a
split year of voting.  So, no matter how deserved, it just doesn't happen.
So, in context of oscar history it makes sense.  The Best Picture loss is
a different matter entirely...


Hi

I appreciate your response!

I understand what you are saying, as I have read what went on back then over the upset, plus a few linked articles.  Bottom line, he deserved to win regardless.  I know he didn't care etc.  But it would have been great for him to have been recognized now that we know he will most likely never get the chance again (Joker role maybe?  Not sure of course, who knows?)
I guess I am just sorting through the sadness about his death, the unfairness of it all.  I am most likely rambling and not making any sense!  But I do appreciate you taking the time to respond!  It made a lot of sense to me.  Thank you!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 22, 2008, 02:02:16 PM
A good way to spend oscar weekend if you are able to:

Two-day tribute to Heath Ledger at the Castro Theatre
Published 02/21/2008   
by David Lamble
Our cinema church is in session for two days as the Castro hosts six screenings of Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain (Feb. 24, 25) while fans of the film grieve the inexplicable demise of its Oscar-nominated lead actor, Heath Ledger.


A link to the article which quotes a previous interview with Heath that is good and that I had never read before:

http://www.ebar.com/arts/art_article.php?sec=film&article=465
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 22, 2008, 02:04:20 PM
The New York Times Carpetbagger [David Carr, I believe] in his Oscar
Predictions says this:  HEATH LEDGER He should have had a long career,
making many laps as a presenter and an honoree. This is his year for all the
wrong reasons, and you will be hearing his name recalled in memoriam
and sadness.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: cazzyj on February 22, 2008, 02:17:45 PM
A good way to spend oscar weekend if you are able to:

Two-day tribute to Heath Ledger at the Castro Theatre
Published 02/21/2008   
by David Lamble
Our cinema church is in session for two days as the Castro hosts six screenings of Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain (Feb. 24, 25) while fans of the film grieve the inexplicable demise of its Oscar-nominated lead actor, Heath Ledger.


A link to the article which quotes a previous interview with Heath that is good and that I had never read before:

http://www.ebar.com/arts/art_article.php?sec=film&article=465

I wish!  I live in Alberta Canada, and that just isn't possible!

But I will definitely give the link a read thanks! :)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: borebox on February 23, 2008, 10:52:26 PM
Richhe ard Corliss in a recent TIME magazine did a story on all the wrong headed moves by the academy and even mentioned Crash winning over Brokeback but also went on to mention a lot of terrific movies that didn't win-so political.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on February 24, 2008, 07:56:18 PM
okay, so I'm watching the Oscars and I really want to be over my resentment but....

There have been several areas Brokeback could have been part of this year's show... the "tribute" to binoculars and periscopes for one, the bit on famous movie lines for another... but AMPAS is bound and determined to ignore it.

This used to be THE special I looked forward to all year, every year. The first one I "missed" was last year's. All day long I've been thinking about how it felt 2 years ago....
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 25, 2008, 01:53:02 AM
okay, so I'm watching the Oscars and I really want to be over my resentment but....

Yes, I am with you on what you said, Doodler.  I thought I'd softened a bit about it, but really felt resentful at times today.  It's like someone took away
my joy about something I liked.  Like burnt toast or sour milk.  Wanted to
enjoy it, but found bitter tastes rising.

And they left Marit Allen, the BBM costume designer, out of the memoriam
segment, which could have dovetailed nicely with Heath, and she was even
a nominee this evening...

Among other things...
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on February 25, 2008, 06:04:17 PM
Oscars may be headed to worst ratings ever

    * Preliminary ratings are lower than the least-watched ceremony ever
    * Overnight ratings are also 21 percent lower than last year
    * The least-watched Oscars ceremony ever was in 2003

NEW YORK (AP) -- The Oscars are a ratings dud. Nielsen Media Research says preliminary ratings for the 80th annual Academy Awards telecast are 14 percent lower than the least-watched ceremony ever.

Nielsen said Monday that overnight ratings are also 21 percent lower than last year, when "The Departed" was named best picture.

The least-watched Oscars ceremony ever was in 2003, when there were 33 million viewers.

Nielsen has no estimate yet on how many people watched Sunday night, but based on ratings from the nation's biggest markets, the Oscars will be hard-pressed to avoid an ignominious record.

The show had a 21.9 rating and 33 share.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess this means that people are voting with their feet....i.e., their remote!  All the negative karma we generated two years ago has come round to bite the AMPAS in their collective ass.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lola on February 25, 2008, 06:17:15 PM
http://www.davecullen.com/forum/index.php?topic=28371.msg1205948#msg1205948

I think we have 2 posts going on the Oscars!  :D

I think this was just a bad year, I don't think it had anything to do with a BB backlash.  I think they just aren't putting out movies that people "love"  I mean all the movies this year got critical acclaim and I know alot of people went and saw them, but how many of them will we remember in 10 years or even a year from now.

I thought that looking at the montage of best picture winners, I thought we will never see the likes of most of those films again ever.........I am hoping some film maker proves me wrong one day.

I want another Brokeback,  another Forrest Gump, another Godfather, another Shawshank,  another Titanic (sorry about that one  :D)


Here is one persons opinion:

This year's Oscar ceremony had the lowest television ratings on record, with only 32 million tuning in in the U.S. That's a smaller audience than watched the first American Idol show this year.

Part of the explanation is that most of this year's nominated films were not popular. They were not popular because they were bleak and violent. Hollywood has been losing customers with what I would consider mainstream tastes for a long time.

I think, too, that the politicization of the awards in recent years has hurt the audience. Hardly anyone wants to listen to hosts making partisan jokes, actors lecturing us on politics, or Michael Moore doing anything at all. (Yes, Moore was nominated again this year.) I watched a good part of the show with my wife and two of my daughters. We turned it off when some goofball started talking about Abu Ghraib. There's a pretty simple lesson here: if you don't care about your audience, at some point the audience will stop caring about you.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/02/019881.php


If this is political disregard it, I don't know alot about American politics.  :-\
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on February 25, 2008, 07:20:37 PM

Part of the explanation is that most of this year's nominated films were not popular. They were not popular because they were bleak and violent. Hollywood has been losing customers with what I would consider mainstream tastes for a long time.

I agree with that. Michael Clayton was the only one I saw and several did not play here. Only one of the nominated films had earned $100 million which I think is somewhat rare (but I could be way off the mark here since the only film I ever followed in that aspect is Brokeback.)


I think, too, that the politicization of the awards in recent years has hurt the audience. Hardly anyone wants to listen to hosts making partisan jokes, actors lecturing us on politics, or Michael Moore doing anything at all.

Actually, I like that part of the show. I like it when some UN-pc comments are part of the show... I expect it. The "skit" I liked the least was the one comparing Halle Berry and Dame Judy Dench, probably because I'm an old woman and wouldn't want to be compared to Halle Berry. (Actually, I wouldn't do well compared to Dame Judy either!)


I want another Brokeback,  another Forrest Gump, another Godfather, another Shawshank,  another Titanic (sorry about that one

Those come along on a regular basis... well, not Brokeback, but the others... and will continue to do so. This just wasn't a good year.

I was very disappointed in the Best Song category... 3 from one movie? What about all the rest of the music out there? There was a great song in The Brave One.

And what's with La Vie en Rose or whatever that movie's called? It's NOT a foreign film? If it is, it should be in that category and if it's not, it should be in English.

Finally, when they started the memorial, I was relieved to see it ran from 2/1/07 to 1/31/08... I had the thought "Good, it won't include Heath and I might be ready to see it NEXT year" and then remembered he died in January. Bummer.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: lauren on February 25, 2008, 07:45:11 PM
I guess this means that people are voting with their feet....i.e., their remote!  All the negative karma we generated two years ago has come round to bite the AMPAS in their collective ass.

I agree, graylock. This wasn't just a bad year---it was one of the worst, and it continues a decline.
What happened in 2006 was different than any other AA. People keep trying to spin that it wasn't, but it was, for all the reasons we've stated here. I think that has sunk in with the populace and has helped in this award show's downward plunge.   

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lola on February 25, 2008, 08:04:43 PM

Part of the explanation is that most of this year's nominated films were not popular. They were not popular because they were bleak and violent. Hollywood has been losing customers with what I would consider mainstream tastes for a long time.

I agree with that. Michael Clayton was the only one I saw and several did not play here. Only one of the nominated films had earned $100 million which I think is somewhat rare (but I could be way off the mark here since the only film I ever followed in that aspect is Brokeback.)


I think, too, that the politicization of the awards in recent years has hurt the audience. Hardly anyone wants to listen to hosts making partisan jokes, actors lecturing us on politics, or Michael Moore doing anything at all.

Actually, I like that part of the show. I like it when some UN-pc comments are part of the show... I expect it. The "skit" I liked the least was the one comparing Halle Berry and Dame Judy Dench, probably because I'm an old woman and wouldn't want to be compared to Halle Berry. (Actually, I wouldn't do well compared to Dame Judy either!)


I want another Brokeback,  another Forrest Gump, another Godfather, another Shawshank,  another Titanic (sorry about that one

Those come along on a regular basis... well, not Brokeback, but the others... and will continue to do so. This just wasn't a good year.

I was very disappointed in the Best Song category... 3 from one movie? What about all the rest of the music out there? There was a great song in The Brave One.

And what's with La Vie en Rose or whatever that movie's called? It's NOT a foreign film? If it is, it should be in that category and if it's not, it should be in English.

Finally, when they started the memorial, I was relieved to see it ran from 2/1/07 to 1/31/08... I had the thought "Good, it won't include Heath and I might be ready to see it NEXT year" and then remembered he died in January. Bummer.

LOL you are funny!  I actually love Halle and Dame Judy (she is incredible)

But gotta disagree - true there won't be another BB, but there sure as heck will never be another Shawshank or Gump......and for sure they will never be able to repeat The Godfather movies (I think the first one is 3rd on the AFI top 100 list) and Titanic took in a billion dollars or some crazy amount, that won't be topped any time soon.


But all that aside the movies this year just weren't feel good movies.......and they will be soon forgotten.  But I won't give up, I love the movies too much, something good is coming, I know it is.   

And yea the songs were crap, we at least needed some good Disney soundtracks!

I loved the Oscars long before Brokeback.  I don't think alot of people on this board were even movie buffs before that.  I mean if you check out the winners of best pic each year (as someone else said) they were all pretty wonderful on a whole.........up until Crash won.


And I know they will be wonderful again, movies didn't end with Brokeback.  I would like to think that movie just opened some doors, if not then what was the point??

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 25, 2008, 09:02:58 PM
I was very disappointed in the Best Song category... 3 from one movie? What about all the rest of the music out there? There was a great song in The Brave One.

And what's with La Vie en Rose or whatever that movie's called? It's NOT a foreign film? If it is, it should be in that category and if it's not, it should be in English.

Ever since they adopted new rules about the Best Song category, the
year BBM's song was not eligible under the new rules (it won the Golden
Globe), the song category has been REALLY lame.  Last year three
songs were from Dreamgirls.  This year, three songs from Enchanted.
Probably why the one you mentioned wasn't nominated.

LA VIE EN ROSE is a foreign film, but foreign films are eligible in all other
categories as well.  Last year, for instance, Pan's Labyrinth had six
nominations.  Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon had something like
TEN nominations as a foreign film, including best picture.

I thought Marion Cotillard was the deserved winner this year.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: divina on February 25, 2008, 10:51:15 PM

I guess this means that people are voting with their feet....i.e., their remote!  All the negative karma we generated two years ago has come round to bite the AMPAS in their collective ass.

I completely agree. They showed what they were about in 2006. Who can take this show seriously anymore after what happened with BBM.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on February 26, 2008, 07:59:42 AM
The Oscars have always made bone-headed decisions and milked prejudices--their dislike for Steven Spielberg and Barbra Streisand, right off the top of my head, as well as David Lynch and Stanley Kubrick.  They and their movies have all been snubbed at one time or another. 

I've never heard of a case like in 2006, however, where voters were actively looking for an "alternate" film to vote for, instead of the multiple-award-winning front-runner, specifically because of prejudice.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on February 26, 2008, 12:51:29 PM
I was very disappointed in the Best
And what's with La Vie en Rose or whatever that movie's called? It's NOT a foreign film? If it is, it should be in that category and if it's not, it should be in English.

LA VIE EN ROSE is a foreign film, but foreign films are eligible in all other
categories as well.  Last year, for instance, Pan's Labyrinth had six
nominations.  Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon had something like
TEN nominations as a foreign film, including best picture.

I thought Marion Cotillard was the deserved winner this year.

To be eligible for nomination in the BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM category each country has a nominating committee recognized by the AMPAS.  This year, for whatever the reason, the French committee did not select La Vie en Rose as France's entry in the category.  It was, as stated above, still eligible for nomination in every other category.  Which is why Marit Allen was nominated for Best Costume Design, etc.  I believe the French committee put forward Persepolis as  France's entry.  (Ironically, it did not make the final five in the Best Foreign Language Film category, but did get nominated as Best Animated Film, which it lost to Ratatouille)

Sophia Loren won the Best actress Oscar way back in 1961 for Two Women, which was in Italian.  And Roberto Begigni won Best Actor in 1998 for Life is Beautiful, also in Italian.  (Sir Ian McKellan was robbed - he was nominated, but did not win, for Gods and Monsters.)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 26, 2008, 01:09:26 PM
My choice for the best lines in the academy
awards telecast this year:

"For the past eight decades, we've gathered each year to honor the
outstanding achievement of film makers around the world.

What started out as an intimate dinner for a handful at a party at the
Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel has grown in size and stature to include
a worldwide audience numbering in the hundreds of millions.

Eighty years of memories...  A streaker running behind David Niven...
Charlie Chaplin returning after years of exile...surprise winners...giant
production numbers...some great moments...some mistakes...."


Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on February 26, 2008, 03:40:40 PM

LA VIE EN ROSE is a foreign film, but foreign films are eligible in all other
categories as well.  Last year, for instance, Pan's Labyrinth had six
nominations.  Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon had something like
TEN nominations as a foreign film, including best picture.


Then why is there a category specifically FOR foreign films? I feel foreign movies should not be eligible in regular categories. This isn't Cannes.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on February 26, 2008, 03:57:43 PM
I can remember being very unhappy with the Academy Awards off and on all the way back to the 50s (when I was in high school.) It often seemed that if I  liked a movie, it wouldn't win anything even if it managed to get nominated. (Maybe Brokeback's loss is MY fault.) But none of those snubs ever seemed personal and I never swore off the Oscar ceremony or going to the movies until 2 years ago. My kids and I have always clued everyone in on exceptional (in OUR minds) scores, stunts, etc and we still occasionally talk about films, but it's unusual now. Maybe it's us, maybe it's Hollywood. Maybe it's Brokeback Mountain.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on February 27, 2008, 10:50:39 PM
The fact that "No Country for Old Men" won for Best Picture in virtually all the precursors (just as BBM did) and went on to win AMPAS only further proves what an "anomaly" Brokeback's loss was two years ago - as if any more evidence were needed.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: twistedude on February 28, 2008, 12:12:34 AM
Awards? What awards?

Oh yeah...those. "Wings" won in 1927...check it out. Ten red-hot minutes near the end.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on February 28, 2008, 12:31:57 AM
Brokeback Mountain at the Castro Theatre on Oscar Night

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR8ofvirEIY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR8ofvirEIY)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on February 28, 2008, 09:22:02 AM

LA VIE EN ROSE is a foreign film, but foreign films are eligible in all other
categories as well.  Last year, for instance, Pan's Labyrinth had six
nominations.  Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon had something like
TEN nominations as a foreign film, including best picture.


Then why is there a category specifically FOR foreign films? I feel foreign movies should not be eligible in regular categories. This isn't Cannes.

I believe that the Independent Spirit awards AND the Golden Globes give the award to Best Foreign Film, NOT Best Foreign Language film.  (This is how in '82 they wound up giving "Best Picture" awards to the top 3 contenders: "Gandhi" for Foreign, "Tootsie" for Comedy, and "E.T." for drama.)  And they don't have all the stupid academy rules about the country must submit one (and only one) film, yadda yadda yadda.  Some major foreign film landmarks haven't even been nominated for Oscars, because their country chose to submit another film. 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on February 28, 2008, 05:43:32 PM
Is there no Indy show this year or did I just miss it?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on February 28, 2008, 07:44:46 PM
Is there no Indy show this year or did I just miss it?

It was on one of the cable networks. 

But I didn't watch it myself.  Actually, I think it was a rebroadcast, because I saw a list of the Indy Spirit winners on the internet earlier in the day (i.e., last Saturday).
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on March 02, 2008, 11:51:08 AM
In all the discussion about artistic merit, we often forget that there is also a financial consequence to a movie winning - or losing - an Oscar for Best Picture.

This weekend, last Sunday's winner, "Old Country for Old Men," saw a 67% increase in its box office take over the previous weekend.  For comparison, the three losing films saw the following drops:  "Juno" -20%, "There Will Be Blood" - 41% (even with a Best Actor win), and "Atonement" -59%.  (Not sure about "Michael Clayton," although that movie has already been out on video for a few weeks).

The weekend after "Brokeback Mountain" lost, its box office fell 52%.  That's another reason to be angry at AMPAS.  Think of how many more people might have gone to see the film had it won who didn't go simply because it lost.   :(

Just thought that was interesting.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 02, 2008, 12:10:48 PM
Think of how many more people might have gone to see the film had it won who didn't go simply because it lost.   :(

I remember a post right after that occurrence where someone put it in
terms something like "the academy gave permission to all of those
who were uncomfortable with it to keep on being uncomfortable with
it
".

Yes, another reason to fault and criticize the decision...
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lola on March 02, 2008, 12:17:05 PM
Think of how many more people might have gone to see the film had it won who didn't go simply because it lost.   :(

I remember a post right after that occurrence where someone put it in
terms something like "the academy gave permission to all of those
who were uncomfortable with it to keep on being uncomfortable with
it
".

Yes, another reason to fault and criticize the decision...

Well you know Lyle, that could be true.  I talked to a girl I work with the other day (very nice girl)  We were talking about Heath's death, she had never seen Brokeback..........she said it would have made her "too uncomfortable"  I said "how so" she said "well you know"   Well actually no I  don't know.........but anyway you just wonder IF it had won best picture would people have been less inclined to still be able to ignore it.


And now it has just kind of faded out of the limelight, but then I was thinking that after Heath's death, maybe people who hadn't seen it would make the effort to get the DVD and finally watch it.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on March 03, 2008, 09:36:54 AM
In all the discussion about artistic merit, we often forget that there is also a financial component involved in a movie winning - or losing - an Oscar for Best Picture.

This weekend, last Sunday's winner, "Old Country for Old Men," saw a 67% increase in its box office take over the previous weekend.  For comparison, the three losing films saw the following drops:  "Juno" -20%, "There Will Be Blood" - 41% (even with a Best Actor win), and "Atonement" -59%.  (Not sure about "Michael Clayton," although that movie has already been out on video for a few weeks).

The weekend after "Brokeback Mountain" lost, its box office fell 52%.  That's another reason to be angry at AMPAS.  Think of how many more people might have gone to see the film had it won who didn't go simply because it lost.   :(

Just thought that was interesting.





Just think if BBM won BP, maybe it could have gone up to 90Million easily, instead of 83Million. Remember Million Dollar Baby did make another 15million after winning BP in 2005. I think it might have been more. So, I guess people really do care about what the Oscar's say more than they let on.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 03, 2008, 12:11:30 PM
Just think if BBM won BP, maybe it could have gone up to 90Million easily, instead of 83Million. Remember Million Dollar Baby did make another 15million after winning BP in 2005. I think it might have been more. So, I guess people really do care about what the Oscar's say more than they let on.

I remember growing up (small rural town) talking to a neighbor girl--we
were talking about some movies--and she said that her parents only
went to the movies once a year--to see the movie that won the best
picture oscar.

Right after BBM won the Golden Globe best film award the box office
shot up the very next day.  I am sure it would've pulled in some more
people if it had won the b.p. oscar, people thinking "well, it must have something to it after all, let me find out..." 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on March 03, 2008, 09:17:59 PM
I guess the one good thing is that, at least, Crash was already out on video when it won.  Who would have wanted to have seen THAT movie beef up its box office toal with a win?   ;)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on March 03, 2008, 09:24:30 PM
Just think if BBM won BP, maybe it could have gone up to 90Million easily, instead of 83Million. Remember Million Dollar Baby did make another 15million after winning BP in 2005. I think it might have been more. So, I guess people really do care about what the Oscar's say more than they let on.

I remember growing up (small rural town) talking to a neighbor girl--we
were talking about some movies--and she said that her parents only
went to the movies once a year--to see the movie that won the best
picture oscar.

Right after BBM won the Golden Globe best film award the box office
shot up the very next day.  I am sure it would've pulled in some more
people if it had won the b.p. oscar, people thinking "well, it must have something to it after all, let me find out..." 

I remember that day well - when Brokeback Mountain suddenly became the #1 movie in the nation.  Sweet times.   :)

http://boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2006-01-17&p=.htm
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on March 03, 2008, 10:46:20 PM
another Advocate letter:

Heath's Legend

The death of Heath Ledger, reported as your March 11th cover story, hopefully caps a sad string of events surrounding the film which will forever be identified as his finest work: "Brokeback Mountain". This heart-stopping sadness begins within the Annie Proulx short story from which the film was made. When Ennis leaves Jack for the first time Proulx writes: "Within a mile Ennis felt like someone was pulling his guts out hand over hand a yard at a time". The sadness continues with the loss at the 2006 Academy Awards to "Crash" whose most dramatic redemptive moment (a racist white policemen risks his life to save a black woman from a car about to explode) is played out in an instant. Ledger's loss as "Best Actor" is no less of a disappointment. While Philip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal of Truman Capote, (and the 2006 winner, Helen Mirren's of Queen Elizabeth), are perfection, Ledger created Ennis Del Mar from nothing but words on a page.

http://advocate.com/letters_detail_ektid52449.asp (http://advocate.com/letters_detail_ektid52449.asp)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: PatSinnott on March 03, 2008, 11:13:27 PM
Here's more evidence the academy is still out of touch with the rest of America, and still in denial....


Thank you to gay partner edited out of Oscars transcript
 

Scott Rudin is one of Hollywood's most prolific producers, having been responsible for bringing scores of hit movies to the screen.
 
Scott Rubin thanked several people on Sunday when he collected an Oscar for Best Picture for No Country For Old Men, which he produced.

The 49-year-old, after name-checking the film's directors Joel and Ethan Coen and producer Sydney Pollack, paid tribute to "my partner, John Barlow. Without you, honey, this is just hardware."

Theatre publicist Barlow was at the ceremony, but was not honoured with a close-up when his name was mentioned, as is common practice when heterosexual spouses are similarly praised.

On slate.com Dana Stevens drew a comparison with a same-sex kiss at the 2007 Oscars ceremony:

"When Melissa Etheridge won for Best Song last year, she gave her wife, Tammy Lynn Michaels, an on-camera kiss, but they're women, and attractive blondes to boot.

"I guess being publicly gay at the Oscars is still no country for old men. But maybe next year."

Others questioned why the official press transcript from the Oscars website initially excluded the reference to Mr Barlow from Mr Rudin's speech.

The transcript was later altered to include his same-sex sentiments.

Scott Rudin is one of Hollywood's most prolific producers, having been responsible for bringing scores of hit movies to the screen.

He is also one of the few successful out producers in the industry.

To watch Scott Rudin's acceptance speech SCROLL DOWN.
More:
http://www.pinknews .co.uk/news/ articles/ 2005-6962. html (http://www.pinknews .co.uk/news/ articles/ 2005-6962. html)
 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: PatSinnott on March 04, 2008, 08:20:38 PM
Don't know if this has already been posted, but I have never read it.   It's right on the money as far as I'm concerned.



A Harrowing Affair: Commentary From a Brokeback Mountain Fan
by Mark Salamon, March 13, 2006

During the run-up to the Academy Awards Tony Curtis told Fox News
that he hadn't yet seen Brokeback Mountain and had no intention of
doing so. He claimed he wasn't alone in the sentiment and other
Academy members felt the same way.

Furthermore, Curtis contended, his contemporaries no longer alive to
speak for themselves wouldn't have cared for the highly acclaimed
Best Picture nominee either." Howard Hughes and John Wayne wouldn't
like it," Curtis said in an interview.

I am not a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences,
but I have seen Brokeback Mountain, and I did like it tremendously— as
did millions of others. Our bewilderment over its defeat at the
Oscars has been misinterpreted. Would you humor us by considering the
following analogy that better explains our position?

Let's simply recast Brokeback Mountain as the story about the
intolerance faced by a white woman and her black husband in rural
Wyoming in the 1960s. At the end of the film, her husband is murdered
in a brutal hate crime because of others disgust over miscegenation.

Now imagine that, before this film even premieres, it is the butt of
racist jokes. Conservative news commentators decry its very existence
as a mistake, calling it a profane plea for acceptance of the sin
that is a mixed marriage. They repeatedly predict--and hope for--its
failure at the box office.

The movies opens and critics rave that it is an exquisite, poignant,
and supremely-well crafted film. The actors are ideally cast in their
parts and play their roles with pitch-perfect honesty and
involvement. The screenplay is sublimely spare and genuinely
evocative of the American west of the recent past. The
cinematography, the musical score, the landscapes, the set-pieces:
together, they achieve perfection, or something close to it.

Nonetheless, all during its cinematic run, talk show hosts, humorists
and live comedy-ensemble network programs can't seem to let a day go
by without satirical reference to that "jungle fever cowboy movie."
Black and white celebrities play out creepy parodies of "BrokeBlack
Mounting." Often these skits are done in whiteface and blackface.

Award season commences and Brokeback Mountain wins almost every
precursor "Best" award bestowed by the most prestigious film
institutions. It also has the greatest box-office take of all the
likely Best Picture nominees, and, by most accounts, is the best
reviewed film of the year. And when the Oscar nominations are
announced, Brokeback Mountain receives the highest number of
nominations for all of the Best Picture nominees.

Shortly thereafter, an Academy member proudly proclaims he has no
intention of watching the film because he and his contemporaries
don't care for mixed marriages. Their reasoning is,"D.W. Griffith (or
insert the name of a famously racist Hollywood Golden Age actor here)
would be rolling over in his grave." Consider, too, it is also likely
that a significant proportion of Academy members are silently acting
out this same bigotry by failing to see Brokeback Mountain before
marking their own ballots.

No one objects to these glaring violations of the Academy's own
rules, or the institution' s ethics. Nonetheless, it is widely
predicted Brokeback Mountain will win Best Picture. Even Las Vegas
odds-makers make it the overwhelming favorite.

Then Brokeback Mountain loses to Crash in what, almost everyone
agrees, is one of the—if not the —most shocking upset ever. Is it
unreasonable that some might ask if racism had been a factor?

This example is not an overstatement of the abuse that has been
hurled at Brokeback Mountain, nor have its accolades been
exaggerated. Merely substitute "gay male relationship" into the
analogy provided above and you will have an accurate picture of the
scathing climate Brokeback Mountain has had to endure.

Consider another scenario. Imagine the gay themes of Brokeback
Mountain were received with benign acceptance and treated with quiet
respect during its run in the theaters. Reviews were mixed and it did
so-so at the box-office. Meanwhile, the issues of race relations in
Crash were the subject of daily derision, culminating in an
announcement by a prominent Academy member he would not be viewing
the movie because it was about "colored people."

Then, suppose that leading up to the Oscars, Crash received
more "Best" awards, not only among all pictures in 2005, but among
all movies in history.

Don't you think there might have been a tiny tempest if, under those
circumstances, Brokeback Mountain had then won "Best Picture" over
Crash? Wouldn't questions of racism within the Academy of Motion
Picture Arts and Sciences be asked legitimately? Accusations of
unfairness within the Academy's voting procedure and the uproar would
continue until heads rolled and changes occurred. Spike Lee and the
NAACP might well be in the forefront of the campaign.

But Brokeback Mountain is a tale of the love between two male ranch
hands. Mr. Curtis--and who knows how many other Academy members--
flouted the long accepted conventions of their own guild by
dismissing Brokeback Mountain without ever screening it. Is there
really a problem with that? Or are those homosexuals just "sore
losers," who are "pushing an agenda?"

Homophobia-- yes, there's that "h" word--is still so ingrained in
Hollywood and within American culture that disdain for gay
relationships is accepted as "normal" and "natural". So much so, that
the Tony Curtises of this world express it as if by right, feeling no
shame and fearing no censure from their colleagues or the public.
[Note from jayiijay: Tony Curtis wasn't the only one. Ernest
Borgnine's equally unacceptable quotes are in Entertainment Weekly,
there are more from less famous people]

In his column entitled "The Fury of the 'Crash'-lash" Roger Ebert
concludes by writing: "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."

Let us overlook the fact that Ebert succumbs to the slippery
temptation to misrepresent our point, and then finds fault with that
misconstruing of our position. What he seems to be suggesting is
that "supporters of Brokeback Mountain" are "attacking" Crash because
we failed in our attempts to turn the Oscar for "Best Picture" into a
competition for "Worthiest Oppressed Minority".

I, and those who agree with me, will freely admit to being Brokeback
Mountain supporters, yet let us please speak for ourselves. Few of us
have argued Brokeback Mountain deserved the Oscar because it is about
gay love. That has nothing to do with it.

What's done is done. Crash won this year's Best Picture Oscar and
there is no taking that back. Nor should it be. But given the facts
outlined above, is it really asking too much to admit that homophobia
may very well have played a part in that outcome?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: cazzyj on March 04, 2008, 09:55:19 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ WOW!!!!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

By far the best commentary about BBM I have ever EVER read!  His points are meticulous, well thought out and bang on the money!  I love his re-casting, reworking of the script.  Different scenario, same result?  Can you imagine the outcry??  Oprah shrieking wildly in the background (and I am sure we all heard her when Crash won  ::)) at the unjustice of it all! 

The Oscars have been on my shitlist for years now, even before BBM.  Since 2006, I don't even care who is nominated.  Give me the BAFTA's any day..they have definitely earned my respect.

Thank you for posting this!  It was a real treat to read :)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BookJunkie on March 05, 2008, 05:44:15 AM
Wonderful article.  I felt that Brokeback Mountain was robbed at the Oscars, due to homophobia, and Tony Curtis' comments leave a nasty taste in my mouth. 

Even putting personal taste in movies aside (I didn't like Crash, although I do think that Matt Dillon probably did the best work of his career in that film), I still don't see how Crash could have justifiably beaten Brokeback Mountain.  Philip Seymour Hoffman is a fine actor, but I do think that the Best Actor Oscar should have been Heath Ledger for his incredible portrayal of Ennis.  I am no expert, but I believe that Ang Lee's Best Director win was simply a token gesture (even though the win was totally deserved) on the part of the Academy.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: cazzyj on March 05, 2008, 07:04:29 AM
Wonderful article.  I felt that Brokeback Mountain was robbed at the Oscars, due to homophobia, and Tony Curtis' comments leave a nasty taste in my mouth. 

Even putting personal taste in movies aside (I didn't like Crash, although I do think that Matt Dillon probably did the best work of his career in that film), I still don't see how Crash could have justifiably beaten Brokeback Mountain.  Philip Seymour Hoffman is a fine actor, but I do think that the Best Actor Oscar should have been Heath Ledger for his incredible portrayal of Ennis.  I am no expert, but I believe that Ang Lee's Best Director win was simply a token gesture (even though the win was totally deserved) on the part of the Academy.

Matt Dillon is a far better actor than he gives himself credit for.  He should have taken the Heath road for sure (pickier about roles) but then I guess nobody would be acting in the crap they shove out if they were all picky LOL
I enjoyed Crash, loved Capote (PSH is an incredible actor there is no doubt about that) but I also thought Joaquin Phoenix was better as Johnny Cash than PSH was as Capote.  Hands down, though, Heath should have won.  Everyone but the academy thought so.  And how BBM lost Best Cinematography still baffles me.... >:(
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: ingmarnicebbmt on March 05, 2008, 07:15:58 AM

Great, great article.
Thanks for posting it.

And reading it with two years' distance, makes it even more powerful and true.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on March 05, 2008, 09:35:45 AM

Great, great article.
Thanks for posting it.

And reading it with two years' distance, makes it even more powerful and true.



Two years ago today. Damn, two years.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on March 07, 2008, 09:21:12 PM
Interesting reading from:

http://goldderby.latimes.com/

Gay outrage builds over military invasion of the Oscars

Just two years after Oscar snubbed best-picture front-runner "Brokeback Mountain," gay leaders wonder if they just got slapped deliberately again by Golden Boy. Outrage continues to build over how Oscar chiefs chose to stage the presentation of the award for best documentary short. It was bestowed by U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine troops in Iraq. Surely, Oscar leaders must've realized that a gay-themed nominee, "Freeheld," might win and the award presentation would be an awkward setup.

Indeed, "Freeheld" triumphed, thus rewarding an expose about the heroic struggle of a lesbian police officer dying of cancer who wanted to bequeath her pension benefits to her partner, just like married heterosexuals can do.

"The irony here, of course, is that soldiers can't leave their benefits to their partners or even be openly gay in the military," notes Andy Humm, co-host of TV news show "Gay U.S.A." Listen to the program's podcast HERE

Typical of the outrage expressed across the blogosphere is this observation at CourtingEquality.com: "'Freeheld' demonstrates that the freedom and liberty that some LGBT citizens fight for abroad are not theirs at home."

"Probably no one planning this year’s show thought about the hypocrisy of having the military, which bans openly gay and lesbian soldiers from service, announce" the winner, noted the New Jersey Bergen Record. "It may go down as the ultimate Oscar irony."

Below is a video clip of the presentation on Oscar night. Notice how clueless the presenters seem to be about the ironic scene. (Entertainment Weekly tells the back story HERE.) Ignoring it with great diplomacy is winner Cynthia Wade, a heterosexual New York filmmaker who produced and directed "Freeheld."

"It was Lt. Laurel Hester's dying wish that her fight against discrimination would make a difference for all the same-sex couples across the country that face discrimination every single day — discrimination that I don't face as a married woman," she said, accepting the Oscar.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on March 09, 2008, 09:11:34 PM
On his show tonight, Richard Roeper was lamenting the fact that Marion Cotillard won the Best Actress Oscar a few weeks back.  Hm....wasn't he the one calling all the Brokeback defenders poor losers and cry babies?  And we had a reason that went far beyond just a more worthy nominee losing to a less worthy one.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on March 10, 2008, 02:52:26 PM
On his show tonight, Richard Roeper was lamenting the fact that Marion Cotillard won the Best Actress Oscar a few weeks back.  Hm....wasn't he the one calling all the Brokeback defenders poor losers and cry babies?  And we had a reason that went far beyond just a more worthy nominee losing to a less worthy one.



I saw that too. What a baby. Now he knows how we feel. I doubt it.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on March 10, 2008, 09:00:06 PM
Not really much to do with awards, but I stumbled upon this article from the past and thought it made for fun reading:

http://www.salon.com/ent/col/fix/2006/02/02/thurs/
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: SilverLake on March 26, 2008, 11:16:17 AM
If anyone is still following the never-ending litigation among the Crash producers, yesterday the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision to throw out of court the lawsuit brought by Bob Yari against the Producers Guild and AMPAS for denying him producers credit at the Oscars.  You can read the entire decision at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B196817.PDF .
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: PatSinnott on April 18, 2008, 08:30:55 AM
Here's another post by the author I shared earlier.  Again, very informed and enlightening.

Al, great letter to the Advocate. Since you too are still disturbed
by the outcome of the 2005 Academy Awards, I encourage you to please
see my earliest posts on this site, in which I posted a good number
of pieces about the homophobia and cowardice that caused Brokeback
Mountain to lose the Best Picture Oscar. Although what I am about to
say may be redundant, the 2005 Oscars should not be forgotten for the
disgrace they were. Nothing with a fraction of Brokeback Mountain's
precursor Best Picture & Director prizes had ever lost the Academy
Award. Not even close. Brokeback is now the only film to win the
Producers Directors and Writers Guilds Awards (widely considered the
big 3) and to lose the Oscar (few films have ever won all 3 of those
prizes to begin with). Brokeback is now the only film to have the
most nominations and to win the Golden Globe & BAFTA and to lose the
Oscar. It is the only film to win the New York and Los Angeles Film
Crix prizes with the most nominations and to lose the Oscar. There
are many other permutations and combinations, but I hope you do take
comfort in the fact that Brokeback is the most honored pre-Oscars
movie in history, only Schindler's List and, interestingly, No
Country for Old Men are in its class in that regard. And only
Schindler was more dominant than Brokeback. No Country lost major
prizes like LA to There Will Be Blood and the Globe & BAFTA to
Atonement. Or, for example, Titanic was big, but got creamed by LA
Confidential at all the crix prizes, whereas Brokeback swept more
than any other film ever, from Boston to San Fran to Broadcast to NY
to LA to many others including conservative red state places like
Utah and Texas prizes. On top of that, Brokeback was #1 at the box
office by 50% more than the 2nd highest grossing film of the
nominees, and was named the #1 box office story of 2005 by major site
boxofficemojo. com, and was obviously a cultural zeitgeist the way few
films have ever been. Most people had never even heard of Crash
until the Oscars, whereas almost everyone knew of Brokeback, whether
they watched it or not. But, with Academy members like Tony Curtis
and Ernest Borgnine and "all [our] friends" won't watch Brokeback
Mountain because John Wayne would roll over in his grave", the senior
branch of the Academy all but admitted its bigotry and homophobia and
cowardice in a right-wing backlash (it was threatened many times
during the run-up to the Oscars), they disgraced themselves worse
than they ever did before, even when masterpieces like Citizen Kane
and Raging Bull lost and The Searchers and Vertigo and 2001 weren't
even nominated, because this time, they had a universally acclaimed
masterpiece, but turned their backs for the worst of reasons. The
overwhelming precedents and their own members prove it.

I dwell on Brokeback, in no small part, because it is the jewel in
Heath's legacy. In my eyes, and in those of increasingly greater
numbers of others, it is one of the greatest performances ever
captured on screen (and I've seen 5,000 movies from over 60
countries, and have worked in film, so I pride myself that I know a
bit of what I'm talking about in that regard). As for Heath's loss,
however, although of course you are right about that too, it was
different, because Philip Seymour Hoffman won more precursors. Only
Annie Proulx was brave enough to say that he didn't deserve them, in
her brilliant, brave but much maligned piece, "Blood on the Red
Carpet", published right after the Oscars, in which she said that
Heath blew PSH away. And he did. But the thinking was that
Brokeback would win Picture, Director, Screenplay, Score and
Cinematography, and that the acting prizes would be split among other
major films, as they often are. Moreover, the Academy has rarely, if
ever, recognized the quiet, subtle, and often best performances,
whereas they typically go for ham, and portrayals of real people.
People were also wary of Heath's talent, whereas PSH was probably the
top, most respected rising character actor of the screen and New York
stage of the past decade, so there was cache in honoring PSH, he
was "due". As for Heath, who was he, just another pretty boy actor?
Well, obviously not. Some, like Ang Lee, recognized his quiet,
masterful work in "Monster's Ball", and realized he was a major
talent waiting to be recognized (that's how he got the part of
Ennis). And only now are people truly looking back at Heath's fine
filmography and realizing what a diverse array of performances he
gave, from Candy to Lords of Dogtown and even things like Two Hands
and Ned Kelly, where you couldn't take your eyes off him.

Through the years, the Academy has become increasingly irrelevant,
not just on account of lower ratings, but because year after year
they get it "wrong". I put quotes around that word because who is to
say when judging art, I suppose...but in another way, I suppose not.
Works of art with a living and lasting value are and can be judged
all the time. Personal subjectivity is just as valid, and if
somebody personally enjoys something like Caddyshack more than
Citizen Kane, well then fine, that is their taste, that is their
prerogative. Caddyshack is a hoot. But if somebody says that Caddy
is a better film, a finer work of art than Kane, well, then for
reasons that would take pages and pages to argue, they are "wrong".
Sometimes it is close, like Sunset Boulevard vs. All About Eve in
1950, and sometimes it is not. The Academy has gotten the Best
Picture prize "right", at best, giving them the benefit of the doubt
for years like 1950, maybe 25-30% of the time. There is no such
doubt with Brokeback Mountain, it is a far, far superior film to
Crash, and everything else in 2005 (and beyond...it is an all-time
great). The top 100 crix in America were polled in 2005, 98 of 100
picked Brokeback, 1 from Kansas City didn't because he refused to
watch Brokeback, and the last, Roger Ebert, liked Crash (but Roger,
whom I have corresponded at great length, has a "thing" for films
like Crash, for his own personal reasons...he admits that Brokeback
is great, and he admitted to me - after much cajoling - that
Brokeback lost at least in part on account of homophobia). Premiere
Magazine conducts a respected crix/film historian poll every year.
Brokeback was the #1 fiction film (Grizzly Man was #1 non-fiction) ,
while Crash was #58. Entertainment Weekly did a less formal poll,
but again Brokeback was #1 overall, while Crash was #36 or #37, I
forget which. Sight & Sound, arguably the world's most prestigious
film magazine, picked Brokeback as the #1 film of 2005 worldwide. It
goes on and on. It is not just subjective, but it is objective, that
Brokeback Mountain is a great film, by far the best of 2005,
certainly over uneven, preachy, well-meaning but mediocre-at- best
Crash. When in February, 2006, EW asked its director Paul Haggis
if anything could stop juggernaut Brokeback Mountain from winning
the Oscar for Best Picture, Haggis replied, "No, and nothing should,
its a wonderful film." Everything I am telling you is in print, it
remains unbelievable that Brokeback lost, but who really cares, when
the films I named above, along with true greats from The General and
City Lights thru Treasure of the Sierra Madre and Singin' in the Rain
and Some Like It Hot thru The Graduate and Network and Do the Right
Thing and Goodfellas and The Pianist and so many others also lost (or
weren't even nominated). After 2005, I no longer watch the Oscars,
because I will not support an organization that condones bigotry.

Finally, of course it goes without saying that Brokeback would not be
the masterpiece that it is without the monumental performance of
Heath Ledger. Like Peter O'Toole's losing work in Lawrence of Arabia
and Henry Fonda's losing work in The Grapes of Wrath, it is so much
bigger than the Oscars. The same for another film legend to whom
Heath has been compared the past few months, and who died too young,
James Dean. Dean's most legendary performance was Rebel without a
Cause. They didn't nominate him for it, they chose East of Eden
instead - also brilliant work, but the wrong film. The next year,
his great work in the great Giant also lost, they put him in the
wrong category (he was supporting, not lead). So don't take the
Oscars seriously. Few do anymore, people watch for the fashions and
in case somebody says something racy. They are an unfunny joke.
Heath Ledger's memory as a great film actor, if from only Brokeback
Mountain alone, will outlast the Oscars. Thanks for reading my rant!
--- In HeathLedgerTributeS ite@yahoogroups. com, "Al Levy"
<netalfred@. ..> wrote:
>
> Search Google for: Alfred M Levy Ledger and the letter will be
the first entry.
>
>
> Heath's Legend
> The death of Heath Ledger, reported as your March 11th cover story,
hopefully caps a sad string of events surrounding the film which will
forever be identified as his finest work: "Brokeback Mountain". This
heart-stopping sadness begins within the Annie Proulx short story
from which the film was made. When Ennis leaves Jack for the first
time Proulx writes: "Within a mile Ennis felt like someone was
pulling his guts out hand over hand a yard at a time". The sadness
continues with the loss at the 2006 Academy Awards to "Crash" whose
most dramatic redemptive moment (a racist white policemen risks his
life to save a black woman from a car about to explode) is played out
in an instant. Ledger's loss as "Best Actor" is no less of a
disappointment. While Philip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal of Truman
Capote, (and the 2006 winner, Helen Mirren's of Queen Elizabeth), are
perfection, Ledger created Ennis Del Mar from nothing but words on a
page. We are compelled to feel compassion for Ennis when we might
normally have found only contempt. Ledger seduces us so insidiously
that straight viewers feel Ennis is straight and gay viewers are sure
he is not. The theme of the movie, self denial of sexual orientation,
is as relevant now as during the time in which the story plays out.
Witness this decade's events surrounding certain Republican
politicians. In fact, it was the at the heart of the 1999 Academy
Award winner, "American Beauty". I believe that Ledger and his film
failed to win because the Academy voters caught a quick case of
homophobia. "Titanic" was a similar story of forbidden love. If you
substitute a 'gender' problem for that movie's 'class'
problem, "Titanic" would have sunk faster than the ship. "Brokeback
Mountain" took on this taboo directly (not indirectly, as
in "American Beauty"). "Brokeback Mountain" won Academy Awards for
screen play, music, and direction. Moreover, it won the "box office"
award for a love story set in the West. It deserves the top awards
for Ledger's acting and for the film itself. There will always be
time for the Academy to redeem itself posthumously and retroactively.
>
> Alfred M. Levy
> Jupiter, Fla.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on April 18, 2008, 10:05:23 AM
I find it interesting--and revealing--that this past year with Barack Obama surging towards the Democratic nomination and all the talk about race and its intricate accompanying issues (including Obama's outstanding speech about his grandmother et all), I have yet to see one single article even mention "Crash."  Didn't some folks claim it was such an "important" "award-worthy" film?  You'd think if it was truly that significant it would've at least been mentioned ONCE by a columnist or letter writer or candidate.  Nothing, zip, nada.

Even more interesting: a few weeks ago AOL did an online list of the most important/influential films about race in America.  I believe they had 50 films they mentioned, including some really fine works such as "A Soldier's Story" "Do The Right Thing" "Sounder" "Glory" "Boyz in the Hood" and others.  Guess what film couldn't even make the top 50 on THAT list? 

Time will not be kind to the Academy for this decision, and I'd say by now the majority of folks know it.  (Mike Clark, critic for USA TODAY, commented a couple weeks ago when reviewing "The Greatest Show On Earth" that it's regarded as one of the worst films ever to win Best Picture, but "it still has more entertainment in it than 'Crash.'") Here in Portland we have a Film Freak column in the Friday entertainment section which profiles a prominent local and their favorite flicks; "Crash" has been cited by a couple people, but usually with a vaguely gushy adjective like "important" or "brave"--the sort of words well-intentioned liberals use when considering a film's intentions and reach, as opposed to its execution.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on April 18, 2008, 12:06:19 PM
The piece of celluloid in question is produced, written, and directed by the intellectually challenged for the intellectually challenged.  It contains one nicely crafted supporting performance and one brief but clever scene that could just as easily have made it’s point as an SNL sketch.
It has the political and intellectual breadth and depth of a communion wafer and the fact that it has received any recognition at all is an insult to film makers and film enthusiasts everywhere.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on April 20, 2008, 05:28:11 PM
As you may know, the academy will be showing Brokeback Mountain this
summer because it fits the criteria for their Great to Be Nominated Series,
which is the film each year that had the most nominations but did not win
best picture.  Most news about this event will be in the Gatherings and
Events
thread.
http://www.davecullen.com/forum/index.php?topic=27940.0

So far it appears the producer of this series is very Brokeback
friendly and was not happy with the academy as much as we were.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on April 20, 2008, 10:34:45 PM
Tonight, on "Ebert, Roeper and the Movies," Roeper, who derided BBM supporters as cry-babies and sore-losers after the movie lost to Crash, once again made a comment implying that Marion Cotillard didn't deserve her Oscar as Best Actress over Laura Linney in "The Savages."  Hmmmm   >:(
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on April 21, 2008, 07:03:33 AM
Tonight, on "Ebert, Roeper and the Movies," Roeper, who derided BBM supporters as cry-babies and sore-losers after the movie lost to Crash, once again made a comment implying that Marion Cotillard didn't deserve her Oscar as Best Actress over Laura Linney in "The Savages."  Hmmmm   >:(


He's a baby.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on April 21, 2008, 07:04:46 AM
Pat.

I love your post.  GREAT!!!!!!!!!!! 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on May 08, 2008, 11:25:47 PM
Ah, happier times.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/13/DDG9HGJ9II34.DTL
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on May 09, 2008, 03:25:18 PM
I'm teaching for a week in a school that's tied in with a juvie hall, and the kids have a lot of issues but some of them are really nice.  I introduced myself yesterday and asked them to give their names and their favorite movie.  Most of the kids chose things like "The Godfather" "Scarface" "Save the last Dance" "Honey" etc.  I gave my name and said "Psycho."  (It's actually tied with "E.T." but I decided to keep things simple.)  Then the woman who's co-teaching with me said, "Juanita, and my favorite movie is 'Crash.'"  I knew I should've gone at the end; then I would've said "BBM" just for contrast.  Ah well, I'm not going to go to the mat with her over it.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on May 11, 2008, 04:05:59 PM
I doubt the Crash lovers would be very adamant about their favorite movie. I have yet to meet anyone who feels about any movie the way I... and the majority of people here... do about Brokeback Mountain. Movies simply are NOT life changing for most people. I have a number of favorite movies but they simply do not compare.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lola on May 11, 2008, 04:14:05 PM
I doubt the Crash lovers would be very adamant about their favorite movie. I have yet to meet anyone who feels about any movie the way I... and the majority of people here... do about Brokeback Mountain. Movies simply are NOT life changing for most people. I have a number of favorite movies but they simply do not compare.

Well come to my house.  We do feel that way about the Godfather films.   And I feel that way about Forrest Gump and Shawshank and many others.  Brokeback was a wonderful movie, but there are many movies that have been life changing for me.  Right back to the first time I saw The Wizard of Oz.   I could define my life by decades of movies.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on May 11, 2008, 08:35:51 PM
I doubt the Crash lovers would be very adamant about their favorite movie. I have yet to meet anyone who feels about any movie the way I... and the majority of people here... do about Brokeback Mountain. Movies simply are NOT life changing for most people. I have a number of favorite movies but they simply do not compare.

Well come to my house.  We do feel that way about the Godfather films.   And I feel that way about Forrest Gump and Shawshank and many others.  Brokeback was a wonderful movie, but there are many movies that have been life changing for me.  Right back to the first time I saw The Wizard of Oz.   I could define my life by decades of movies.

I need you to explain that to me. Exactly what did The Godfathers change in your life or Shawshank? What lessons did you get from them? Forest Gump... taught you that you were wrong about or how to get over... what? I can see the Wizard teaching someone, especially a kid, to pay attention to the sky during tornado season and POSSIBLY imparting the lesson that everything is not always what it seems to be.

I love movies, I ENJOY watching them. I have a particular fondness for composers and stuntmen (and am REALLY sorry so much stuff is now cgi) and Jurrasic Park made me want to quit raising dogs and get myself a T Rex or two. But beyond saying something like "yeah, I loved it when whatever happened" or quoting a line or two, none has affected me like Brokeback (except Mohicans when I fell in love with Eric Schweig and dragged everyone I knew to see it on MY dime, but even that didn't CHANGE anything in me.) I don't THINK about any other story (ss OR screenplay) every day, don't consider any other 2 fictional characters my friends, don't immediately picture a scene or a gesture or start crying at some song lyric or melody or statement because it takes me back to the Mountain. My awareness of everything around me and INSIDE me is different because of Brokeback. THAT's what I mean by life changing.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lola on May 11, 2008, 08:48:18 PM
And again I say those movies changed my life.  Movies are not all about learning lessons, I didn't really learn any lessons from BB, because I don't feel I had any real lessons to learn.

And I don't think of Jack and Ennis as friends, I think of them as Jake and Heath, two actors who did an amazing job acting in a beautiful film.  Just like Al Pacino gave us the gift of the Godfather films..........and Tom Hanks gave me "the gift" of Forrest Gump and so on and so on.    Shawshank, the first Rocky, Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, The Deer Hunter etc etc.


I assure you I am not alone!

http://www.filmsite.org/afi100filmsA.html

My love affair with movies did not start 2 years ago, it started a long time ago.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on May 11, 2008, 08:52:51 PM
Thank you.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on May 13, 2008, 01:49:09 PM
Today's TDS has a link to an article/paper which discusses aspects of
Brokeback Mountain, including the best picture loss.

Quote
But in time the gay and lesbian community seemed content (or at least resigned) with the breakthrough the movie had achieved.

If you can't fix it...

http://www.nssa.us/journals/2007-29-1/2007-29-1-23.htm

In the piece he lists possible reasons Brokeback Mountain lost the best
picture award, all of which the aftermath threads have hashed out.  He
offers this list like items on a menu that you could use to explain the
outcome, but to those of us who know the history of the oscars, it's a lot
clearer and simpler than his it could have been any number of things
list implies.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on June 19, 2008, 03:25:32 PM
You see - the AMPAS makes rules changes when they perceive the need to do so:

http://theenvelope.latimes.com/awards/oscars/env-academy-rules19-2008jun19,0,7064284.story
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on June 20, 2008, 09:47:14 AM
Don't know why the number of songs from the same movie is an issue... 3 from Enchanted were nominated but one of the other 2 won. Same for Dreamgirls... 3 noms but lost to Al Gore. It's almost a given: if one show has 3 songs up, one of the other 2 will win.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on June 20, 2008, 11:43:49 AM
"Beauty and the Beast" was an exception to that rule, but generally speaking I think you're right.

Someone else in the Portland paper listed "Crash" as one of their favorite films this morning.  Still galls me on some level.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: DanRWentzelJr on June 20, 2008, 06:49:16 PM
Not sure if the Best Song change is warranted or not. 

The obvious reform needed is the following:

"Academy members are required to view ALL the nominations in a category before voting in that category."

Fat chance that will ever happen.

The Oscar categories with required screenings are more credible, IMO.  The brilliant German film "The Lives of Others" never would have won a Best Foreign Language Film Oscar had it been left up to the whole Academy to see and vote on the films on the "honor" system.

The Emmys are coming up.  The screening requirements are strict and although the voting pool is indeed small, I think you get a more credible award as a result.  While the Oscar has more glamour and prestige, I am more impressed by the voting process for the Emmy.

The Grammys was spooked enough by the Milli Vanilli fiasco and by other oversights to change the pre-nomination screening rules.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on June 21, 2008, 10:39:39 AM
The current issue of Entertainment Weekly has a list of the Best 100 films of the past 25 years.  Brokeback Mountain comes in at #31.  And where is BP Oscar winner Crash on that list?  Nowhere (as if you had to ask).   ;)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on June 21, 2008, 11:19:02 AM
Today's TDS has a link to an article/paper which discusses aspects of
Brokeback Mountain, including the best picture loss.

Quote
But in time the gay and lesbian community seemed content (or at least resigned) with the breakthrough the movie had achieved.

If you can't fix it...

http://www.nssa.us/journals/2007-29-1/2007-29-1-23.htm

In the piece he lists possible reasons Brokeback Mountain lost the best
picture award, all of which the aftermath threads have hashed out.  He
offers this list like items on a menu that you could use to explain the
outcome, but to those of us who know the history of the oscars, it's a lot
clearer and simpler than his it could have been any number of things
list implies.


The writer also makes a mistake regarding just which categories it DID win Oscars in.  He incorrectly lists Best Cinematography (rather than Best Score) as one of those wins. 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on June 22, 2008, 12:51:13 PM
Not sure if the Best Song change is warranted or not. 

Over the years the music categories seem to change the most.
At one point they got rid of the category, Best Adaptation Score,
after Prince won it, and that one has never been seen since.
Several years ago they doubled the score categories for a couple
years into Best Dramatic Score and Best Comedy Score because
the animated Disney scores (Mencken, wasn't it?) kept winning it
every year.  When that stopped, so did both categories.

Two years ago they really limited the scope of what songs could
be nominated (which is why A Love That Can Never Grow Old was
ineligible) and ever since they've had these multiple nominations
from one film (what did they expect?), so now they're trying to stop
that.  I'm sure they'll have another problem next (like not ENOUGH
eligible songs...)!

The Oscar categories with required screenings are more credible, IMO.  The brilliant German film "The Lives of Others" never would have won a Best Foreign Language Film Oscar had it been left up to the whole Academy to see and vote on the films on the "honor" system.


This is true, but even so, they still can vote for lesser films.  Belle
Epoque won over a far superior production, Farewell My Concubine,
and the brilliant Raise the Red Lantern was ignored for the really
mediocre Mediterraneo...so if you have such an obvious prejudice like
some did for Brokeback Mountain, I doubt those people would have
voted for it anyways, even if they had seen it.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on June 23, 2008, 12:45:52 PM
The current issue of Entertainment Weekly has a list of the Best 100 films of the past 25 years.  Brokeback Mountain comes in at #31.  And where is BP Oscar winner Crash on that list?  Nowhere (as if you had to ask).   ;)

Nice.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on June 23, 2008, 12:52:43 PM
It's that time of year when ampas announces a list of people they are going
to invite to be members of the academy and then you sit back and wonder
why some of those people are being considered and others are still left
out.  Are there answers to these questions?  Probably not easy ones.

In the infamous film editing branch, I noticed this:

Film Editors
Barry Alexander Brown – Inside Man, Summer of Sam
John Carnochan – The Simpsons Movie, Ice Age
John Gilroy – Michael Clayton, Miracle
Mark Livolsi – Fred Claus, The Devil Wears Prada
Dylan Tichenor – There Will Be Blood, Brokeback Mountain
Juliette Welfling – The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, The Science of Sleep

http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2008/08.06.23.html
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on June 23, 2008, 01:49:21 PM
I was looking up Entertainment Weekly's Lists and found that
Brokeback Mountain also scored here (these were listed alphabetically):

25 New Classic Movie Posters
Film art isn't limited merely to movie screens. It trickles out into the
theater lobby; these are our favorites since 1983:
 
Brokeback Mountain

...and here:

The 100 best reads from 1983 to 2008

#89. Close Range, Annie Proulx (1999)

...and here!

25 New Classic Romantic Gestures
Endearing movie moments from the past 25 years

• Heath Ledger finds and keeps the shirts Jake Gyllenhaal
had saved from their first trip to Brokeback Mountain (2005).


Or, written for us Brokies:
Ennis del Mar finds and keeps the shirts Jack Twist
had saved from their first trip to Brokeback Mountain.


And, who knows, maybe next time:

The New Classics: Stage!


Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on June 23, 2008, 07:38:05 PM
The current issue of Entertainment Weekly has a list of the Best 100 films of the past 25 years.  Brokeback Mountain comes in at #31.  And where is BP Oscar winner Crash on that list?  Nowhere (as if you had to ask).   ;)

Playing devil's advocate here, is Crash the only BP winner NOT on the list?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on June 23, 2008, 08:31:51 PM
several others:
million dollar baby
chicago
a beautiful mind
american beauty
shakespeare in love
the english patient
braveheart
forrest gump
dances with wolves
driving miss daisy
the last emperor
platoon
amedeus
terms of endearment
so 14 of the last 25 bp recipients are not on the list if I didn't screw up
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: moreta on June 23, 2008, 08:57:51 PM
several others:
million dollar baby
chicago
a beautiful mind
american beauty
shakespeare in love
the english patient
braveheart
forrest gump
dances with wolves
driving miss daisy
the last emperor
platoon
amedeus
terms of endearment
so 14 of the last 25 bp recipients are not on the list if I didn't screw up


The majority of which are very deserving of omission, just reinforcing the meaninglessness of the BP oscar as time goes on.  Everyone remembers ET, but how many people have Gandhi on their lists of must have film collections.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on June 23, 2008, 10:51:33 PM
What gets me is the ranking:

25.  Shrek

22.  Rushmore

19.  Casino Royale

17.  Jerry McGuire

16.  Boogie Nights

12.  The Matrix

11.  This Is Spinal Tap

9.    Die Hard

3.    Titanic

I don't think any of the above should be ranked ahead of Brokeback Mountain.  Some are good movies - but really - Casino Royale?; Die Hard?; Spinal Tap?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on June 23, 2008, 11:27:04 PM
That's the frustrating thing about such lists.  Taste is so subjective.  We could all make such a list and they would each be totally different.  Still, there's no avoiding them, so I guess we just have to live with 'em.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on June 24, 2008, 11:36:02 AM
That's the frustrating thing about such lists.  Taste is so subjective.  We could all make such a list and they would each be totally different.  Still, there's no avoiding them, so I guess we just have to live with 'em.

You are right, so the important thing is to be a part of the list.  Looking
over the whole list I was gratified to see, for example, that one of my
favorite films was on there, one that I might have expected not to be--Far
From Heaven.  The fact there are Brokeback Mountain entries on three of
their other lists as well says a great deal.

As for ampas, besides the winners, there would be 100 nominated films
from the past 25 years also eligible to be on the list and only about 20%
of those are included.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on June 24, 2008, 02:24:34 PM
That's a good point, Lyle, about the nominated films. And Roland, you are so right about taste. I personally found most of last year's nominated films lacking... they're on MY list but not in a good way!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on July 08, 2008, 05:53:57 PM
From today's TDS:
Quote
Ledger's performance in the Batman tale The Dark Knight is so remarkable that next Jan., the one-year anniversary..., he could...earn a nomination," reports canadianpress.  "'I do think that Heath has created an iconic villain that will stand for the ages, and of course, I would love to see him get an award,' said Christian Bale, who reprises his Batman Begins role as the tormented crime fighter. 'But you know, to me, you can witness his talent, celebrate his talent within this movie. Anything else is gravy.'"

If Heath had not done Brokeback do you think there would still be this
nomination talk?  Do you think some of this is the fact he shoulda won for Brokeback?  Buyer's remorse, so to speak?

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: fritzkep on July 08, 2008, 07:59:30 PM
It's been known to happen.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on July 08, 2008, 08:55:08 PM
Well, in MY opinion, Phillip Seymore Hoffman's win for Capote was to honor his consistantly outstanding performances. I don't think he was any better in Capote than he was in a number of other films. And, also in MY opinion, a win for Dark Knight is better than an "honorary" Oscari or "lifetime achievement" award for Heath. But everyone seems to think The Joker is his best work.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: CellarDweller115 on July 09, 2008, 06:20:19 AM
I often wonder about the Academy and if they "make up" for past mistakes.

when the buzz for Ang Lee winning best director for BBM started, there were many comments I read that said he deserved it for BBM, but that he also deserved it (and was passed over) for "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", and that he would get it for BBM, not only because it was so well done, but also to make up for the slight of CTHD.  There was even talk that George Clooney would win "Best Supporting Actor" as a consolation for not getting "Best Director" that year.  And when he won that award, he said from the podium "Well, now we know I won't be getting Best Director."

There is already a huge buzz about Heath's performance as The Joker.....and I wonder if Academy voters would give ann Oscar to Heath, not only for his performance there, but also as a late acknowledgement for his performance as Ennis.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on July 09, 2008, 01:39:28 PM
Happens all the time.  Al Pacino finally got an Oscar for his work in the appalling "Scent of a Woman," because he'd never won for "Serpico" "Dog Day Afternoon" or the "Godfather" movies.  Jack Palance won for "City Slickers" as a lifetime achievement award, because he hadn't been nominated since the early 50's.  Same thing with Henry Fonda in "On Golden Pond."  Denzel Washington got it for "Training Day" because he didn't get it for "Malcolm X," and Russell Crowe got it for "Gladiator" because he didn't get it for "The Insider."  And in a really funny example, they gave Paul Newman a Lifetime Oscar since he'd been working for 30 years and still hadn't won--and then the following year he gave a career-high performance in "The Color Of Money," and they awarded him a regular Best Actor award.  Idiots.  (He deserved it, but the Academy looked like dummies because of the previous year.)

This is where a book like Danny Peary's "Alternate Oscars"--which really needs to be updated--is nice, because it rectifies all the screw-ups and gives the awards to people for the performances they deserve.  Also, with the benefit of time, things shift around--the last Best Actor award Peary gives is to Wesley Snipes for "New Jack City," but knowing that runner-up River Phoenix ("My Own Private Idaho") would die less than two years later, maybe he'd give it to him.   Thus, Ledger mirrors Phoenix a bit, but in this case Ledger HAS at least one more brilliant, award-worthy performance in him. 

I'm not going to hold my breath--I have too much contempt for the Academy and their crappy track record.  Still, others have been awarded nominations and awards posthumously, so it's not impossible.  But hoping for it hurts too much.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on July 11, 2008, 11:58:08 PM
I saw The Dark Knight this evening and for purposes of this thread I will
say that Heath’s portrayal of The Joker is one that starts small and
grows on you with each successive scene, until his face is the image
that I keep seeing when I think of the film now.

It’s a wonderful job, but it is not the kind of role that generally garners
award nominations, no matter how good.  I think if he does it’s all about
Heath.  And that’s not a bad thing, in my opinion.  He deserves it.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on July 12, 2008, 01:21:12 AM
I just got through watching the Tonight Show and Michael Caine was a
guest.  I hope it is genuine and not a function of promoting a new film,
but he talked about Heath and his acting ability and how nice he was
and thinks that for his performance in this film he will, at the very
minimum, receive an academy award nomination for it.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on July 23, 2008, 12:09:38 PM
The Envelope, an L.A. Times site, has an article about what the Heath Ledger strategy should be for getting a nomination and/or win.  They ponder things like if he should be in the lead category or supporting etc.
And when I was finished with the piece that word hit me again.  Strategy for getting a nomination or an award.   That's what it's about nowadays.  What if he just happens to have deserved it.  Just letting people vote for him or not.  Put me in mind of the Lions Gate strategy and I was disheartened.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on July 24, 2008, 08:13:05 AM
Lyle if Heath gets the nomination I hopes its for Best Actor. However, I feel he has a better chance of wining if its for Best Supporting Actor. Just a feeling I have.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on July 29, 2008, 04:26:44 PM
This is in the L.A. Times today

The Oscars 'can't quit' insulting 'Brokeback Mountain'
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj282/SanFranciscoJohn/brokebackLAtimes.jpg)

Quote

Am I the only person who finds the headline of a recent Oscars news release (http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2008/08.07.28.html) outrageous? While announcing the latest film to be screened in its "Great to Be Nominated" series at the AMPAS headquarters in Beverly Hills, the news release (CLICK HERE (http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2008/08.07.28.html)) proclaims "Academy Can't Quit 'Brokeback Mountain (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/).'" That's a pathetic attempt of someone in the academy's media office to be cutesy-pootsy and it's offensive considering how cruelly academy members roughed up the gay cowboys two years ago.


more...

http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2008/07/oscars-brokebac.html (http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2008/07/oscars-brokebac.html)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: CellarDweller115 on July 29, 2008, 05:27:23 PM
*shakes head*
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: divina on July 31, 2008, 01:00:06 AM
This is in the L.A. Times today

The Oscars 'can't quit' insulting 'Brokeback Mountain'
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj282/SanFranciscoJohn/brokebackLAtimes.jpg)

Quote

Am I the only person who finds the headline of a recent Oscars news release (http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2008/08.07.28.html) outrageous? While announcing the latest film to be screened in its "Great to Be Nominated" series at the AMPAS headquarters in Beverly Hills, the news release (CLICK HERE (http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2008/08.07.28.html)) proclaims "Academy Can't Quit 'Brokeback Mountain (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/).'" That's a pathetic attempt of someone in the academy's media office to be cutesy-pootsy and it's offensive considering how cruelly academy members roughed up the gay cowboys two years ago.


more...

http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2008/07/oscars-brokebac.html (http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2008/07/oscars-brokebac.html)

Very interesting article. thanks for posting this. It will be interesting to see whether Heath gets nominated for Dark Knight. Even though I have lost all respect the Academy after 2005 I still would like to see him get the award he should have gotten then.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: divina on August 03, 2008, 01:05:05 AM
This writer doesn't think Heath deserves an academy award because he is apparently is such an awful person and we don't want to reward "bad" people like Heath for their behaviour (according to the author it is heath's own fault he died). All I will say is that this guy made no-one but himself look bad and he has no right to judge Heath who is clearly 1000 times the person he will ever be. Further Heath deserves every award he may get. He did an extraordinary job as joker, not to mention his work in Brokeback (this should count since the academy seem to only give awards out for past performances rather than what one is actually nominated for) so I say give him his award. Anyway here's the link to the article and you can judge for yourself.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-lucas1-2008aug01,0,2306378.story
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on August 05, 2008, 12:06:31 AM
I read this in the Times the day it came out (I live in the LA area), and I agree with your assessment 100%. 

The fact that Heath could do both Ennis Del Mar AND the Joker speaks to his amazing versatility as an actor.  Imagine what was still left in him to do.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on August 11, 2008, 01:03:01 PM
Just a reminder to those who may visit this thread and not the other:
There is discussion that would be appropriate in this thread going on in
the BBM Screening at the Goldwyn Theater thread about last Monday's
Brokeback Mountain screening at ampas, if you are interested.

I came across this internet article written about six weeks ago,
and it made me laugh.

Quote
AMPAS Invites Diablo Cody, Jet Li, 103 Others to Join
Jun 24th 2008
by Eric D. Snider

Were you aware that when the Academy of Motion Picture Arts &
Sciences presented the Oscars every year, the results were being
determined without considering the opinion of Jet Li? It's hard to believe,
I know. They haven't been consulting Diablo Cody, either!  Well, that
egregious oversight is about to be remedied, as Li, Cody, and 103
others have been invited to join the AMPAS and become voting members.
 
Among those whom you'll be able to blame the next time something
dumb like Crash wins Best Picture are Gore Verbinski, Doug Liman,
Allison Janney, Judd Apatow and Sacha Baron Cohen -- assuming they
all accept the invitation, of course. Almost everyone who's invited is
grateful for the honor, but a few do decline, and a few more simply fail to
respond to the invitation before the time is up.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on August 11, 2008, 01:05:27 PM
Hey, I'd trust Allison Janney's judgement.  ;D

I made a couple tweaks on wikipedia this past week under the "Crash" and "Oscar" entries--we'll see if they stand the test of time, but they've got articles backing 'em up.   8)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on August 17, 2008, 12:38:07 PM
I apologize in advance for any unwanted images I may be placing in your mind by bringing up this topic, but considering how much we all love and respect Ernest Borgnine around here, I just couldn't resist posting this.  Perhaps now we have the real reason as to why he could never bring himself to view BBM (let alone vote for it as an Academy member).  Maybe, he was afraid the temptation might just be a bit too much for him to handle.   ;)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/14/ernest-borgnine-i-masturb_n_118938.html
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on August 29, 2008, 10:16:03 PM
Just for the hell of it, I went back to wikepedia.org today and double-checked some updates I did a couple weeks ago under "Oscars" and "Crash."  Both had all of my info about the controversy, "Crash" not making the top 100 films of 2005, etc.--which was cited based on stats from rottentomatoes.com, goldderby.com, etc.--completely wiped out.  Gone, as if it never existed.

Bastards.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on August 31, 2008, 09:46:04 AM
The Los Angeles Times paid a rather funny backhanded compliment to "Crash" today (8/31) in its article, "The 25 best L.A. films of the last 25 years," by placing Crash in the #25 slot (and, actually, it would be much further back since they limited the list to only one film per director, meaning a number of films by Michael Mann, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Altman and Paul Thomas Anderson were kept off the list). 

The really amusing part comes in its description of the film:

Opening with a monologue that declares Los Angeles unlike a "real city" because people spend too much time behind the "metal and glass" of their cars, "Crash" announces itself right from the start as a Big Statement about L.A., which it views as a roiling caldron of racial mistrust and enmity. Directed and co-written by Paul Haggis with all the subtlety of a freeway pile-up, the film may be, notoriously, the winner of Academy Awards for best picture and original screenplay, but you have never seen such a sea of blank faces as when "Crash" was mentioned in the meeting that generated this very list -- the love it/hate it conversation-starter cache the film had when it was in theaters has since collapsed. Nevertheless, the film has had an influence. So we are not being willfully perverse or purposefully contrarian by placing it here at the bottom -- the other pictures on the list genuinely generated more conversation, passion, excitement and insight in our room full of Angelenos.[/b]

Talk about damning with faint praise!

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-ca-25films31-2008aug31,0,70218.htmlstory
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on September 08, 2008, 09:52:36 AM
The Fifty Greatest Gay Movies!

1. Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Quote
Jake Gyllenhaal is flawless as Jack Twist in arguably the movie’s most difficult role. But Heath Ledger’s heartbreaking portrayal of Ennis Del Mar, a walking cautionary tale of homophobia’s logical end result, is a revelation — a total acting transformation made all the more tragic by Ledger’s death earlier this year. But the indignities and injustices that Jack and Ennis faced did not end at Brokeback Mountain’s closing credits. Upon the film’s release, the movie’s makers and fans were subjected to a six-month orgy of tasteless jokes from clueless comedians and bile-filed commentary from right-wing pundits. All of this negativity culminated when the movie, long considered the Oscar front-runner, lost Best Picture to a fine but unremarkable movie called Crash, perhaps the most egregious upset in Oscar history and almost certainly the result of lingering homophobia in Hollywood’s old guard.


http://www.afterelton.com/movies/2008/9/50greatestgaymovies (http://www.afterelton.com/movies/2008/9/50greatestgaymovies)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on September 09, 2008, 08:26:33 PM
This should go over well at the Castro :o ::)


Tribute to Tony Curtis
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj282/SanFranciscoJohn/TonyCurtis.jpg)
POST FESTIVAL PRESENTATION
Tuesday, November 18, 7:00 pm


Few actors have earned the title of Hollywood legend and American Prince. Tony Curtis is one. The Mill Valley Film Festival is pleased to present its MVFF award for his lifetime achievement to screen icon Tony Curtis at San Francisco’s majestic Castro Theatre.

Born Bernard Schwartz, the son of Hungarian Jewish immigrants, darkly handsome Tony Curtis catapulted to stardom in the 50s and 60s working with classic directors such as Billy Wilder, Carol Reed, Blake Edwards, Vincente Minnelli, Elia Kazan and Stanley Kubrick, while co-starring with a who’s who of Hollywood’s golden age, includ- ing Marilyn Monroe, Burt Lancaster, Gregory Peck, Cary Grant, Mae West, Elizabeth Taylor and Frank Sinatra. Curtis’ versatility is breathtaking—he is equally at home in film noir (Sweet Smell of Success), epics (Spartacus), drama (The Defiant Ones, for which he received an Oscar nomination) and comedy (pitch-perfect in the classic Some Like It Hot).

Mr. Curtis will be interviewed on stage following a program of clips and a screening of Some Like It Hot. Afterward, he will sign copies of his new book, American Prince: A Memoir, in the Castro lobby. This evening is co-produced by Castro Theatre impresario Marc Huestis.

TRIBUTE TO TONY CURTIS
Tuesday, November 18, 7:00 pm
Castro Theatre
429 Castro St., San Francisco


TRIBUTE PROGRAM

$35 Orchestra Preferred Seating ($30 for CFI Members) Limited Availability! TRIB18VIP
$35 Orchestra General Admission ($30 for CFI Members) TRIB18ORCH
$25 Balcony General Admission TRIB18BALC
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on September 10, 2008, 02:19:28 PM
Who's idea was THAT?  Huestis'?  Did he not follow any of the controversy?  Man, I'd like to be in the audience for the Q-and-A, especially if someone points out that, in a way, he's related to Jake Gyllenhall via his daughter, Jamie Lee Curtis, being Jake's godmother.   
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on September 10, 2008, 02:50:30 PM
I was thinkin...

Maybe I'll go to the show and give TC a copy of our book.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on September 10, 2008, 10:26:20 PM
One of the critics in the brand new "At the Movies" took a well-deserved swipe at "Crash" in the premiere episode, referring to it as one of the most over-rated films of recent years.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: CellarDweller115 on September 11, 2008, 04:35:10 AM
I was thinkin...

Maybe I'll go to the show and give TC a copy of our book.


Ohhhh do it!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on September 12, 2008, 12:26:52 PM
Was posting on the "What Movie Did You Watch This Weekend" thread, and someone said something about the Toronto International Film Fest, which is where "Crash" premiered in 2004.  Due to lack of "heat" or awards buzz for the end of the year, it was bumped to the spring of 2005, and we all know what happened beyond that point.

Check out this review from the fest in 2004:

"Another shudderer from the land of liberty was Crash, directed by TV veteran (L.A. Law, thirtysomething, etc.) and Canadian-born Paul Haggis.  It’s one of those multi-character dramas in which a seemingly disparate group, conveniently selected from different socio-economic strata and ethnic groups, find their lives intersecting in all kinds of authorially-forced manners.  While Crash boasts a movie-actor line-up (Sandra Bullock, Matt Dillon, Don Cheadle, Brendan Fraser, Ludacris, et al), it’s strictly made-for-TV stuff.  Haggis set out to make a movie on the state of black-white relations in contemporary L.A., but the view is strictly from behind the privacy hedges and security checkpoints of Brentwood."

I officially love the Internet.  Type "Toronto Film Fest 2004" into Google, and just start researching!  Illuminating, yes?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on September 25, 2008, 02:33:21 AM
Does Sid Ganis know Bill Condon is openly
gay and voted for Brokeback Mountain?

Quote
Condon and Mark Tapped for 81st Annual Academy Awards
by Andrew Gans
25 Sep 2008

Bill Condon, who penned the screenplay for the Oscar-winning "Chicago" film
and wrote and directed the "Dreamgirls" film, will executive produce the 81st
Annual Academy Awards telecast.

In a statement Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences president Sid
Ganis said, "Larry and Bill are fresh thinkers who will bring a unique
perspective to the Oscar show. That fact, joined with their enormous collective
talent and enthusiasm, will serve the 81st awards proceedings perfectly."


http://www.playbill.com/news/article/121683.html
or
http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2008/08.09.24.html
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: DanRWentzelJr on October 07, 2008, 02:13:49 AM
I just rewatched the Celluloid Closet.  Here is something I don't understand.

Tony Curtis seemed perfect open and accepting about gays when discussing the films in The Celluloid Closet.

How did he go from that in 1996 to bragging to the press about refusing to see Brokeback Mountain in 2006?


Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: daannzzz on October 07, 2008, 09:02:45 AM
I just rewatched the Celluloid Closet.  Here is something I don't understand.

Tony Curtis seemed perfect open and accepting about gays when discussing the films in The Celluloid Closet.

How did he go from that in 1996 to bragging to the press about refusing to see Brokeback Mountain in 2006?




I have wondered about that as well. I watch the Celluloid Closet about once a year and it irks me every time I see him. He seems to be quite open and to have had fun with it.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on October 07, 2008, 09:58:34 AM
Maybe for the same reason that so many straight men love to do drag on Halloween--they think it's a hoot dressing as a woman, and seeing if they're attractive or not.  (Dustin Hoffman frequently speaks very movingly of how psychologically devastating it was when he first started playing Dorothy in "Tootsie," and having men look right through him; then he realized he regularly did the same thing to women he didn't find attractive.)

In "Brokeback" however, the men weren't in drag, or funny, or effeminate, or anything like that.  They were rugged, horse-riding, gun-toting, fist-fighting MEN, who just happened to fall in love and have (onscreen) sex with each other.  To old school Hollywood, that was the cardinal offense--that the gay offscreen life was finally, unapologetically onscreen.  Lucille Ball and others of her ilk were very freaked out in the late 60's and 70's when onscreen nudity and sexuality finally started being shown, though they were OK with violence.  I'm sure many of the "old guard" academy members are the same way--look how violent "The Departed" and "No Country For Old Men" were.

(Now, mind you, if the Academy was REALLY trying to make a statement in their voting, they should've gone for "Good Night and Good Luck," which was the "softest" of the nominees.  "Munich" and "Capote" had brutal violence, and "Crash" is almost wall-to-wall profanity.)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: DanRWentzelJr on October 08, 2008, 12:03:41 AM
(Now, mind you, if the Academy was REALLY trying to make a statement in their voting, they should've gone for "Good Night and Good Luck," which was the "softest" of the nominees.  "Munich" and "Capote" had brutal violence, and "Crash" is almost wall-to-wall profanity.)

Of course, the third movie that in the mix between the Crash upset and Brokeback Mountain was Good Night and Good Luck.  Rumor has it that it received more votes than anyone imagines.  I'm sure older Hollywood found it very appealing.  Quite frankly, of those three movies, GNGL was probably the only one that some of these members bothered to see.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on October 08, 2008, 08:37:10 AM
I can't tell you how many magazines I've picked up the past few days, as well as websites I've been on, that have been trumpeting "Crash" the TV series, "from the producers of the Academy-Award winning Best Picture."  Oh, they've settled the lawsuit between them?

Mind you, Dennis Hopper is the focus of the ads, playing an entertainment exec--a character not in the film.  Yes, this "daring" and "important" movie about race and prejudice is now being promoted by...a white guy.

The staggering hypocrisy never ends.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on October 09, 2008, 02:32:20 PM
Wonder if Tony & Ernest will attend:

http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2008/08.10.08.html
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on October 09, 2008, 04:25:57 PM
I sure as hell wouldn't, even if I could!

I apologize for wimping out on my thread last month--I still hate CRASH and always will!  I shouldn't have backed down. BBM's loss for best picture will always be an abomination.

Mark 

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on October 13, 2008, 01:32:20 PM

An interview with author and Turner Classic Movies host Robert Osborne, whose 80 Years of the Oscar: The Official History of the Academy Awards will be published later this month by Abbeville Press.
Quote
What do you think was the biggest Oscar upset ever?

I think it goes back to 1951, when the two big important films of the year were A Streetcar Named Desire and A Place in the Sun. They were duking it out, but the winner was An American in Paris. It was a movie that had already played off; MGM could get no future money out of it basically, because there were no DVDs or anything like that; and they also had Singing in the Rain coming out, which they were concentrating on, not American in Paris. American in Paris winning was kind of thrilling, but it was a total, total upset. I’d say the next biggest upset, for me, was not that long ago, when Brokeback Mountain was up, which seemed like such a sure thing, and was such a fine film and Ang Lee won the best director award and all of a sudden the winner was Crash, which I didn’t take that seriously as an important film. It was a good film, but not an important one, and it’s also one of those films that I don’t think will have any shelf life at all. That really surprised me, because I thought it was all homophobia more than anything and had nothing to do with filmmaking. I thought if anything the film industry would be more tolerant of something like that because it was so beautifully done.


http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6604714.html (http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6604714.html)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on October 13, 2008, 01:43:23 PM
Robert Osborne's book is available for pre-order on our Amazon store.


(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj282/SanFranciscoJohn/51PbQYqFwQL__SL210_.jpg)

http://astore.amazon.com/davecullencom-20/detail/0789209926 (http://astore.amazon.com/davecullencom-20/detail/0789209926)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on October 13, 2008, 02:24:44 PM
Well, between my budget being shot to hell (but the Hollywood trip was worth it!) and my hatred for the Oscars now I doubt I'll buy the book, even though I love Robert Osborne.  I have wanted for years to write him and tell him how much of a fan I am.  He loves movies and was able to make a career writing about them, AND he was a dear friend of Lucy's--how great a life is that?  And he's just frickin' adorable!  There is a youtube clip from the 70s where he is a guest on Dinah Shore's show where other guests include Olivia de Havilland and Shelley Winters, talking about their Oscars.  He is so gorgeous that I am left breathless. Oh, Mama!

Thanks for sharing this info on his new book and especially his view that BBM got the shaft, John.  You always leave me pretty breathless yourself.   ;)

Mark
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on October 13, 2008, 02:45:27 PM
I just read the too-brief but still nice interview with Robert O. on the publisher's weekly link John thoughtfully posted.  Thanks, Man.

I also submitted a comment, largely what I said here.

I so hope to get to meet Robert O. one day.  Guess I need to become young at heart.

Mark

P.S.  Watched some of BBM last night and some extras.  Whimper, sniffle, sob.  No one to comfort me and dry my tears.  Damn!

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on October 13, 2008, 02:56:10 PM
Thanks for sharing this info on his new book and especially his view that BBM got the shaft, John.  You always leave me pretty breathless yourself.   ;)
Mark

This is huge IF those remarks he made in his interview are written in
the only official Academy history book about the oscars.  In the interview
piece quoted above he says "I thought it was all homophobia more
than anything and had nothing to do with filmmaking."
  Having read
other editions of this book, I doubt that particular sentiment is going to
make it into the book.  For one, he does not offer personal editorials in
the brief synopses written about each year.  He does mention controversies,
and then usually some speculations about why such or such occurred.
In this instance he'll probably say something like some peope attribute
the loss to homophobia, others to an aggressive marketing campaign
by Lion's Gate
or something like that.  I doubt he will leave it at most
attribute the loss to homophobia more than anything,
which he should.

We shall see.

(By the way, Mark, I noticed Robert Osborne appeared on several
episodes of the Beverly Hillbillies!)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on October 13, 2008, 03:01:51 PM
I so hope to get to meet Robert O. one day.  Guess I need to become young at heart.
Mark

He has hosted several evenings at the academy on occasion.  Two that
I saw were a fiftieth anniversary screening of Annie Get Your Gun and a
Tribute to Olivia DeHavilland.  And it was (indirectly) because of him I got
to talk to Bette Davis on the phone!

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on October 13, 2008, 03:10:13 PM
I so hope to get to meet Robert O. one day.  Guess I need to become young at heart.
Mark

He has hosted several evenings at the academy on occasion.  Two that
I saw were a fiftieth anniversary screening of Annie Get Your Gun and a
Tribute to Olivia DeHavilland.  And it was (indirectly) because of him I got
to talk to Bette Davis on the phone!



(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj282/SanFranciscoJohn/1981-b-davis-phone140.jpg)

Who? Who is this?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on October 13, 2008, 03:28:49 PM
I so hope to get to meet Robert O. one day.  Guess I need to become young at heart.
Mark

He has hosted several evenings at the academy on occasion.  Two that
I saw were a fiftieth anniversary screening of Annie Get Your Gun and a
Tribute to Olivia DeHavilland.  And it was (indirectly) because of him I got
to talk to Bette Davis on the phone!



(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj282/SanFranciscoJohn/1981-b-davis-phone140.jpg)

Who? Who is this?



"What the hell is [pause]  MoosKA?  Sounds like a dessert top=ping!"

"And I'm not talking to any Bay City JOAN!  Oh, it's JOHN?  Sorry, my mistake, but you KNOW how that other name affects me!"

Oh I could go on and on, but I won't be a vile, sorry little bitch...

Mark
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on October 13, 2008, 03:42:54 PM
'Recall the Gold': Re-voting past Oscar races

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008/10/recall-pictu-98.html#comments

Quote
EW is asking that question and others like it via our enormous survey campaign, called "Recall the Gold." As of today, we're sending out ballots to 7,000 film industry professionals (many of them Academy members), asking them to vote anew on the top six categories in the Oscar races of 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 years ago. Many of the Academy Award-winning pictures, directors, actors, and actresses will stand up to our test of time; no doubt many others will be replaced by new consensus choices. And that's where you come in, PopWatchers.

We're going to ask you to vote as well. Every Tuesday and Thursday in PopWatch, from now until the end of the year, we're going to ask you to re-vote one category from one year's race and see if, out of the five nominees, you'd pick the same winner today that the Academy did then, or if you think another one of the nominees was more deserving. After the first of the year, we'll tally all the results of both readers' votes and industry professionals' votes.

No, this survey does not include the year for Brokeback Mountain, but upon reading the first two EW forum question surveys, many of the respondents are not sticking to the topic and I’ve read many comments like this one:


Quote
Jen80 Tue, Oct 7
I think this is a great feature idea. How many times have I watched contestants on jeopardy get the Oscar questions wrong because they remember the popular actor or movie from that year, and not the actual winner? This is a neat idea; I'm interested to see how it plays out.

And oh, yeah--don't even get me going about the Crash/Brokeback Mountain upset. That was a flat-out crime.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on October 13, 2008, 07:18:40 PM
Yep, I too am disappointed that 2005 films weren't on the list, but I'm betting that one day they will be and then we can have our say!

Until that day,

Mark
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on October 15, 2008, 10:18:14 AM
TV review: 'Crash' wrecks the small screen

Quote
Just as there were people who adored the movie "Crash" despite its heavy-handedness and simplistic (but emotional) approaches to race and rage, there will be those who find the plodding banality of the "Crash" television series enchanting.

Quote
Hopper is all that "Crash" has so far. Sure, it's got some ethically challenged cops, some overt racism, some faux hot sex and what looks to be a lot of money spent on filming on the streets of Los Angeles, but the writing is surprisingly nondescript, the acting rudimentary and the first hour ends with nothing much in the way of movement. It feels like one-thirteenth of a story you won't really care to follow. It wants to be like a movie, so the pilot feels less like a pilot and more like some random story tossed up on the screen.

For all the complaints here and elsewhere from critics who decry "pilotitis" - too much crammed into an hour to be either believable or understandable -"Crash" begins and ends without raising your pulse or making you think.

That's a bad sign for a dramatic series - and a channel new to original programming. No doubt "Crash" will eventually amp up the issue-heavy themes that raised temperatures in the movie theater despite their cloying obviousness, but really, once you've seen the movie, why else would you want to be hit in the head with a sledgehammer?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/15/DDPC13G0IR.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/15/DDPC13G0IR.DTL)


Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on October 15, 2008, 11:40:32 AM
TV review: 'Crash' wrecks the small screen

Quote
...but really, once you've seen the movie, why else would you want to be hit in the head with a sledgehammer?

Well, that started off my day with a hearty guffaw!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on October 15, 2008, 11:26:43 PM
EW gave it a D in this week's issue (with Zac Efron on the cover).  PEOPLE gave it 2 1/2 stars out of 4.  Am waiting for the New York Times article on Friday, as well as USA TODAY to weigh in, and see if we have pretty much a sweep of bad reviews.  Only makes the 2006 disaster that much more revealing.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on October 16, 2008, 09:52:25 AM
Starz's new 'Crash' is 'L.A. Behaving Badly'

Quote
"Crash's" surprise Oscar win as 2004's best picture has since been declared one of the Academy Awards' most boneheaded moves, that year's default prize for calling for tolerance because the academy wasn't yet quite tolerant enough of homosexuality to honor "Brokeback Mountain."

Quote
With its lurid, cynical take on how human beings interact with one another, "Crash" isn't just about car accidents. It's a train wreck.

http://www.la.com/tv/Starzs_new_Crash_is_LA_Behaving_Badly.html (http://www.la.com/tv/Starzs_new_Crash_is_LA_Behaving_Badly.html)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on October 16, 2008, 09:57:10 AM
Sepinwall on TV: 'Crash' the series review

Quote
Showbiz awards are for keeps, but later events can change how we look at them. Mira Sorvino and Marisa Tomei didn't have to give back their Oscars just because their later careers have been massive disappointments, but it does make their wins seem more objectionable in hindsight. "Crash" the film hasn't changed at all since it was released, but unless "Crash" the show improves rapidly, it'll just provide more fuel for the people angered that the movie beat out "Brokeback Mountain" and "Munich" for the big prize.

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/tv/index.ssf/2008/10/sepinwall_on_tv_crash_review.html (http://www.nj.com/entertainment/tv/index.ssf/2008/10/sepinwall_on_tv_crash_review.html)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on October 27, 2008, 01:23:50 PM

(http://taxine.com/fullerspicer/jake_deacon2.jpg)

deacon: so what? it was my dad's movie that won best picture, not yours...

...ouch, you're hurting my hand!

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on October 28, 2008, 02:05:54 PM
Hoffman in supporting for 'Doubt'

Quote
After much deliberation, Philip Seymour Hoffman and his representatives have decided to mount a Best Supporting Actor campaign for Doubt, which has emerged as one of the stronger awards contenders of the year. I had heard that's the way it was leaning, but having now seen the film, I understand why it took so long for this decision to be made. As always, Hoffman is fantastic as a priest accused of molesting an altar boy, more than holding his own opposite a very commanding Meryl Streep. There are moments where the performance does feel like a lead role, particularly his pointed sermons and his centerpiece confrontation scenes with Streep. But then again, perhaps the most memorable sequence in the film is the head-to-head between Streep and Viola Davis, who plays the young boy's mother. And Hoffman is not part of the movie's final scene, which may be an argument for a supporting placement.

But let's get real: This is all about getting nominated...and possibly winning. In the crowded Best Actor race, Hoffman would be fourth fiddle to Frost/Nixon's Frank Langella, The Wrestler's Mickey Rourke, and Milk's Sean Penn. But in supporting, the top contenders so far are The Dark Knight's Heath Ledger and...not much else. So if the supporting campaign sticks, not only is Hoffman guaranteed a nomination, but he might also beat Ledger again (as he did in 2006) and win his second Oscar.

http://oscar-watch.ew.com/2008/10/exclusive-hoffm.html?xid=rss-movies-OscarWatch%3A+Philip+Seymour+Hoffman%27s+pitch (http://oscar-watch.ew.com/2008/10/exclusive-hoffm.html?xid=rss-movies-OscarWatch%3A+Philip+Seymour+Hoffman%27s+pitch)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on October 28, 2008, 11:17:27 PM
That article is, excuse me, a load of crap.  It's just a reminder of why I soured on the Oscars and all their hype after 2006.  Right off the top of my head, I could cite Brad Pitt ("Burn After Reading"), Richard Dreyfuss ("W."), & Josh Brolin ("Milk") as fellow potential Supporting Actor award-winners/nominees at the end of the year.  I hope Heath is nominated and wins, but to say that there's no one else out there doing acclaimed work in his category is sloppy.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on October 29, 2008, 11:28:15 AM
Agree.  And let's not forget Toby Jones as Karl Rove in "W."
His performance as Capote put Hoffman's on the back burner.
I would hate to see the above scenario happen because,
whatever the outcome, it would just bring up a lot of bad
feelings again.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: KittyHawk on October 30, 2008, 02:45:09 PM
Hey, you all, let's make sure BBM wins today's AFI poll! It's for today (Thursday) only, so please vote now!

Which recent Best Picture Oscar nominee deserves a place in the top 250? (http://www.imdb.com/poll/)

Thanks,
- Lydia
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on October 30, 2008, 06:05:23 PM
C'mon all you westerners!  I just voted at 8:00 p.m. eastern time and BBM is in second place with 11.3% of the votes after "So many to pick from with 11.8%.  Vote and get our movie in the #1 spot!

Mark
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on October 30, 2008, 09:08:45 PM
We only need 49 more votes!
As of 8pm PST here are the top ten responses:

It's hard to pick just one.
2309(11.6%)

Brokeback Mountain
2261(11.3%)

None of these qualify for Top 250.
2194(11.0%)

Gangs of New York
1681(8.4%)

Lost in Translation
1597(8.0%)

Juno
1278(6.4%)

Munich
1002(5.0%)

Atonement
972(4.9%)

Finding Neverland
876(4.4%)

Sideways
816(4.1%)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: gnash on October 30, 2008, 09:25:42 PM
okay, i voted... :)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on October 31, 2008, 11:21:23 AM
Hey, you all, let's make sure BBM wins today's AFI poll! It's for today (Thursday) only, so please vote now!

Which recent Best Picture Oscar nominee deserves a place in the top 250? (http://www.imdb.com/poll/)

Thanks,
- Lydia

I made it in time to vote yesterday. I hope we can do it.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on November 02, 2008, 11:25:22 AM
How does one find out the results of
past daily polls?  I can't find out where
they go.  ? ? ?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on November 09, 2008, 11:26:14 PM
BBM's loss to Crash came up on Bill Maher's program on 11/7.  Go to minute 3:00 to savor the moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP9lO9KNasQ&feature=PlayList&p=5BCFBF9803106C06&index=5

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on November 10, 2008, 10:03:54 PM
I was watching Bill Maher per usual, and when that moment came on from Joe Queenan, I had a minor seizure on the couch and yelled, "WHOA!!"  Three years after the fact, and someone just went balls-out and put it out there.  Jaw-dropping!  (And especially on-target this week with the passing of proposition 8 dovetailing with Obama's election, and the voter surveys indicating that older and minority voters were the ones who helped prop 8 pass.)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on November 11, 2008, 11:56:39 AM
BBM's loss to Crash came up on Bill Maher's program on 11/7.  Go to minute 3:00 to savor the moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP9lO9KNasQ&feature=PlayList&p=5BCFBF9803106C06&index=5



THANKS!!!  I do agree with him on this. The older members of the Academy didn't want BBM to win, so they fought against it.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on November 11, 2008, 08:26:24 PM
Damn HBO pulled the video!   >:(
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on November 18, 2008, 02:27:00 PM
Tony Curtis rears his ugly face tonight in San Francisco

He's got a lot of nerve trying to look like a Brokeback Mountain sheepherder.

(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj282/SanFranciscoJohn/dd-curtis18_ph_0499462469.jpg)

"Yonder lies the Castro of my fodda!"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/18/DDN41464S1.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/18/DDN41464S1.DTL)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on November 19, 2008, 01:42:51 PM
Tony Curtis: Picture this


Quote
Curtis found himself in an odd position in 2005, when he was widely quoted as blasting Brokeback Mountain, apparently taking offence at the notion of “gay cowboys.” He insists now that he was widely misquoted. “I never said that I didn't like the film. I just didn't know what the big deal was. To see two guys falling in love? … People didn't want to see the subtleties unfold.”

Curtis now says he loves his gay fans, and says he worked with many gay men in Hollywood over the years, including director Vincente Minnelli. And he says he loved the references to his work in the teen comedy Clueless (1995), in which star Alicia Silverstone realizes the boy she is pining over is gay, in large part because he has rented a series of Tony Curtis movies. “I loved that!” he says.“I've always had great, profound friendships with gay men.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081118.wcurtis19/BNStory/Entertainment/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20081118.wcurtis19 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081118.wcurtis19/BNStory/Entertainment/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20081118.wcurtis19)

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on November 19, 2008, 03:01:20 PM
Fortunately what he said was aired on Fox News, so we know exactly what he said.
(He said it in 2006, by the way.)

Quote
Curtis found himself in an odd position in 2005, when he was widely quoted as blasting Brokeback
Mountain, apparently taking offence at the notion of “gay cowboys.” He insists now that he was widely
misquoted.

(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj282/SanFranciscoJohn/dd-curtis18_ph_0499462469.jpg)

I wish I knew how to quote you.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on November 19, 2008, 03:26:32 PM
Quote
Tony Curtis: Picture this
   MATTHEW HAYS
Globe and Mail

MONTREAL — Sitting across from Tony Curtis is a strange experience.
[edit]
“I've always had great, profound friendships with gay men.”

But Curtis closes the interview with a colourful assertion of his heterosexuality, insisting that one of his favourite pastimes has always been, and still is, making love to women.

I met Tony Curtis once and seen him in person on another occasion.
He is a first class bullshitter and Hollywood schmoozer.  I wouldn't believe
a word he said about anything.  And if the adage that authors, especially first-time
authors, should write what you know then check out the (boring) novel he wrote
in 1981 or thereabouts.  Can we say closet case?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on November 21, 2008, 01:26:30 PM
John, do you know of any news or gossip from
T.C.'s appearance at the Castro the other night?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on November 21, 2008, 01:29:37 PM
I had the same question!  Did you go, John?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Guardian on November 25, 2008, 09:59:38 AM
dback, roland,

I missed that episode of Bill Maher's show when Brokeback's Oscar loss to Crash was mentioned.  Unfortunately it has been removed from You Tube.  Can you give me the gist of what was said and what comments were made from the rest of the panelists and Maher himself?  Unless you know of another way to view it or obtain a transcript.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on November 25, 2008, 10:18:46 AM
John, do you know of any news or gossip from
T.C.'s appearance at the Castro the other night?

No, but I haven't looked for anything really.

I wasn't able to make it like like I wanted because I had to work late, and it takes me over an hour to get to S.F. (and up to 45 minutes to find a parking spot near the theater).

off topic-  I see Randy Haberkamp is gonna be in my neck of the woods in December

A Century Ago: The Films of 1908
Hosted by Randy Haberkamp
Piano Accompaniment by Michael Mortilla


http://www.cafilm.org/rfc/films/974.html (http://www.cafilm.org/rfc/films/974.html)

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on November 25, 2008, 10:34:24 PM
Guardian,

It came in the context of the passage of Prop 8 and whether Californians are really as accepting of gays as people like to believe.  The guest basically said something to the effect of:  "Take Brokeback Mountain.  Here we have this fantastic movie, with an incredibly moving performance by Heath Ledger, that everyone loves and that everyone votes Best Picture.  So what does the Academy do?  It gives the award to a dumbass picture called Crash.  Why?   Maybe, it's because people in Hollywood aren't as comfortable with gay people as we like to think they are."

That was pretty much the gist of it, as well as memory serves me at least. 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on November 25, 2008, 10:39:41 PM
The response from the audience was scattered applause.  The only panelist who commented was Maher himself who just said, "Oh, I think we're pretty comfortable with gays" and that was pretty much it.  No real response to the BBM comment per se. 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on November 25, 2008, 11:59:11 PM
Why are there no openly gay leading men in Hollywood?

Quote
Gus Van Sant's "Milk" isn't just a mainstream-minded Oscar candidate;
it's also a rallying cry.

With Sean Penn starring as Harvey Milk, the openly gay San Francisco supervisor
who was gunned down along with Mayor George Moscone in 1978, the movie
(which opens Wednesday) makes its message clear:
Gay people must be "out" to be counted.

This theme is particularly timely given California's passage of anti-gay-marriage
Proposition 8 this month, but there's also a certain irony:  Here's a broadly
targeted movie with marquee actors, yet not only is none of the featured players
openly gay, but there isn't one openly gay leading man in all of Hollywood.

Bibby has written a number of much-speculated-about blind items about a
closeted actor dubbed Toothy Tile, who he reported was close to going public
with his sexuality until his agents and publicists persuaded him not to—a
situation far from unique.  "Toothy Tile is a big star, but Toothy Tile wants to
remain a big star, and that's the problem," said Bibby, who is gay himself.
"Hollywood is a very creative community, and the creative arts have always
been totally homo filled. But it's first and foremost a business. We've got to
sell the product out to the masses in the rest of the country where it's not
so gay filled."

The question is whether the industry's and actors' fears are justified or
whether a megastar's coming out might not be such a big deal after all.

More here:
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_popmachine/2008/11/gus-van-sants-m.html
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on November 26, 2008, 07:04:57 AM
Good article although I have often found fault with Casablanca (ne Bruce Bibby!  No wonder he goes by a nom de plume!) in the past due to his sneering and downright mean pieces. 

Wonder who the hell Toothy Tile could be.  I must admit it would be nice to know once and for all who is and who isn't so we could shout a collective "Who cares?" and life could go on.

Did you notice where someone replied "What about Josh (sic) Gyllenhaal?"  Maybe he meant Jake Hartnett.

Mark

P.S.  If Ted C. has a lover named Robert that would make him Bibby's Bobby!  Or if he's Jewish and has a grandmother then she would be Bibby's Bubby!  Or if he was to adopt an infant it'd be Bibby's Baby!  OK, I'll be quiet.  Sulk sulk.    >:(
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on November 28, 2008, 10:09:42 PM
Another article about there being no openly gay A-List actors
that has come about because of the release of Milk.

Quote
Land of Milk and irony: Sean Penn plays the gay activist
Harvey Milk in Gus Van Sant’s “Milk”—another instance of a straight
male actor playing the role of a gay character in a major film.

More here:
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/print/20081126_hollywoods_closet_still_closed_for_business/


I have a comment about these articles.  The premise of them all is the
question of "would audiences believe an out of the closet male actor in a
romantic role or as an action hero" etc.

The authors of these articles pontificate about this ad infinitum as they
did when BBM was in the theatres.  I have a question for all these writers
and for straight audiences alike -- "Why do you believe straight actors
playing gay roles?"  Why isn't anyone afraid of straight actors being
taken seriously if they're cast in a gay role?  Gay people can believe
straight actors in gay roles if they do a good job.  Are straight people so
shallow that they cannot do the same?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on November 29, 2008, 02:20:55 PM
Politics goes to the movies

Quote
Dennis Bingham, director of film studies at IUPUI, acknowledged that Oscar winners are often political and not always selected because they're "some masterpiece." Citing "It Happened One Night" (1934) and "Casablanca" (1943) as examples, Bingham said Best Picture winners are often chosen because they're films "people just like." Other films were selected because "everything else is so serious," Bingham added, citing "Rocky," (1976) "The Greatest Show on Earth" (1952), "An American in Paris" (1951) as examples.

"The winner is often a kind of compromise between a conservative aesthetic or politic and a more experimental aesthetic," Bingham said. He thought 2005 winner "Crash" was selected out of homophobic backlash against "Brokeback Mountain" and "Psycho" lost out to "The Apartment" in 1960 because the Academy didn't "have enough guts" to nominate it. "Silence of the Lambs" (1991) was "complex and interesting," Bingham said, in its portrayal of Jodie Foster's character in the male institution of law enforcement, so although it might have been considered "too violent" to win, it was chosen during a year when there wasn't an epic film competing.


http://www.indystar.com/article/20081129/OPINION12/811290385/1002/OPINION (http://www.indystar.com/article/20081129/OPINION12/811290385/1002/OPINION)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: bubba on November 30, 2008, 01:34:34 PM
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The hottest Oscar after-party in town is back — only smaller.

Vanity Fair says its annual Academy Awards party is returning for next year's Oscar night on Feb. 22. The magazine's 2008 bash was canceled in support of the Hollywood writers' strike.

The A-list soiree, which has boasted such guests as Madonna and Al Gore, will take place at West Hollywood's Sunset Tower Hotel instead of its traditional home, the restaurant Morten's.

The magazine's editor Graydon Carter says on VanityFair.com Tuesday that the bash "will be a much more intimate affair than in years past," with a scaled back guest list.

Given the state of the economy, Carter says the party will also recycle decor from past years.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hutDMJ5md-1sWfvsxbpmKATayl0QD94M4JRO2
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on December 04, 2008, 01:48:24 PM
Anne Hathaway wins National Board's "Best Actress 2008"

http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx?articlepath=APNews\General-Entertainment\20081204\Film-National-Board-Awards.xml&cat=entertainment&subcat=&pageid=1
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on December 04, 2008, 10:10:14 PM
Didn't the National Board of Review pick "Good Night and Good Luck" as their Best Picture of 2005?  They tend to go for the quirkier ones.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 05, 2008, 03:10:11 PM
Didn't the National Board of Review pick "Good Night and Good Luck"
as their Best Picture of 2005?  They tend to go for the quirkier ones.

Yes.  They did also give Jake Gyllenhaal the supporting actor
award for Brokeback Mountain and also Ang Lee the Director
Award for same--the only film to have multiple awards from
the organization that year.

The film they choose as the Best Picture of the year
never wins the oscar for Best Picture.  (I don't have specific
data on that.)  So when they picked S.M. my first reaction was,
"Well, that won't win the BP oscar."

***EDIT--I looked up their list of bp winners since 1932 and
found they match the oscar bp about 15-20% of the time.
Including last year--No Country for Old Men.  Before that
it was 1999 when they corresponded.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on December 07, 2008, 06:55:46 PM
Yes, NBR rarely picks the future Oscar winner as BP.

One of the funniest examples occurred in 1961, when the NBR chose an obscure anti-Communist film called "Question 7" as the number 1 film over "The Hustler" and "West Side Story" which came in at #2 and #3, respectively.  Now, I ask you has ANYONE ever heard of, let alone seen, "Question 7"?

I see the myth of Hollywood being a gay-friendly place continues despite all the evidence to the contrary.  Apparently, a few days ago Bill O'Reilly was sneeringly predicting that "Milk" would be named Best Picture because the Academy members will be so up-in-arms over the passage of Prop 8 that they'll use that as a means of voicing their outrage.  Did he completely miss the debacle that was the 2006 Oscar Awards?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on December 09, 2008, 07:32:57 PM
GOT MILK, AUSTRALIA?

Quote
Wednesday, 10 December 2008 08:43 

Oscar buzz can already be heard around Milk, Gus Van Sant’s biopic of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man elected to public office in California who in 1978 was assassinated by a fellow San Francisco city supervisor.   

Should a golden statue be given to Sean Penn, the film’s star, or Van Sant, its gay director – who, let’s face it, still needs to redeem himself for his spectacularly awful Psycho remake – this will also be a chance at redemption for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which in 2006 left many of us gobsmacked by overlooking Ang Lee’s brilliant Brokeback Mountain to give that year’s Best Picture gong to the demonstrably inferior  >:D Crash  >:D . Despite Hollywood’s claim to liberalism, the Brokeback snub reminded us that the queer mafia hasn’t quite infiltrated all realms of artistic media just yet. Hopefully in 2009, however, the Academy will get it right, should Milk prove to be as outstanding as initial critical reception would suggest.


 http://sxnews.e-p.net.au/opinion/queer-penguin-sam-butler-4582.html (http://sxnews.e-p.net.au/opinion/queer-penguin-sam-butler-4582.html)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on December 10, 2008, 11:09:10 AM
I'm not going to get my hopes up--this year, "Frost Nixon" seems to be filling the "Good Night and Good Luck" slot, and "Milk" the "Brokeback" slot.  "Slumdog Millionaire" seems to have the same sort of dark-horse moniker attached to it, despite some mixed reviews, and once Academy members start gassing about it, it'll just keep rising.  The other two slots will be filled with 2 of the following: "The Dark Knight" "Doubt" "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" or "Revolutionary Road."  ("The Reader" seems to mostly be an actor's movie.)  Don't overlook "Wall-E" sneaking in there, either.  I'd say "Milk" definitely has a shot at the final five, especially if it keeps racking up reviews that put it in the 90% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and if the grosses keep holding up. 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on December 10, 2008, 01:13:18 PM
New York Film Critics pick Milk and Sean Penn, but Josh Brolin for Milk over Heath Ledger:

New York Film Critics
Association Awards 2008
      
Film
Milk

Director
Mike Leigh, Happy-Go-Lucky

Actor
Sean Penn, Milk

Actress
Sally Hawkins, Happy-Go-Lucky

Supporting Actor
Josh Brolin, Milk

Supporting Actress
Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Screenplay
Jenny Lumet, Rachel Getting Married

First Film
Courtney Hunt, Frozen River

Foreign Film
4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

Animated Film
WALL-E

Documentary
Man on Wire

Cinematographer
Anthony Dod Mantle, Slumdog Millionaire

http://www.moviecitynews.com/awards/2009/critics_awards/nyfc.htm
 

 

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 10, 2008, 09:18:13 PM
Italy cuts Brokeback Mountain gay scene
December 11, 2008

Quote
Italian state television cut a gay sex scene from
Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain, as well as a sequence
showing the lead characters kissing when it aired the
movie, drawing allegations of censorship from gay rights
groups on Wednesday.

Activists protested that RAI TV would never have dropped
similar scenes had they involved a heterosexual couple,
and politicians called for the incident to be discussed in
parliament.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/film/italy-cuts-brokeback-mountain-gay-scene/2008/12/11/1228584982068.html
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 11, 2008, 03:55:37 PM
TOPIC:  After making several Top Ten Lists so far, winning the New York
Critics Best Film Award, 90%+ favorable reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and
six BFCA nominations including Best Picture, why do you think the Golden
Globes omitted Milk in all but one category?


(http://bp3.blogger.com/_ACm5Moyi_QI/R03JFdRzc9I/AAAAAAAAAN0/DUM7FqE5WKE/s200/Linda+Richman.jpg)

"Discuss!"
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on December 11, 2008, 05:42:55 PM
Not having seen the movie yet, I can't comment on the exclusion, just to say that it is rather odd.  Since the Foreign Press rightfully did choose BBM as Best Pic, it would be hard to make the case that homophobia had anything to do with it.  Perhaps the other five films seemed "better" than Milk to those who did the nominating?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on December 12, 2008, 07:26:55 AM
I can't discuss it right now--I'm too verklempt!

Mark
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Nax on December 12, 2008, 09:24:09 AM
Just to let you guys know there is a "Milk" thread in the Films and Theatre thread http://www.davecullen.com/forum/index.php?topic=31729.0 It might be more topical to discuss the merits of said film there ;)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 12, 2008, 12:34:05 PM
Just to let you guys know there is a "Milk" thread in the Films and Theatre thread http://www.davecullen.com/forum/index.php?topic=31729.0 It might be more topical to discuss the merits of said film there ;)

I am under the impression that Micahel would rather have that
thread stay on the topic and themes of the film rather than the
award season shenanigans surrounding it.  ?

EDIT***There is now a new AWARDS thread to discuss the awards:
http://www.davecullen.com/forum/index.php?topic=31843.msg1455669#msg1455669


   
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Nax on December 14, 2008, 04:57:18 AM
Dats der puppy ;D
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 18, 2008, 01:52:07 PM
We all know how Liongate was so subtle in their pursuit
to bash academy/guild voters over the head with crash
marketing.  So this doesn't surprise me:

Lionsgate Cited In London For Advertising
'Righteous Kill' In Tube Station Where Brazilian
Jean Charles de Menezes Was Killed

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on December 19, 2008, 01:56:58 PM
I thought I would link the following page from Movie City News because of the comment made next to Heath Ledger's name. 


Under Supporting Actor, Heath is listed as "likely to win."  Then it says "Phil has his Oscar."

What they mean is that Philip Seymour Hoffman already has an Oscar, so he's not likely to win this year.

BUT - when I first read the comment "Phil has his Oscar" I thought, "Yeah, Phil has Heath's Oscar!"

http://www.moviecitynews.com/columnists/poland/2009_oscar/081218_Actor.html
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: button on December 19, 2008, 08:12:45 PM
that's so funny.  Phil does have heath's oscar and george C. has Jake. And Crash has---- well you know.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on December 19, 2008, 08:16:15 PM
So true, in all three cases.   :(

Mark
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 20, 2008, 01:12:10 AM
Under Supporting Actor, Heath is listed as "likely to win."  Then it says "Phil has his Oscar."  What they mean is that Philip Seymour Hoffman already has an Oscar, so he's not likely to win this year.

That's also dismissive, as though Heath wouldn't be the better choice if
PSH hadn't won one already.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 20, 2008, 01:21:18 AM
If one isn't already cynical about the oscars, here's an article in
the Washington Post about publicists roles in winning oscars.
Who campaigns the best, in other words.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/19/AR2008121900747.html

Quote
Do awards flacks ever worry that the movies they're pushing are
unworthy? Are they worried, in short, about buying a bad movie an Oscar?

Not really, they say. "The Academy is not a critical body," says Fredell Pogodin,
a publicist who specializes in foreign-language films. "People forget that."

Amanda Lundberg, a partner at 42West, puts it more bluntly. Asked about
"Crash," a movie she helped usher to an upset Oscar win in 2005, and a
movie that many critics vocally hate, Lundberg is frank: "It doesn't matter what
people think," she says. "It matters what people who have a ballot think."

Did I say cynical?


Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 12, 2009, 01:15:03 PM
HISTORY REPEATING?

Found this several weeks old post, but still topical, from
David Mixner, gay rights advisor to President Clinton (but
not a Clinton apologist by any means)


Quote
"Milk" is not a Comedy!
November 24, 2008
One of my biggest regrets with "Brokeback Mountain" is that I did not speak
out as we allowed this  work of art to become a national joke. Not only did
our straight friends mock it with one liners and parodies but, the LGBT
community was first in line to make a joke out of a movie that had a powerful
message for all to hear. It was a movie about love, the destruction of the
closet, gay-bashing and the definitions of masculinity. Unfortunately, most
missed these powerful messages as we watched clip after clip on
"YouTube" of different, humorous (yes, they were funny) versions of
"Brokeback Mountain".

Oprah spent time interviewing Ledger and Gyllenhaal about kissing each
other more than she did about the message. No one protested.
The result of this was that we laughed "Brokeback Mountain" right out of an
Academy Award. Please lets not allow the same thing to happen to "Milk"
this year.

"Milk" is a movie about our history, our heroes, our struggle and the power of
one individual to create change. The movie is a universal story to inspire and
give hope to everyone. The movie depicts how hatred can lead to
assassination of not only, Supervisor Harvey Milk, but also Mayor George
Moscone, because of their ideas and courage. There is nothing funny about
this powerful and well done drama.

So what did David Letterman and James Franco talk about on the Letterman
show the other evening. Almost the entire interview was about Franco and
Penn kissing. Letterman even left the impression of "ugh" when they talked
about two men sharing an intimate moment. This is not acceptable from
Letterman and GLAAD should be all over it. Also the producers of "Milk"
should better brief their stars, like Franco, about not falling into the
"Brokeback Mountain" trap. Franco's response should have been to
Letterman, "This is not a comedy. It tells the story of an assassinated leader
of a civil rights movement and the epic struggle for freedom." Trust me, that
would have ended the discussion of kissing.

If this kind of treatment of "Milk" continues, we will once again lose the
powerful message of an amazing film, lose the awards and lose our history.
It is not too late to speak out. Watch the Letterman segment below.

 http://www.davidmixner.com/harvey-milk/
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on January 12, 2009, 05:26:49 PM
Thanks for the link.  I remember how Ellen was doing parodies of the BP nominees of 2005 (including BBM) but stopped when she got to Munich because its dark, tragic nature simply didn't lend itself to humor.  It seems inconceivable that someone would take a story like Harvey Milk's and even attempt to make a joke out of it.  But you're right.  Even "gay friendly" people use the word "brokeback" as a comical/derisive adjective, as in "That's so brokeback."  Hell, when even your friends are doing it, how can you expect non-supporters not to?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Morton on January 12, 2009, 05:29:38 PM
Hello,

I hope someone can help me.  A couple years ago I was able to locate the Brokeback Mountain Oscar CD Promo.  This promo contained 22 instrumental songs.  I've lost the CD containing these songs and need to have them.  I almost positive someone on the forum posted the link to the CD promo shortly before the Oscar nominations.  If anyone out there can provide me with the link to download I would greatly appreciate it.  You can either post it on the forum or email it to me at ddayton@nycap.rr.com. 

Sincerely,

Morton
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 16, 2009, 09:44:31 AM
Folks, below is a link to an interview with Sean Penn. He does discuss homophobia in hollywood, and certain Academy members who were "not interested" to see BBM "because of the subject matter". (Earnest Borgnine and Tony Curtis both said things along these lines.)


http://www.towleroad.com/2009/01/sean-penn-on-mi.html
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Guardian on January 16, 2009, 11:57:38 AM
Sean Penn's response to Scott Feinberg's question on whether he thought prejudice played a part in Brokeback's losing the Best Picture Oscar was hugely disappointing.  Suggesting that movies "catch a wave of approval" when they win awards was obviously a sop to the Academy.  How much of a wave did Brokeback have to catch when it won just about every other award on the way to the Oscars? 

It shows, that even an out-spoken actor/activist such as Penn won't foul his own nest.  He knows he has to work with these people in the future and so he throws out a lame answer when asked about homophobia in the industry - "there is homophobia in all groups."  To say nothing of his desire not to trash Milk's chances of winning Oscars.

It is sad that these so-called courageous activist actors such as Penn, George Clooney, Matt Damon and Brad Pitt won't cross the Hollywood establishment.  It's so much easier to rail against prejudice in the general than it is in the uncomfortable specific.  As long as people like Penn fail to see or admit this, the bigotry right under their noses will continue to flourish.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 17, 2009, 03:23:54 AM
The Man Who Sold Crash to the Academy

Quote
When Crash won the Oscar for best picture, I was half-drunk at a party in Seattle but sobered up quickly. I had to. I'd promised my editor at MSNBC that if the unthinkable did happen, if Crash won best picture that night over Brokeback Mountain, I'd write a piece about it. I finished it at 10 a.m. the next morning. It included diatribe, head-shaking and a quiz. It included everything but a culprit.

Now we have one. In the Jan. 19 issue of The New Yorker, regular contributor Tad Friend writes about Tim Palen, co-president of theatrical marketing at Lionsgate, the studio responsible for, on the one hand, Fahrenheit 9/11, 3:10 to Yuma, The Bank Job and Gods and Monsters, and, on the other, the Saw films, The Punisher (both recent versions), Good Luck Chuck and Witless Protection.

These two hands are obviously my hands, critical hands, hands that divide quality from crap. They would not be Palen's.

Friend drops a bomb early:

Publicity is selling what you have: the film's stars and sometimes its director. Marketing, very often, is selling what you don't have; it's the art of the tease.
That's great, insidery detail but it feels like it's missing the point. Yes, marketing, in this sad age, is selling what you don't have. But how is that a tease? A tease is offering what you do have but not following through. Selling what you don't have? The rest of us call that a lie. Sometimes we call it a felony.

In Hollywood, they brag about it.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erik-lundegaard/the-man-who-sold-emcrashe_b_158449.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erik-lundegaard/the-man-who-sold-emcrashe_b_158449.html)

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: CellarDweller115 on January 17, 2009, 02:39:59 PM
Origianally posted in the Oscar thread.


A good friend of the Forum just alerted me that today's imdb.com poll is "Which recent Best Picture winner would you say most deserves to have its Oscar taken away?" 

"It would be great if Forum members could see this so they could vote for Crash, which is currently in third behind Shakespeare in Leave (solidly in front, it beat Saving Private Ryan), and Chicago (which, is not leading Crash by much, it beat The Pianist).  Nothing else is close."
 
http://www.imdb.com/poll/

- Lydia
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 24, 2009, 02:49:33 PM
Famous last words

The Oscars: There's one favorite, and that's no joke

Quote
BEVERLY HILLS — There's only one sure bet this Oscar season: Heath Ledger.

Quote
Ever since The Dark Knight opened in July, Ledger's vivid turn as the villainous Joker was pegged as a near certainty, and now he's seen as destined to win when trophies are handed out Feb. 22.

"Heath has always been the runaway favorite, from the moment the movie came out, and maybe before," says Kris Tapley of the awards website InContention.com.

Quote
"It would be a real shock if Ledger doesn't win," Tapley says. "Right now, there appears to be one choice."

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-01-22-oscars-handicapping_N.htm?csp=34 (http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-01-22-oscars-handicapping_N.htm?csp=34)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 24, 2009, 04:00:25 PM
Yes, John, where have I heard that before?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on January 24, 2009, 04:14:53 PM
A HL win does seem to have a sort of "Julia Roberts" certainty to it.
It will be interesting to see what happens, not just on awards night,
but with all the usual trash talk leading up to it.

He delivers a magnificent performance.
My fingers are crossed.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 27, 2009, 09:47:57 AM
If the Oscars really went to the best ...

Quote
Between now and Feb. 22, when the Academy Awards are handed out, blogosphere prognosticators will analyze the lead categories to death.

They will chart the impact of the pre-Oscar awards and analyze the facial expressions of Academy voters as they walk their dogs. ("That half-smile indicates a best-actress vote for Kate Winslet") In the process, they'll ruin the fun of the actual broadcast for that admittedly small group of people paying attention to such things.

I happen to be a lifelong member of that group. And before I get caught up in trying to predict who among the nominees will take home statues, I want to point out who should win, based solely on quality. So here goes:



Quote
Choice: Ledger. The hype surrounding Ledger's performance helped push "The Dark Knight," a sequel inferior to its predecessor, into the box-office stratosphere and onto some all-time-best movie charts. Along the way, all those "why so serious?" imitations obscured the intricacy of the performance itself. But when you ignore everything except what happens on screen, it's clear no other actor in this category can compare. Ledger's performance is a fiendish marvel. The wisecracks are chilling, the threat constant and insidious. Watch "Brokeback Mountain" and "The Dark Knight" back to back to get a sense of what a great, versatile talent the world lost when Ledger died last year.

http://www.sacbee.com/121/story/1572450.html?mi_rss=Movie%20News (http://www.sacbee.com/121/story/1572450.html?mi_rss=Movie%20News)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on January 27, 2009, 10:39:17 AM
Just what I said yesterday on the forum about Heath. 

Mark
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 28, 2009, 02:02:49 PM
'The Reader' goes for the gold.
by Noah Forrest

Quote
Clearly, this was the biggest [nomination] surprise for most people, but
“surprised” doesn’t do justice to what I felt. I haven’t really written much about
The Reader because I thought it was unspeakably awful and had no real
chance of getting anything beyond a nomination for Kate Winslet. But now I find
myself with the need to vent. The problem with the film, beyond being
exploitative and plodding, is that I don’t have a clue what its point of view is.
[...]
I have to believe that a large part of the issue has to do with the film being
rushed out to compete in the awards race. Harvey Weinstein famously
(infamously), against the wishes of producer Scott Rudin, insisted that the film
be released for contention. And Weinstein proved to be right in figuring that The
Reader could be a player in the Academy Awards, but perhaps if the filmmakers
were given more time to work on the editing, it could have actually been a decent
film, too.
[...]
And that’s the most disappointing part of this; the Academy is supposed to be
an organization of people in the film business that love film. This isn’t some
haphazard, random sampling of ordinary folks, this is an esteemed panel of
actors, directors, and screenwriters and if they can’t see the flaws in a film
like The Reader, then it seriously hurts the credibility of the organization
in the same way Crash did.


http://www.moviecitynews.com/columnists/forrest/2009/090127.html
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on January 28, 2009, 02:42:14 PM
Lyle-- thanks for the link to that article. It was great, especially what was said about Robert Downey Jr.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on January 28, 2009, 09:00:12 PM
Sorry, but I disagree.  When I first heard about Downey playing the role of an actor who was so into verisimilitude that he would actually play a character in blackface I thought, omigod can he pull this off?  And damned if Downey wasn't audacious and talented enough and DID pull it off.  Done wrongly the role would have been an absolute embarrassment but he took you past the makeup to show the hilarity of Method actors who go too far in being "real to the character."  I think it's a bold and memorable performance, not unlike that of ANOTHER audacious and talented actor this year who didn't just rely on a great makeup job and trot through a summer blockbuster, but actually created a three-dimensional character, and is also up for the Best Supporting Actor Oscar.  And if I weren't hoping that this other guy wins I'd be pulling for Downey.  Of course he should have been nominated many other times in the past, especially for KISS BANG BANG, ZODIAC, and NATURAL BORN KILLERS, but the fact that he wasn't doesn't mean he shouldn't have been given a nod for TROPIC THUNDER.  Maybe it means that the Academy is finally waking up to this always-excellent actor.

Mark
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 30, 2009, 02:19:41 PM
You "do" make a good case for your argument Mark!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 30, 2009, 02:23:45 PM
Slumdog Is The New Crash
Wednesday, January 28, 2009

http://showhype.com/story/slumdog_is_the_new_crash/

Quote
Slumdog has taken the top prize at the Golden Globes and more
recently at the SAG Awards. In conjunction, news channels have been running
stories about the slums of Mumbai as if we never knew there were slums
there before. There is a feel good factor working here and it has nothing to do
with great filmmaking.

A great picture is the result of everything working together. Everything. And
while Slumdog provides us with a few positives, it's lacking in several
categories.  But right now that doesn't seem to matter. What seems to matter
is that Slumdog Millionaire is making the world a better place by exposing its
ugly parts. We've seen this happen before with Crash. And the hangover from
that has yet to go away, all these years later.


Feeling good about a movie is not a bad thing. But it can't be the only thing.
Everyone is so caught up in the story on and off the screen that they're not
realizing this film is seriously lacking in the best picture department.  I guess
we will see come Oscar night.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 30, 2009, 02:34:11 PM
Making the Case for Milk to Squeak by Slumdog Millionaire

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/01/can_milk_squeak_by_slumdog_mil.html
 
Quote
While we tend to side with the Bagger's [New York Times] opinion that
Slumdog Millionaire has got this year's Oscar for Best Picture locked up, it's
impossible to completely turn an intentionally blinded eye from the fire that the
film has been coming under in the last few days. If Slumdog does in fact
stumble between now and February 17 (the last day for Oscar voters to turn in
their ballots), Milk looks like it's best positioned to capitalize on the stumble. In
addition to it being incredibly well-respected within the community of voters
who make up the Academy, there are two main factors that could help propel
the film to glory on Oscar night.

1) Milk Is Still Building Momentum -
As Anne Thompson sagely reports, over at Variety, Focus Features has taken
the slow-and-steady approach to building their Oscar campaign for Milk.
Whereas their campaign for Brokeback Mountain in 2005 crested too
early,
Milk is only now going into wide release. If the movie can perform
strongly this weekend, it will be top-of-mind for Academy voters as they begin
casting their ballots.

2) A Win for Milk Helps Ease the Sting of the Brokeback Snub -
As we mention above, Crash was able to overtake Brokeback Mountain in the
Best Picture race in 2005.   Some attribute this upset to the belief that some of
the older ranks of the Academy held strong anti-gay beliefs, an assertion that
Rope of Silicon brings up in a post that breaks down this year's Oscar race. In
their eyes, a vote for Milk could help to reestablish the Academy as a place
where tolerance prevails above all else.
  Then again, Sean Penn could end
up getting in a brawl with the completely unpredictable Anil Kapoor at the DGA
Awards.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on January 30, 2009, 02:35:23 PM
You "do" make a good case for your argument Mark!

Lyle,

A compliment from you is like an AFRO-disiac!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 30, 2009, 02:39:47 PM
Oscar Watch: Is Milk Coming Up on the Outside?

http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/

Quote
If an OK but truly not great film like Crash, without even being nominated for BP at the Golden Globes, was able to come out of nowhere at the last minute and topple an exceptional Masterpiece such as Brokeback Mountain which had virtually won every Best Picture award prior to the Oscars, anything can happen on Oscar night. When it comes to the Academy Awards, we then had the proof that the "campaign" can be as important, if not more, than the films themselves simply because numerous voters do not even see the films they vote for. Insider politics rule. If Milk is indeed an excellent film and wins, so much the better, but it won't make up for the scandalous & outrageous debacle of 3 years ago.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on January 30, 2009, 06:23:29 PM
Making the Case for Milk to Squeak by Slumdog Millionaire

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/01/can_milk_squeak_by_slumdog_mil.html
 
Quote
While we tend to side with the Bagger's [New York Times] opinion that
Slumdog Millionaire has got this year's Oscar for Best Picture locked up, it's
impossible to completely turn an intentionally blinded eye from the fire that the
film has been coming under in the last few days. If Slumdog does in fact
stumble between now and February 17 (the last day for Oscar voters to turn in
their ballots), Milk looks like it's best positioned to capitalize on the stumble. In
addition to it being incredibly well-respected within the community of voters
who make up the Academy, there are two main factors that could help propel
the film to glory on Oscar night.

1) Milk Is Still Building Momentum -
As Anne Thompson sagely reports, over at Variety, Focus Features has taken
the slow-and-steady approach to building their Oscar campaign for Milk.
Whereas their campaign for Brokeback Mountain in 2005 crested too
early,
Milk is only now going into wide release. If the movie can perform
strongly this weekend, it will be top-of-mind for Academy voters as they begin
casting their ballots.

2) A Win for Milk Helps Ease the Sting of the Brokeback Snub -
As we mention above, Crash was able to overtake Brokeback Mountain in the
Best Picture race in 2005.   Some attribute this upset to the belief that some of
the older ranks of the Academy held strong anti-gay beliefs, an assertion that
Rope of Silicon brings up in a post that breaks down this year's Oscar race. In
their eyes, a vote for Milk could help to reestablish the Academy as a place
where tolerance prevails above all else.
  Then again, Sean Penn could end
up getting in a brawl with the completely unpredictable Anil Kapoor at the DGA
Awards.


Something I don't understand--

How does a thermos keep things both hot AND cold? 

No, that's not it...apologies to Rose Nylund.

Seriously, how could BBM crest too early?  The reason it made it to theaters around the country earlier than scheduled (in my nearby theater's case, three weeks early) was because it was doing huge business in large cities and the smaller cities realized it would do the same there.  Why would it matter where it played and when in terms of Oscar voters?  The movie had opened in December in L.A., which I always thought was where most of the voters lived (OK, or in New York, which also got the movie in December).  BBM had just as much momentum and was as fresh in the voters' minds in late January-early February 2006 as it was/did when it opened.  It was strictly a case of homophobia not to name it best picture.  Even if MILK wins best picture, which I doubt, it won't remove the permanent blot on the academy's record, not for this boy. Besides if they wouldn't vote for BBM for best picture they sure as hell won't vote for MILK.

Mark
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on January 30, 2009, 06:24:19 PM
Oscar Watch: Is Milk Coming Up on the Outside?

http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/

Quote
If an OK but truly not great film like Crash, without even being nominated for BP at the Golden Globes, was able to come out of nowhere at the last minute and topple an exceptional Masterpiece such as Brokeback Mountain which had virtually won every Best Picture award prior to the Oscars, anything can happen on Oscar night. When it comes to the Academy Awards, we then had the proof that the "campaign" can be as important, if not more, than the films themselves simply because numerous voters do not even see the films they vote for. Insider politics rule. If Milk is indeed an excellent film and wins, so much the better, but it won't make up for the scandalous & outrageous debacle of 3 years ago.


Amen, brother.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: michaelflanagansf on February 01, 2009, 10:23:52 AM
Quote
If Milk is indeed an excellent film and wins, so much the better, but it won't make up for the scandalous & outrageous debacle of 3 years ago.



First off I wonder about this quote - If Milk is indeed an excellent film?  What, is the author of this another person who is not interested in the history of the gay movement and how, at the peak of Anita Bryant's riding the crest of what would become the Moral Majority's crusade to slay us infidels a man was able to stop her and Briggs dead in his tracks?  It sounds as if he hasn't seen the film.

And indeed it will not make up for the loss of 'Brokeback Mountain' to 'Crash' three years ago.  It also won't make up for the assassination of Harvey Milk thirty years ago - and the loss of a prominent gay leader who could have made an incredible difference in spreading information on safe sex and saving lives at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. 

But perhaps we will get lucky and the subject of one of (if not the) first gay themed movies to win an Oscar 'The Times of Harvey Milk' (in 1985) will once again inspire the academy. 

And then perhaps people will actually go see the film - which would be a good thing as it has only just recently made back the money spent making it - and ranks below 'Capote' and 'Rent' in box office receipts:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=gay.htm
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on February 02, 2009, 09:51:37 AM
Well, they did give the doc Oscar to "Freeheld" last year, so there was that crumb being tossed.

That gay boxoffice list was very interesting.  I'd like to see the numbers adjusted for today's dollars.  I know "Making Love" cost $9 million to make (where on Earth did the money go?) based on reports at the time, but I was astonished to see that it actually recouped its cost--it just didn't MAKE any money. 

I think the maxim for filmmakers should be: gay films can and do make money, but keep the budget under $15 million, and make sure you've got the best talent available for potential awards/critical hosannahs.  That will help your film crawl into the black domestically, and you'll make a nice profit when DVD, foreign receipts, cable, etc. is factored in.  Now, will it be a box-office smash on the level of "The Dark Knight" or "Iron Man"?  No, but that's why ALL serious dramatic movies are in trouble right now with the studios--no franchise, no big-big money, no corporate fat cats happy.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 03, 2009, 02:47:40 AM
There's rarely anything I find concerning BBM and the Oscars that
I haven't read before or that hasn't been brought up on this thread
over the past three years, but while searching for something online
this evening I came across some things written about BBM and the
oscars I found interesting.  I wasn't even looking for this stuff!  You
know how that happens!  Anyway, it's that time of year again and some
new light might be appreciated looking back on these items, so I am
going to post them.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 03, 2009, 02:48:49 AM

Remember Ernest Borgnine famously bad-mouthing BBM?
This guy writes an article each year making Oscar predictions
based on what EB might think.  He was doing it before his
infamous remarks!  This one was from last year:

Oscar Predictions: The Borgnine Factor
2/20/2008 by James Rocchi

Quote
It's hard to get a statistical breakdown of the Academy's membership, but
over the years I've formed a mental picture of the Academy's average member.
He's male; he's been in show business for decades, usually as an actor; he's
wealthy enough to be "liberal"; he's white. He sees the nominated films at home,
on screeners, possibly while enjoying a sandwich, instead of in the theater. And
he's more inclined to go for a glossy feel-good movie over a grimmer one, or for a
sweeping, old-fashioned Hollywood period epic over a gritty drama about actual
present day concerns. (See also Forrest Gump vs. Pulp Fiction; Gladiator vs. Traffic.)

In short, Ernest Borgnine.

So, when I try to handicap Oscar picks, I ask: WWEBD? This is often a very
different set of films from what I'd like to see win, and the Virtual Borgnine
process isn't foolproof (last year--2007, I went 5/6; in 2006, I tanked with a record
of 3/6, somewhat damaged by my overlooking when Borgnine -- the real one, not the virtual one -- publicly stated he wouldn't see Brokeback Mountain). But,
mostly, it's an exercise in looking into the thought process behind the maddening
nature of the Oscars. All quotes are, as ever, rough intimations of the Borgnine
thought process ...

http://www.cinematical.com/2008/02/20/oscar-predictions
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 03, 2009, 02:56:34 AM
Written a week before the Oscar's in 2006!

Crash can't really beat Brokeback ... can it? Laws and Sausages
2/24/2006 12:01PM by Karina Longworth

Quote
It's a joke we've heard before: those who enjoy either Laws or Sausages
should watch neither being made. It's a rule that also easily applies to the
contemporary film industry. In other words, here's my scary little industry column -
check back once a week, if you dare.  Perhaps the mainstream media can sleep
safely after all. For all the hysteria swirling around about how the blogosphere
was destined to ruin Oscar season with our obsessive prognostication, I think
there’s a kind of studied, hipster-esque detachment going around the film blogs
that’s worth paying attention to. How many blog posts have you read in the past
month that start something like, “The Oscars are obviously totally worthless, but
…”? The fact that the only answer to that question is “more than one” is sign
enough that we have some kind of an epidemic on our hands.

So while the MSM Venn diagrams the hell out of the hype surrounding Brokeback
Mountain and Crash, and each journalist worth his weight in pullquotes picks a
circle and jerks away, I think it’s worth noting that neither film has seemed to
interest the blogging rabble until some time this week. It’s evidence that
someone is out of touch – although I’m not sure if it’s them or us – that the most
interesting and impassioned critical discussion I’ve read on film blogs this
awards season instead seems to center around Terrence Malick’s The New
World which has drawn virtually zero mainstream attention. However you
chicken-or-egg the relationship between the Academy and the press, The New
World is, of course, not nominated for Best Picture, and due to the perceived
wisdom on Academy politics, it’s considered a long shot in the Cinematography
category, the sole race in which it's been deemed worthy to compete. Tedium
over these political guessing games no doubt lies at the heart of the apathy
epidemic (whether, on a case by case basis, that apathy is genuine or feigned) -
which makes it all the more noteworthy that it’s that exact political miasma that
has finally caused the blog troops to rally around the flag.

I’m pretty sure it started last Friday when Dave Carr (blogging for the New York
Times as The Carpetbagger, which has improved considerably since I was
caught on tape calling it "dismal" in December) passed along the following tidbit
culled from a phone call with a ballot-in-hand member of the Academy: 
“The caller, like a lot of people that he talks to in Los Angeles, said he would be
giving Crash his best picture vote, not Brokeback Mountain. The man said he had
no problem with the gay themes at the heart of the Ang Lee film, but just that he
found he saw the film as highly derivative of Douglas Sirk’s films in the 1950’s of
thwarted love between doomed souls. “I just found Crash to be a far more
original movie.” He said that he would have liked to have been voting for a big
studio movie – he used to be part of one of its hulking components – but “they
just didn’t give us anything to choose from this year.”

We can understand his frustration, can’t we? Wouldn’t we all be slightly less
depressed about the state of the industry if Hollywood were making more films
that were … you know …  good? Or, at the very least, worthy of being awarded
miniature gold nude men (knowing that the two are not exactly always
symmetric)? But the very idea that Brokeback Mountain – a “sure thing” since
November, and, perhaps most surprising, an unquestionably solid work of art –
could be vulnerable to Paul Haggis’ intolerable intolerance play seems to be just
a little too much to handle. I think Anthony Kaufman – whose blog has really
broken out in recent weeks as one to watch – was the first to take the anger to the
streets:  “What's with all this gossip about Crash gaining momentum to upset
Brokeback Mountain for the Best Picture Oscar? Is anyone buying this? Why am I
even wasting my time addressing this topic? It's not like the Oscars frequently
recognize what I deem to be worthy movies, anyway, but please, this rumor has
to be stopped before it becomes even a whiff of a reality,… [re: the voter
testimony] Jesus fucking Christ, perhaps the Crash movement isn't all that
impossible when senile dullards like this guy make up the Academy's
membership.”

If Kaufman’s incredulity over a potential Crash party crash seems a bit incredible,
the NYT’s Dave Kehr shows up in the comments with evidence that hurts:
“Anthony, I'm in LA this week and I'm hearing the "Crash" thing too from just about
everyone I know. The usual explanation is that NYers just don't understand how
explosive the racial situation is out here, plus the fact that there are an awful lot of
actors in it, and actors are the largest and most passionte voting bloc." [typos
Kehr's]

It’s Kehr’s first contention that's really troubling, I think – the idea that white,
LA-based Oscar voters think that by voting for Crash, they can absolve
themselves over whatever guilt they feel over mistreating their gardeners or
obstinately refusing to send their children to public school. Or, as Dargis put it in
the paper she shares with Kehr several weeks ago:
"What could better soothe the troubled brow of the Academy’s collective white
conscious than a movie that says ... all answers are basically simple, so don’t
even think about politics, policy, the lingering effects of Proposition 13 and
Governor Arnold."

After all, it’s easier for even the staunchest aesthete to swallow their pride and
mark a check box than to get out of the Navigator and enact any sort of real social
change. A reasonable enough assumption, I suppose, although probably
ultimately misguided. I lived in Los Angeles for almost 20 years, and I never saw
any brand of racial conflict that a bad film could resolve.

For those who have not yet had the pleasure, Crash is a science fiction film, set
in an alternate universe that looks suspiciously like Los Angeles. This mythic
dimension is populated exclusively by about a dozen men and women of various
races and ethnicities; their only common trait, the compulsion to speak in stilted
expository paragraphs. Singularly unintelligent and consumed with
racially-motivated hatred, this crew has been cursed to encounter one another
over and over again through easily preventable traffic incidents. In the film’s most
compelling narrative knot, the District Attorney of Los Angeles (played by Brendan
“Encino Man” Fraser; he apparently ran on a campaign devoted to “ample nugs,
grindage, and minimal weezing on the juice”) has his car jacked by two black
youths. The stolen SUV apparently has time shifting properties, for soon the two
men find themselves in the 1860s, where they run over a "Chinaman" who is
presumably standing in the middle of the street whilst working on the railroad. In
the end, we learn that women tend to cry and scream a lot, and people of
opposite races, apparently, don't really get along. Also, when it comes to acting
nominations, I know I'm not the only one who thinks Tony Danza was robbed.
In short, Anthony Kaufman is right: "Crash quite simply, is a mess." But even so:
in the current bloggy climate, in which you apparently can’t get a TypePad account
until you renounce any and all belief in the Academy and their taste in film, how
and why did it suddenly become fashionable to speak out the second a bad film
seems to be rising to Oscar Night glory?

I think my brothers and sisters in film snobbery know the deal is already done. I
think Crash will win Best Picture, and not only that – I predict that Brokeback
Mountain will not win a single major award on Oscar night. And, quite frankly, I
think that's for the best. Brokeback Mountain is a very good film, but its legacy has
been threatened by the bizarre effect the film has had on pop culture. From the
spoof trailers (Brokeback to the Future is only the tip of the iceberg – do a You
Tube search) to the ubiquity of "I wish I knew how to quit you" – a devastating line
when I saw the picture early last fall, I can't imagine anyone sitting through the
scene the first time around by now and not bursting into laughter – this subtle,
somber, truly apolitical romance has blown up into the event film of the year. It will
cross the $100 million mark, far more than the Steven Spielberg film taking up
space on the Oscar ballot; it will not win Best Picture. It's already done its job; this
is the right time for it to start gracefully sliding into the historical ether. So come
March 5, let's just let the big, gaudy message film-as-after school special win
100 little statues. Let's let Sandra Bullock and Brendan Fraser pretend to be
serious actors; let's let the Academy congratulate themselves for making
decisions approved by Oprah. Because, after all, we don't really care about the
Oscars - right?

http://www.cinematical.com/2006/02/24

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 03, 2009, 03:03:00 AM
Remember when Annie Proulx wrote her famous retort to
the Academy that we all talked about?  This author talked
about something in that piece that stood out to her--something
I have taken so much for granted that it didn't seem out of the
ordinary to "me".  But, yes, there it is for all to see.  Even we
didn't discuss it on this thread I don't recall!

If no one reports on protesters at the Oscars, do they really exist?
3/11/2006 7:09PM by Kim Voynar

Quote
James wrote earlier today about Annie Proulx's scathing bitch-slapping of
the Academy Awards. Say what you will about whether old Annie is full of sour
grapes; she's always been full of what my grandmother would have admiringly
called "piss and vinegar", and she is one of my personal heroes as a writer.
James called her piece "scathing, coarse and wrathful" and I suppose it is all
those things; more than that, however, Proulx is unflinchingly honest in revealing
a side of the glittery, sparkling, Oscars that you won't see depicted on E! or
anywhere else. She totally de-glamorizes Hollywood's most gratuitous event,
rather like someone revealing that the elaborately decorated cake you can't wait
to have a taste of is display-window dressing - nothing more than a cardboard
box underneath.

The most revealing bit in Proulx's piece, however, was not her vitriolic attacks on
Crash and the merit of Phillip Seymour Hoffman's acting skill - it was her
description of protesters at the Oscars, "hordes of the righteous, some leaning
forward like wind-bent grasses, the better to deliver their imprecations against
gays and fags to the open windows of the limos".
I read that line and my initial
reaction was - huh?!? There were protesters at the Oscars - people yelling about
"gays and fags", waving signs about? I watched every single moment of the
Oscars, from red carpet to the E! after party coverage. The picture accompanying
this piece is from the protests at the 2003 Oscars; I couldn't find any pictures of
the protests this year. Nobody - nobody - reported on the presence of people
protesting Brokeback Mountain.Which begs the question, why?

Way back in 1999, when Elia Kazan was awarded, at long last, his honorary
Oscar, there were people protesting Kazan - and there was news coverage of the
protesters. Heck, there were even people protesting everything from the lack of
Hispanic actors in film to the absence of full-frontal male nudity. In 2003, there
was coverage of who was protesting the war in Iraq, and who wasn't. But this
year? People protesting Brokeback Mountain? Homophobia at the Oscars?

*chirp chirp*

So, what gives? Is this a major Hollywood case of  "if we ignore it, it doesn't
exist"? A mass attempt to defuse accusations that Brokeback was denied the
Best Picture award because of its content? Some of our commenters on James'
post have noted the outright hypocrisy of it all; if there were rumors swirling that
Academy members had refused to see Crash because there are African-Americans
in the film, or Munich because there are Jews, you wouldn't be able to stop the
flow of outrage no matter how hard you tried. How about if the KKK had come out
to protest a film that featured black actors? Do you imagine for  a minute that
wouldn't have been on every news broadcast, paper and website around the
country in the time it takes to say "and the Oscar goes to...Crash"? But protesters
carrying signs about "fags"? Heck, I guess we can just look the other way on that
one, right? Who cares if people are protesting a film about them homosexuals,
anyway? Certainly not any of the major news and entertainment outlets. Because
everyone knows, there's no homophobia in Hollywood.

Certainly not.

http://www.cinematical.com/2006/03/11
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: michaelflanagansf on February 03, 2009, 09:54:45 AM
If no one reports on protesters at the Oscars, do they really exist?
3/11/2006 7:09PM by Kim Voynar

Hmmm...well, I was going to say they never report on protests at the Oscars - as I was involved in the Queer Nation protests there in 1992 - but then I found this:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,309999,00.html

and this:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE4D81E31F93AA15750C0A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

So your question remains...why no talk about the anti-gay protests?  Maybe they're afraid some of us screaming queens will show back up and take on the anti-gay protesters (actually that sounds like fun....)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 08, 2009, 02:25:38 PM
We talked about the Academy's voting procedures here
before--alot about the fact they don't even have to see
the films they are voting for.

Here's part of an interesting article about this subject.

And the Oscar Goes to...Not Its Voting System
Selection of Academy Award Nominees and Winners is Flawed,
but Reformers Can't Seem to Elect a Better Candidate

by Carl Bialik
Feb. 6, 2009

Quote
Academy Award nominees and winners are selected using two
different voting systems that are, according to some political
mathematicians, the worst way to convert voters' preferences
into an election outcome.

The nominees are selected using a system called instant runoff,
which has been adopted in some municipal and state elections.
Out of last year's 281 eligible films, each voter selects five nominees
in order of preference for, say, best picture. All movies without any
first-place votes are eliminated. The votes for those films with the
least first-place votes are re-assigned until five nominees have
enough.

One problem with that system is a kind of squeaky-wheel phenomenon:
A movie that is second place on every ballot will lose out to one that
ranks first on only 20% of ballots but is hated by everyone else. Then,
in another upside-down outcome, a movie can win for best picture
even if 79% of voters hated it so long as they split their votes evenly
among the losing films. This isn't as unfamiliar as it sounds: Some
people think Al Gore would have won the Electoral College in 2000 if
Ralph Nader hadn't diverted more votes from him than he took from
former President George W. Bush.

"It's crazy," says Michel Balinski, professor of research at École
Polytechnique in Palaiseau, France. The nomination system's properties
are "truly perverse and antithetical to an idea of democracy," says Steven
Brams, professor of politics at New York University. He thinks the final
vote for the Oscar winner may be even worse than the selection of
nominees.

The big problem: If voting systems themselves were put to a vote,
prominent scholars would each produce a different ballot, then disagree
about which system should be used to select the winner. So it's no
surprise that advocates of alternate voting systems, which range from
simple yes/no approval ratings to assigning numerical scores to each
candidate, have had little more luck reforming political elections than they
have with entertainment awards.

Despite the flaws in Oscars voting, the system remains as it has since
1936. Every 15 years or so, the Academy re-examines its voting and has
decided to stick with it, says the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences' executive director, Bruce Davis. "It is a very effective method
of reflecting the will of the entire electorate," Mr. Davis says.
 
But many voting theorists aren't so keen on the system. It's called instant
runoff because it is used in political elections in lieu of a two-stage vote
in which top candidates compete again if none receives a majority of the
vote. Among the potential problems, showing up to vote for your favorite
candidate may create a worse outcome than not showing up at all. For
example, your vote could change the order in which candidates are
eliminated, and the next-in-line candidate on the ballot for the newly
eliminated film may be a film you loathe.

To choose Oscar winners, voters simply choose their favorite from the
nominees, and the contender with the most votes wins. That could favor
a film that has a devoted faction of fans, and sink films with overlapping
followings who split their vote. Even most critics of instant runoff say it
beats this plurality system that led to the Gore-Nader-Bush result. In the
film realm, Prof. Brams of NYU blames the current system for the best
picture victory of "Rocky" over films such as "Network" and "Taxi Driver"
that he speculates would have won head to head.

How this works out in reality is hard to know, because the Academy
doesn't release any details about the balloting, even after the telecast,
in part to avoid shaming fifth-place films. Mr. Davis says even he never
learns the numbers from his accountants: "Are there years when I'm
curious as to what the order of finish was? Absolutely. But I recognize
it as a vulgar curiosity in myself."

Such secrecy frustrates voting theorists who are anxious for experimental
data about voter behavior that may help them choose from among different
voting systems. Without such evidence, they are left to devise their own
studies, to dream up examples that sink rival systems or to create computer
simulations to study how easily different systems can be manipulated.

While Academy Award nominees and winners are selected using two
different voting systems, there are at least six other major ones that have
been proposed and studied by scholars. And each one can produce
different outcomes from the same ballots.

More here:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB123388752673155403.html
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 08, 2009, 02:30:08 PM
In terms of BBM in 2005, we know that all five best picture nominees
were considered art-house and independent type films.  Each film had
a somewhat core of support.  That means that, let's say, supporters of
Good Night and Good Luck, or Munich, or Capote, all voted for their films
to win.  (The screenwriter of Munich, for example, was Tony Kushner, the
award winning writer of Angels in America among other gay-related things.
What did he vote for?  Capote probably pulled some voters who were gay
for whatever reason.  Would it be safe to say they would have preferred
Brokeback Mountain to win Best Picture over crash?  I would think so.
This falls into the a movie can win for best picture even if 79% of voters
hated it so long as they split their votes evenly among the losing films.


I think this is a distinct possibility in 2005.

I also wonder if people that worked on a film--how much that plays into
the best picture voting.  Does someone who worked on a movie pretty
much vote for that one.  Did all the voting memebers of the casts and
crewsof Good Night and Good Luck, Munich, Capote, and crash all vote
for their own picture--all of which had larger casts than BBM!

If you KNOW that no film that doesn't get a first place vote is eliminated
from the running alter how you vote for the pictures? 

Etc.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on February 09, 2009, 07:40:46 PM


If you KNOW that no film that doesn't get a first place vote is eliminated
from the running alter how you vote for the pictures? 

Etc.

I seriously doubt it, Lyle.  Most voters don't understand the nominating process either.
The rest of your post is, in my opinion, exactly how BBM lost the Oscar.
Plus, the cast of C**** is enormous and "friends" vote for friends.
Finally, there was a big financial gain to be had because of the rumored, and eventually true,
possibility that C**** would be translated to an FX television project. The Oscar would help that effort.
Finally everybody thought that BBM was an inevitability so they felt free to  vote for something else.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on February 13, 2009, 12:32:39 PM
 
Can 'Milk' Prevail?
 
LAST FALL’S HARVEY MILK BIOPIC, “MILK,” picked up eight Oscar nominations, including for best picture, but whether or not it can win is a matter of fierce debate among film fans. Just three years ago, heavily favored “Brokeback Mountain” lost the best picture award to “Crash,” and allegations of homophobia in Hollywood immediately surfaced.

But after what happened with “Brokeback” on Oscar night, does “Milk” have a better shot at the top prize and does homophobia among Academy members remain a concern?  The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences will hand out its Oscar statuettes — film’s highest prize — on Sunday, Feb. 22.

Dave Cullen, a writer who runs the Ultimate Brokeback Sites, a forum and guide to “Brokeback Mountain” (www.davecullen.com/brokeback), says “the highly probable reason is that homophobia was [‘Brokeback’s’] undoing.”

“If you look at the sheer momentum and overwhelming unanimity of the lead-up awards, it’s reasonable to think that it could be homophobia, particularly since there is evidence of Tony Curtis and other people coming out and saying that they wouldn’t vote for a picture like that,” says Cullen,who is gay. “Brokeback Mountain” had won nearly every award it could have prior to the Oscars, including Great Britain’s top film prize and the Golden Globe for best picture.

http://www.southernvoice.com/2009/2-13/arts/film/9787.cfm (http://www.southernvoice.com/2009/2-13/arts/film/9787.cfm)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 13, 2009, 01:27:45 PM
A comment on a couple of the imbecilic remarks by a couple
others of note in that article:

Can 'Milk' Prevail?
Gay biopic faces strong competition - and homophobia in Hollywood
 - as Oscars near
by AMY CAVANAUGH

Quote
[Michael] Musto said that the awards "Brokeback" picked up before the Oscars
were given outside the Academy, and not by those members of the Academy
who live in a "bubble in L.A." "Critics live all over the place and the Golden
Globes are given by foreign journalists," he says. "It’s got to be something
about California, maybe the sun rots their brains or something."

Musto conveniently forgets (maybe being in New York his brain is frozen) that Brokeback Mountain won several of the guild awards that were handed out in Los Angeles, many of whose voters are also Academy members--the Producer’s Guild, the Director’s Guild, the Writer’s Guild, etc. and had nominations in most of the others.  He also forgets, perhaps, that academy members also live "all over the place" like New York, for example, and Canada and Australia and a huge contingent in the UK.

Quote
But not everyone blames homophobia for the "Brokeback" loss. Neil Giuliano
is president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, an
organization that tracks gay visibility in the media. GLAAD last month
nominated "Milk" in the outstanding film, wide release category for its 20th
annual GLAAD Media Awards.

"I think for a small minority of Academy voters that may have been the case
three years ago, but I think there were other issues at play, including the fact
that the film was made outside the U.S., so opportunities for Academy
members to be extras were limited," he says.

This sentence does not entirely make a lot of sense.  If homophobia "may have been the case three years ago" then homophobia "would" be a reason for its loss.  As for other issues at play like the film being "made outside the U.S., so opportunities for Academy members to be extras were limited" is a reason then Slumdog Millionaire hasn’t got a ghost of a chance.  Hollywood has about "ZERO" association with Slumdog Millionaire.  Also, "academy members to be extras?"  Huh?

GLAAD was an academy apologist when it came to talking about this issue, so to ask them their opinion now about it is worthless in my view.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on February 16, 2009, 01:24:39 PM
I see that my Best Buy is featuring the Crash DVD for $3.99 this week.  So it's finally being priced based on intrinsic value!

(The sale also features Saw IV and American Psycho for $3.99 - so Crash is in good cinematic company, too)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 17, 2009, 02:02:29 PM
From the article:

Oscar Predictions You Can Bet On!
Mr. Statistics, Nate Silver, goes for the gold

http://nymag.com/movies/features/54335/

Best Director
Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire (99.7%)
Gus Van Sant, Milk (0.1%)
David Fincher, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (0.1%)
Ron Howard, Frost/Nixon (0.0%)
Stephen Daldry, The Reader (0.0%)

When the Academy wants to rebel, it does so with Best Director—this is where “edgy” films are rewarded when it can’t muster the courage to do so for Best Picture (Ang Lee for Brokeback Mountain, Steven Soderbergh for Traffic). That means Danny Boyle—who has won all the top awards for Slumdog Millionaire—is a shoo-in.

Best Picture
Slumdog Millionaire (99.0%)
Milk (1.0%)
Frost/Nixon (0.0%)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (0.0%)
The Reader (0.0%)

Slumdog Millionaire won all three awards associated with Oscar success: the Directors Guild Award, the Golden Globe, and the BAFTA. It’s also a serious film, which the Academy favors. If there’s an upset (which would be a shocker), it will be Milk; guilt over Prop 8 and the Brokeback snub of ’06 could split the vote, with Boyle getting Director and Milk getting Picture.

Based on ampas's display of homophobia three years ago
it would be a real shocker.  You could replace the name
Brokeback Mountain with Slumdog in that line up there
as well.  BBM won all three awards associated with Oscar
success.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 17, 2009, 02:20:19 PM
http://www.moviecitynews.com/columnists/forrest/2009/090217.html

And the other thing that eats at me, I can’t help but think about what the historical implications are. Every year, it seems that the Oscar voters are listening to those loudest voices instead of really studying the films and deciding which film and which performance will make the most sense to the people who are watching these films in twenty years. Instead of going with the wave of affection for a particular picture, I just wish the Academy voters would sit down and watch every nominated film over and over and think long and hard about their decisions.  Because the truth of the matter is, if each voter took their job a little more seriously, films like Shakespeare in Love -- or, shudder, Crash -- wouldn’t win Best Picture.

And before the hate mail starts rolling in, let me say that I like Shakespeare in Love, but you will never convince me that people will still be studying that film in another ten years. Hell, it’s been ten years already and most people you would meet probably think that Saving Private Ryan won that year.  And Crash became relevant, only because it’s one of the most ludicrous and overtly politically-driven choices the Academy has ever made.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: bubba on February 17, 2009, 02:31:37 PM
I was watching a review the other day for Lake View Terrace and the people doing the review were raving about Crash.  There are still a lot of people out there who liked the film and still like the film.  Just no one on this board.  ;)


http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050505/REVIEWS/50502001


As for Shakespeare in Love it was okay (1998)  I know a lot of people weren't crazy about Saving Private Ryan either.  It wasn't a strong year for movies.


As I have said a million times, you will never please everyone.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: michaelflanagansf on February 19, 2009, 08:42:32 PM
I was watching a review the other day for Lake View Terrace and the people doing the review were raving about Crash.  There are still a lot of people out there who liked the film and still like the film.  Just no one on this board.  ;)

I actually liked the film (particularly technically), but didn't think it in any way compared with BBM in terms of message - particularly because it did cheap things like having country music play as the white cop kills the black kid near the end - and also because everyone (Persian, Korean, Black, Latino and White) hated everyone else in the film - and I just don't feel that's a representative picture of what is going on in Los Angeles (or in California as a whole).  I still think of it as the feel bad movie of 2004.

One of my co-workers, who is Latino, went to see the film with his father - who very succinctly said 'I thought we were over stuff like that in the 70s.'  It has a very dated feel to it, particularly given our last election and the multi-racial cabinet we now have.  For me it felt like Paul Haggis had a very colored viewpoint about American, being from London, Ontario and having been carjacked.

I certainly didn't believe that Matt Dillon's character would have saved a woman that he had sexually abused the day before that.  My experience, the experience of my friends and the opinions I've formed by reading books like 'Stonewall' and 'The Mayor of Castro Street' lead me to believe that this is a dishonest behavior for the character.  It would have made more sense to me if he had allowed her to die - much more along the lines of what Dan White did in San Francisco, to be sure.  With emotional inconsistencies like this it had much more of the feel of a television movie than a feature film - but I still liked it for what it was.  In terms of the technique of the multilayered interconnected storyline I far preferred Steven Soderbergh's 'Traffic' or Alejandro González Iñárritu's 'Babel' - both of which were as gritty as 'Crash' and neither of which seemed as intellectually and emotionally dishonest as 'Crash.'
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: bubba on February 19, 2009, 09:23:10 PM
I wasn't crazy about Traffic, I really enjoyed Babel.


I thought Matt Dillons character was believable. I think he kind of redeemed himself when he saved her.  And I wasn't surprised he did.  Copping a feel is one thing, letting someone die is something totally different.   And we saw the other side of him with his Dad, very caring and doting.


It was a complicated movie to be sure.  Very different than Brokeback obviously, like comparing apples and oranges.  Which is the one thing I don't like about Oscars.


Brokeback was the better film, that's for sure.  I am still happy Ang won.  And I am happy for what I think it did for the careers of Heath and Jake and Michelle and Ann.


It was a huge stepping stone for them and a great learning experience I would imagine.  It brought Michelle and Heath together......and gave the world Matilda.  Which is quite a blessing now that Heath is gone.  :'(


Sorry rambling.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: michaelflanagansf on February 19, 2009, 10:51:25 PM
I thought Matt Dillons character was believable. I think he kind of redeemed himself when he saved her.  And I wasn't surprised he did.  Copping a feel is one thing, letting someone die is something totally different.   And we saw the other side of him with his Dad, very caring and doting.

It just seemed very odd to me that the film would depict him this way...given the way L.A. Police are often seen in the media.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15649790/

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,156676,00.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/10/local/me-melee10

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/10/local/me-brutality10

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE5DE1539F93BA25750C0A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2002-07/a-2002-07-09-29-New.cfm

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1053958.html

It just seemed a radically different reading of the history of the L.A. Police than I'm used to seeing.  This history involves the black and Hispanic residence of L.A. and anyone who is familiar with the history of the police in their interactions with gay people know it has a similar violent history in the past.  Perhaps that's why I had problems with it.  But perhaps Paul Haggis knew of something outside of this history that would lead him to write the script he did.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on February 20, 2009, 11:55:06 AM
App-a-day: And the Award Goes To ...

Quote
I love movies, and I love to watch the Academy Awards, but I am terrible at remembering who won what or when, so this app is a handy pocket companion to have on hand at an Oscar party or cocktail party leading up to Sunday's ceremony broadcast (or even when submitting your picks to the office pool). Ninety-nine cents seems like a small price to pay to be able to say things like, "Despite conventional wisdom that 'Slumdog Millionaire' will win, the statistics are on 'Milk's' side because 21 of the last best picture winners had single-word titles. Remember how 'Crash' won over 'Brokeback Mountain'???" Priceless. And it only took me five minutes to tally that out. (True, 23 winning films had three-word titles, but only 15 had two-word titles.)


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/20/DD4815TE7N.DTL&type=tech (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/20/DD4815TE7N.DTL&type=tech)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on February 20, 2009, 12:34:36 PM


It just seemed a radically different reading of the history of the L.A. Police than I'm used to seeing.  This history involves the black and Hispanic residence of L.A. and anyone who is familiar with the history of the police in their interactions with gay people know it has a similar violent history in the past.  Perhaps that's why I had problems with it.  But perhaps Paul Haggis knew of something outside of this history that would lead him to write the script he did.

The problem I have with “Crash” is that it is an intellectually shallow examination of a real issue masquerading as intellectually deep “high art”.  The subject matter of examining the perceived hypocrisy of “how far we have come” in terms of tolerance in racial, gender and sexual identity relations is certainly valid.  Out new Attorney General addressed the subject this week with his “nation of cowards” comments.  But Haggis’ treatment of the subject is derivative (the line uttered by the Sandra Bullock character to her Latino maid about her “Being my best friend” being one of the most egregious since it is totally ripped from “Driving Miss Daisy”)  to the point of caricature.  The Dillon character certainly has some depth and verisimilitude (especially in the telephone conversation scene with the black social worker) but for the most part the film simply panders to limousine liberal” angst and to those who enjoy wallowing every now and then in disingenuous guilt. 
It is as though Paul is grabbing the audience by the lapel, shaking them, and screaming in their face: “My god the IRONY, the HYPOCRISY, don’t you SEE it, aren’t you ASHAMED:!!!?”
Yes, Paul, yes, I get it, now let go of me before I punch you into Wednesday of next week. 
The entire enterprise is an embarrassing piece of drek undeserving of being grouped with any one of the other four films nominated that year. 
Hell, relics like "Gentleman's Agreement” and even “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” handled the same themes much better than this “Crash” crap. 


Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: michaelflanagansf on February 20, 2009, 01:58:10 PM
The Dillon character certainly has some depth and verisimilitude (especially in the telephone conversation scene with the black social worker) but for the most part the film simply panders to limousine liberal” angst and to those who enjoy wallowing every now and then in disingenuous guilt. 

Well his character invoked more anger than guilt in me.  It just made me think of the L.A. riots all over again - and for that 'Twilight Los Angeles' (with Anna Deavere Smith) was a far better work - both the play and the film.

But I agree about the faux angst in the film.  And it felt much more like it was from the period of 'Gentleman's Agreement' than a modern film in message, that's for sure (and like a Sirk film).
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on February 20, 2009, 03:01:16 PM

Well his character invoked more anger than guilt in me.  It just made me think of the L.A. riots all over again - and for that 'Twilight Los Angeles' (with Anna Deavere Smith) was a far better work - both the play and the film.

But I agree about the faux angst in the film.  And it felt much more like it was from the period of 'Gentleman's Agreement' than a modern film in message, that's for sure (and like a Sirk film).

LOL, I don't know you very well, and only from the forum, but I don't think you fit my definition of a "limousine liberal" ( I get the feeling that you  consider your political beliefs to be a bit more than a fashion statement), so I am not surprised by the invocation of anger rather than guilt. 
Sirk gave me a chuckle as well, ( I assume you mean Douglas Sirk).  For some reason the first thing that came to mind was "Tarzan: Son of Cochise".  :D
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: michaelflanagansf on February 20, 2009, 03:03:36 PM
LOL, I don't know you very well, and only from the forum, but I don't think you fit my definition of a "limousine liberal" ( I get the feeling that you  consider your political beliefs to be a bit more than a fashion statement), so I am not surprised by the invocation of anger rather than guilt. 
Sirk gave me a chuckle as well, ( I assume you mean Douglas Sirk).  For some reason the first thing that came to mind was "Tarzan: Son of Cochise".  :D

Right on both counts.  ;) :D

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on February 20, 2009, 04:11:12 PM
TARZAN:  SON OF COCHISE?

As opposed to TAZA OF THE APES???
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on February 20, 2009, 04:29:36 PM
TARZAN:  SON OF COCHISE?

As opposed to TAZA OF THE APES???

BWAAAA! , yes, yes, that is exactly what I mean. 
I know it is Taza (Rock Hudson, of all people) but I insist on calling it Tarzan: Son of....etc. 

Of course, "TAZA Of The Apes" might make a great film. 
(I am kind of surprised De Laurentis never made it.)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 21, 2009, 12:05:04 PM
Hell, relics like "Gentleman's Agreement” and even “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” handled the same themes much better than this “Crash” crap. 

I have always thought Gentleman's Agreement a terrible film.  Largely because it sets
itself up as such a "noble" gesture of pursuing anti-semitism.  Like the filmmakers are
going to slap you on the hand if you don't behave.  I find the film excruciating to watch
because of that.  It would have been so much better, and effective, if the Gregory Peck
character went about his business "before" we knew he was not Jewish instead of
making a case about it before hand.

It's based on a book by a woman author who also authored a book called Consenting
Adult in the late 70's, about a son coming out to his family.  It was made into a tv movie
in 1985 and was available at one time on vhs.  It has all the requisite angst of the Peck
film.  It starred Marlo Thomas, Martin Sheen and Barry Tubb, who was a distant
acquaintance back then (yes, he's gay).  I don't know if they touched on aids in that film
since it was obviously in the news in 1985.  I wonder what that film would be like today? 

I had only seen Guess Who's Coming to Dinner on television and always thought it a
bit heavy handed, but two years ago I saw it at the Goldwyn theatre with an audience
and as a lot of broad issues based comedies do, it plays so much better on a larger
than life screen with an appreciative audience to laugh along.

There's a scene in the film where a young white delivery guy brings a package
to the house and a black maid receives it.  The guy is listening to some music on
a transistor radio and they start dancing to it before he leaves.  It's ostensibly a
silly scene.  The actor who played the delivery boy was at the Q&A and he related that
he is gay and that at the time that film was out that gay people were truly interested
and supportive of that film because the basic theme of it is that you don't choose the
person you fall in love with.  That love is blind.  Color blind in the movie's case.  He
said that delivery scene was intended to show that "the young generation" didn't get
what all the fuss was about with their parents and race issues; that it wasn't a big deal
to them.  He related it to know and how young people aren't really getting why their
parents get so freaked out about gay issues.

Stanley Kramer's wife was also there and talked about her husband and the fact that
even if he made a comedy he was always interested in entertaining audiences with
social issue films.  They had recently remade this film with Ashton Kutcher (Guess
Who?) with the black and white roles reversed and an audience question posed why
they didn't update it more than that by doing it as a gay relationship.  She said that
is not what was presented by the filmmakers, but that that movie should get made, too.
The issue of homophobia in Hollywood was raised by the questioner, as evidenced by
the Brokeback Mountain best picture snub which the questioner mentioned, but that's
about as far as that topic went.

I'm not sure who gives it out, but Milk was presented with the Stanley Kramer Award this year.  I don't dare to look and see what received it for 2005.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 21, 2009, 12:20:46 PM
But I agree about the faux angst in the film [crash].  And it felt much more like it was from the period of 'Gentleman's Agreement' than a modern film in message, that's for sure (and like a Sirk film). 

That's why my favorite headline the day after the 2006 oscars was:
Academy names Crash Best Picture...of 1967
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on February 21, 2009, 12:31:02 PM
I know I'm missing the big picture here Lyle, but what bugs me most about GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT is that Gregory Peck clearly has more in common with Celeste Holm's truly liberal, chic, pretty, and caring character (who loves him, to boot) yet at the end he stays with his phony fiancee, Dorothy McGuire, with whom he has argued all during the film.  Poor Celeste.

So CONSENTING ADULTS isn't worth a rental or look-see?  I almost did last month, as I remember it from 1985.  I still might get it.  It'd be interesting to see how the subject was dealt with then.  I'd also like to see the 1972 THAT CERTAIN SUMMER, too.

To read more about GUESS...DINNER, pick up PICTURES AT A REVOLUTION, by Mark Harris, a look at this film and the others nominated for the 1967 best picture Oscar.  It's a great read!

Mark

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on February 21, 2009, 01:41:57 PM
I saw That Certain Summer when it was broadcast back in them earlier days.
I was 16 at the time.

I'd have to see it again to know if it was good movie. It was nominated for several Emmys, and it won a Golden Globe.

One thing I do remember is how good looking I thought Martin Sheen was.

I also remember having to watch it alone in my bedroom with the sound turned way down so nobody would know. And it was in B&W on my little tiny itty bitty portable tv that I inherited from my grandmother.

(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj282/SanFranciscoJohn/2591106065_07765034f8.jpg)

And it was on channel 12, not 8 as shown in the picture  ;D
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on February 21, 2009, 01:46:07 PM

I'm not sure who gives it out, but Milk was presented with the Stanley Kramer Award this year.  I don't dare to look and see what received it for 2005.


It is awarded by the Producers Guild. 
In 2005 it was given to "Good Night and Good Luck", the same year the guild recognized BBM as best picture.  (This year, ugh, "Slumdog.....")
It is an odd little award (the Stanley Kramer) and I do not understand the criteria for selection.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on February 21, 2009, 03:53:07 PM
I know I'm missing the big picture here Lyle, but what bugs me most about GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT is that Gregory Peck clearly has more in common with Celeste Holm's truly liberal, chic, pretty, and caring character (who loves him, to boot) yet at the end he stays with his phony fiancee, Dorothy McGuire, with whom he has argued all during the film.  Poor Celeste.

So CONSENTING ADULTS isn't worth a rental or look-see?  I almost did last month, as I remember it from 1985.  I still might get it.  It'd be interesting to see how the subject was dealt with then.  I'd also like to see the 1972 THAT CERTAIN SUMMER, too.

To read more about GUESS...DINNER, pick up PICTURES AT A REVOLUTION, by Mark Harris, a look at this film and the others nominated for the 1967 best picture Oscar.  It's a great read!

Mark



I couldn't agree with you more.  I bought a copy of PICTURES AT THE REVOLUTION last week and couldn't put it down.  It makes we wish someone would write a behind-the-scenes book like that on BBM.  It makes you realize just how complicated a thing getting a movie made can be - and just how great a part timing and luck (along with talent, of course) play in the finished product.

As to "That Certain Summer," I remember that Judith Crist gave it a rave review in TV Guide and I also remember watching it with my family.  I don't recall any kind of negative response from my parents, thankfully.   And, yes, I thought Martin Sheen was sexy as hell!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on February 22, 2009, 10:04:08 AM
LA Times film critic Kenneth Turan, who famously wrote a next-day op-ed condemming the Academy for selectng Crash over BBM in 2006,  once again makes his case in today's Sunday edition (2/22/09) (although, he slams Milk somewhat while doing so):

'Milk'

I was surprised and not surprised when this film made the final five. Sean Penn's remarkable performance aside, "Milk" couldn't be more earnest and conventional. This is not necessarily a bad thing with the academy, but with other, equally conventional films such as "Defiance" falling by the wayside, "Milk" must be benefiting from the power of other factors. And it is.

For one thing, people who were passionately opposed to Proposition 8 and who allow political concerns to influence their votes will feel they are sending a message with this choice. The other factor in "Milk's" favor, frankly, is guilt and the desire to make amends. Actors often get their Oscars years after the film they should have won for, and regret at unjustly bypassing "Brokeback Mountain" three years ago may lead to "buyers' remorse" votes for this film.


http://theenvelope.latimes.com/entertainment/la-ca-turan22-2009feb22,0,2528319.story
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 01, 2009, 12:52:52 PM
The other factor in "Milk's" favor, frankly, is guilt and the desire to make amends. Actors often get their Oscars years after the film they should have won for, and regret at unjustly bypassing "Brokeback Mountain" three years ago may lead to "buyers' remorse" votes for this film.[/i]

Just would like to know some posters' ideas about the following:
How does "Milk" winning two major awards and the recipients
acknowledgement of human rights and gay people, play into our
determination that Brokeback Mountain did not win the Best Picture
award because of homophobia?  The academy can use the current
awards as "proof" that the academy is not homophobic.  I can hear
Sid Ganis saying his usual Brokeback Mountain was nominated
for 8 awards and won three, how can you say it was homophobia
,
and then using the Milk awards as further proof of this.  I have my own
ideas about that, but didn't want to jump in with them until I heard some
others.

As for Turan's buyers' remorse votes for Milk, does anyone think
that was happening in the screenplay and actor categories?  In other
words, say, if BBM had won best picture they more than likely would
have gone with Rourke this time?  It's all speculation, but sometimes
you learn things while digging around.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: michaelflanagansf on March 01, 2009, 01:23:55 PM
'Brokeback' and 'Milk' are incredibly different films - and I think that it is a whole heck of a lot easier for the Academy to give an award based on the life of a slain civil rights leader than a troubled romance with two young male leads playing roles in what is considered a traditional part of the American male psyche.  So though I agree with Roland that there may have been some of the regret over not giving 'Brokeback' best picture (particularly in light of Heath's death), I don't think that giving Sean Penn and Dustin Lance Black awards for 'Milk' mitigates the homophobia of the academy in regards to 'Brokeback.'  I think 'Milk' stands on its own and won its awards on its own.  Aside from the incredible sadness over the loss of Harvey Milk there is a message of hope, group effort and perseverance in the film which are very germane to the struggles that people throughout the world have now - it's not a coincidence that 'hope' is the winning theme of both this movie and the last presidential election campaign.

Regarding Mickey Rourke, I think it's important to remember what I think of as the Helen Lawson rule - you know "They drummed you out of Hollywood, so you come crawling back to Broadway. ... So ya come crawlin' back to Broadway. Well, Broadway doesn't go for booze and dope."  Mickey Rourke has one good film under his belt now in his comeback (or so I here - not my type of film and I'm not seeing it).  It's a film about a has been wrestler who makes a comeback - so there is certainly an element of Rourke playing himself here.  As for the 'difficult actor' bit - well I'd say that from all I've heard Rourke is close to a draw with Penn on this.  And Penn has a solid body of work - including his work in '21 Grams', 'Mystic River' and 'I Am Sam' (all nominated for Oscars) and his work as a director in 'Into The Wild' (for which he was nominated for a Critic Circle award, among others).  I know that the Academy likes a hard luck story - but they are also involved in business.  And in the current business climate I would be willing to bet that there were many who thought about whether or not the Oscar for best actor was a good investment in the future.

While we're talking about the homophobia that affected 'Brokeback' however, it's important to remember that even with the theme of hope and group effort and the incredible work of Penn and the script of Black that 'Milk' wasn't considered a serious contender for the best picture award.  For that Hollywood went for 'a land far, far away' and a mythical story that is hopeful, but not based on reality.  For my part I re-read the Roger Ebert column on 'Milk' for best picture and believe that the homophobia that lives in Hollywood is alive and well - only this time it's not the homophobia that feels that it's icky to see two handsome men kiss and have a tragic love story - it's the homophobia that tells us that no matter how high we rise or what we do that our live don't quite measure up or matter as much - even as much as fiction.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on March 01, 2009, 09:05:15 PM
In reviewing "Crossing Over" - a movie about illegal immigration done much in the style of "Crash" - on tonight's episode of "At the Movies," Ben Mankiewicz referred to "Crash" as "one of the most overrated films in recent memory."  Music to my ears.  He also recently said that the performance Heath should be most remembered for is not "The Dark Knight" but "Brokeback Mountain."  Sounds like a fan there.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on March 01, 2009, 09:12:17 PM
The other factor in "Milk's" favor, frankly, is guilt and the desire to make amends. Actors often get their Oscars years after the film they should have won for, and regret at unjustly bypassing "Brokeback Mountain" three years ago may lead to "buyers' remorse" votes for this film.[/i]

Just would like to know some posters' ideas about the following:
How does "Milk" winning two major awards and the recipients
acknowledgement of human rights and gay people, play into our
determination that Brokeback Mountain did not win the Best Picture
award because of homophobia?  The academy can use the current
awards as "proof" that the academy is not homophobic.  I can hear
Sid Ganis saying his usual Brokeback Mountain was nominated
for 8 awards and won three, how can you say it was homophobia
,
and then using the Milk awards as further proof of this.  I have my own
ideas about that, but didn't want to jump in with them until I heard some
others.

As for Turan's buyers' remorse votes for Milk, does anyone think
that was happening in the screenplay and actor categories?  In other
words, say, if BBM had won best picture they more than likely would
have gone with Rourke this time?  It's all speculation, but sometimes
you learn things while digging around.


Not necessarily, since I believe Penn won more precursors than Rourke.  I also agree that BBM was harder for Hollywood to take than Milk because it was an actual love story centered around two guys.  A movie like Milk can help you feel enobled in a way BBM really can't (speaking from an Academy member's point-of-view, of course).
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on March 04, 2009, 10:54:23 PM
In reviewing "Crossing Over" - a movie about illegal immigration done much in the style of "Crash" - on tonight's episode of "At the Movies," Ben Mankiewicz referred to "Crash" as "one of the most overrated films in recent memory."  Music to my ears.  He also recently said that the performance Heath should be most remembered for is not "The Dark Knight" but "Brokeback Mountain."  Sounds like a fan there.

I shudder to think what Lyons' response was.  (Mr. '"I Am Legend" is, like, one of the best films EVER MADE!')
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 05, 2009, 01:23:36 PM
As for Turan's buyers' remorse votes for Milk, does anyone think
that was happening in the screenplay and actor categories?  In other
words, say, if BBM had won best picture they more than likely would
have gone with Rourke this time?  It's all speculation, but sometimes
you learn things while digging around.
Not necessarily, since I believe Penn won more precursors than Rourke. 

I happened upon a site which had all this years awards listed, so, for the
record, here are the Best Actor awards:

Sean Penn, Milk
Austin Film Critics, Alliance of Women Film Journalists, Broadcast Film
Critics Association, Boston Film Critics (tie), Dallas/Fort Worth Film Critics,
Houston Film Critics, Los Angeles Film Critics, National Society of Film
Critics, New York Film Critics, New York Online Film Critics, Phoenix Film
Critics, San Francisco Film Critics (tie), South Eastern Film Critics, St. Louis
Film Critics, Vancouver Film Critics, Oscar/Academy of Motion Picture Arts &
Sciences (16 total)


Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler
BAFTA, Boston Film Critics (tie), Chicago Film Critics, Detroit Film Critics,
Florida Film Critics, Golden Globes/Hollywood Foreign Press, Iowa Film
Critics, London Film Critics, Ohio Film Critics, Oklahoma Film Critics, Online
Film Critics Association, San Diego Film Critics, San Francisco Film Critics
(tie), Independent Spirit, Toronto Film Critics, Utah Film Critics, Washington,
D.C. Film Critics (17 total)

***By the way, the only other awards any other actor got were:
Las Vegas Film Critics:  Frank Langella, Frost/Nixon
National Board of Review: Clint Eastwood, Gran Torino
Golden Globes/Hollywood Foreign Press: Colin Farrell, In Bruges
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 05, 2009, 02:33:53 PM
Since this is the "awards aftermath" thread, I looked up the
amount of awards that all of this years Best Film contenders
won and posted the results below.  Keep in mind that NO ONE
thought that Slumdog Millionaire had any competition in
the Best Film category at the oscars.  The most ANY articles
or surveys gave a second place contender (like EW for example)
was Milk at 1%.

Best Picture Awards (2008)
Slumdog Millionaire (15)
Milk (4)
WALL-E (4)
The Dark Knight (2)
The Wrestler (2)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2)
Vicky Cristina Barcelona (1)
Waltz with Bashir (1)
Frost/Nixon (1)
Wendy & Lucy (1)

So, I decided to look up the awards for Best Picture for 2005
as a comparison.

Best Picture Awards (2005)
Brokeback Mountain (15)
A History of Violence (3)
Munich (2)
Capote (1)
Walk the Line (1)
Crash (1)
Cinderella Man (1)
The Squid and the Whale (1)
Good Night and Good Luck (1)
King Kong (1)

TOTAL AWARD WINS--8 or more--PER PICTURE
(2008: This includes the top ten awards of
the year, excluding technical categories)
Slumdog Millionaire (46.5)
WALL-E (32.5)
The Dark Knight (31)
Milk (27.5)
The Wrestler (26.5)
Man on Wire (21.5)
Rachel Getting Married (14.5)
Happy-Go-Lucky (13.3)
Let the RIght One In (13)
Vivky Cristina Barcelona (11)
(*the .5's etc. are because of ties)

TOTAL AWARD WINS--8 or more--PER PICTURE
(2005: This includes the top ten awards of
the year, excluding technical categories)
Brokeback Mountain (48)
Capote (29)
A History of Violence (16)
Walk the Line (16)
Wallace & Gromit (13)
Grizzly Man (12)
Crash (10)
Cinderella Man (9)
The Squid & the Whale [8]

This again shows how much of a shock the Best Picture result
for 2005 was and that a simple explanation that the academy
just preferred the "other" simply holds no water.  The Academy
rejected Brokeback Mountain plain and simple.  Even if there's a
person that doesn't want to believe it was homophobia, they cannot
say that it wasn't rejected as best picture for SOME reason.  It clearly was.

(One reason given by some at the time was that it wasn't a homegrown
production.  It wasn't really made or funded in Hollywood, etc. that employed
the Hollywood community.  I guess Slumdog's victory puts that idea to rest.)

Looking at the above, you could say that Capote was the Milk of its year.
It garnered the actor awards, and screenplay in some cases, but not taken
seriously for the best film award.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: michaelflanagansf on March 05, 2009, 08:31:31 PM
Looking at the above, you could say that Capote was the Milk of its year.
It garnered the actor awards, and screenplay in some cases, but not taken
seriously for the best film award.

Are you trying to make me cranky?  :D

In terms of the criteria you spell out above, you certainly could make the comparison between the two films. 

Of course in terms of theme and content 'Capote' and 'Milk' could not be more unalike - particularly as Truman Capote comes off as something of a manipulative creep in 'Capote', that 'Milk' has implications on broader current political atmosphere and that it has already made about 2 million dollars more at the box office than 'Capote.'

But yes, you could make that comparison.

please move breakable items out of the room first, however....

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on March 05, 2009, 11:09:05 PM
Great research, Lyle.  And very convincing.

And if you were to do the same thing with 2007, you would find a similar pattern with "No Country for Old Men," which, suprise, surprise, DID win Best Picture.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 06, 2009, 12:03:40 PM
Looking at the above, you could say that Capote was the Milk of its year.
It garnered the actor awards, and screenplay in some cases, but not taken
seriously for the best film award.

Are you trying to make me cranky?  :D

If I was trying to do that I would've posted it in the MILK thread.

(http://www.davecullen.com/forum/Smileys/default/wink.gif)

I, myself, did not like Capote at all and wondered why it got all the attention it
did that year.  Especially when compared to the really wonderful Infamous that
came out the next year.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on March 06, 2009, 02:18:24 PM
I agree--I thought INFAMOUS was much better.  And it has nothing to do with PSH beating Heath for all the best actor awards!
Well, maybe a little.  But I thought Toby Jones was much more convincing than PSH (who was too damn big to play Capote).  At least the New York Film Critics recognized Heath as 2005's best actor.

Mark
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 06, 2009, 11:37:28 PM
And if you were to do the same thing with 2007, you would find a similar pattern
with "No Country for Old Men," which, suprise, surprise, DID win Best Picture.

Was that a challenge...lol...I did it for 2006 & 2007!
I'm also reposting the 2008 and 2005, because I
updated the 2005, which left out some awards that
year, including the new, that year, Austin Film Critics
awards and the BAFTA's.

Best Picture Awards (2008)
Slumdog Millionaire (15)
Milk (4)
WALL-E (4)
The Dark Knight (2)
The Wrestler (2)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2)
Vicky Cristina Barcelona (1)
Waltz with Bashir (1)
Frost/Nixon (1)
Wendy & Lucy (1)

Best Picture Awards (2007)
No Country for Old Men (20)
There Will Be Blood (4)
Atonement (2)
Juno (1)
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (1)
The Assassination of Jesse James (1)
Michael Clayton (0)

Best Picture Awards (2006)
United 93 (9)
The Departed [8]
The Queen (4)
Letters From Iwo Jima (3)
Pan’s Labyrinth (1)
Dreamgirls (1)
Little Children (1)
Babel (1)
Little Miss Sunshine (1)
Children of Men (1)

Best Picture Awards (2005)
Brokeback Mountain (20)
A History of Violence (3)
Munich (2)
Crash (2)
Capote (1)
Walk the Line (1)
Cinderella Man (1)
The Squid and the Whale (1)
Good Night and Good Luck (1)
King Kong (1)

*************

TOTAL AWARD WINS--8 or more--PER PICTURE
(2008: This includes the top ten awards of
the year, excluding technical categories)
Slumdog Millionaire (46.5)
WALL-E (32.5)
The Dark Knight (31)
Milk (27.5)
The Wrestler (26.5)
Man on Wire (21.5)
Rachel Getting Married (14.5)
Happy-Go-Lucky (13.3)
Let the RIght One In (13)
Vivky Cristina Barcelona (11)
(*the .5's etc. are because of ties)

TOTAL AWARD WINS--8 or more--PER PICTURE
(2007: This includes the top ten awards of
the year, excluding technical categories)
No Country for Old Men (71)
Juno (32.5)
There Will Be Blood (29)
Ratatouille (20.5)
Gone Baby Gone (18)
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (18)
Away From Her (16.5)
Michael Clayton (9.5)

TOTAL AWARD WINS--8 or more--PER PICTURE
(2006: This includes the top ten awards of
the year, excluding technical categories)
The Queen (42.5)
The Departed (37)
The Last King of Scotland (20.5)
An Inconvenient Truth (18)
Pan’s Labyrinth (15)
Dreamgirls (13.5)
United 93 (13)
Letters From Iwo Jima (11)
Little Children (9)

TOTAL AWARD WINS--8 or more--PER PICTURE
(2005: This includes the top ten awards of
the year, excluding technical categories)
Brokeback Mountain (56)
Capote (29)
A History of Violence (16)
Walk the Line (16)
Wallace & Gromit (13)
Grizzly Man (12)
Crash (10)
Cinderella Man (9)
The Squid & the Whale [8]

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 07, 2009, 12:13:24 AM
I decided to look something up, as I was curious.  Ever since
the BBM oscars I have read several times something that I
began saying and often use myself, but I did not know for a
fact that it was true or not, just because it was said.  The
premise starts off that the two most often mentioned oscars
of recent times that the Best Picture award was a certainty
were the year that Schindler's List won and the year Titanic
won.  There was no question about it as I recall.  (If you disagree
with this assumption, post documentation!)

After Brokeback did not receive the best picture ampas award
it had been often written, as to how much of a shock it was that it
didn't win, that it had won more precursor Best Film awards than
both Titanic and Schindler's List combined!

Well, since I was looking up those other statistics above, I looked
this up as well.  I have Brokeback Mountain winning 20 Best Film awards.

My research shows that the statement that it won more than those other
two combined is true!  But, if you look at the details, there's a bit more to it
than that.  I show that Schindler's List won 10 best film awards and that
Titanic won 5.  (6 if you count the Oscar, but this was based on pre-award
wins.)  The problem with the premise is that many of the film critics awards,
which I thought had been around for decades, like the Los Angeles or New York
Film Critics, have actually seemed to spring up in the late 90's and into the
2000's.  So when those two films were out, there were far fewer groups giving
out the awards.  I have no doubt that Schindler's List would probably have
garnered several more of them.

For example, the following groups were included in the last two years of
film tallies, but were not around for some or all of the other years in question,
1993 for Schindler's List, 1997 for Titanic and 2005 for Brokeback Mountain:

Alliance of Women Film Journalists
1993 (n/a)
1997 (n/a)
2005 (n/a)

Austin Film Critics
1993 (n/a)
1997 (n/a)

Broadcast Film Critics
1993 (n/a)

Central Ohio Film Critics
1993 (n/a)
1997 (n/a)

Detroit Film Critics
1993 (n/a)
1997 (n/a)
2005 (n/a)

Florida Film Critics
1993 (n/a)

Houston Film Critics
1993 (n/a)
1997 (n/a)
2005 (n/a)

Iowa Film Critics
1993 (n/a)
1997 (n/a)

Las Vegas Film Critics
1993 (n/a)

New York Film Critics Online
1993 (n/a)
1997 (n/a)

Oklahoma Film Critics
1993 (n/a)
1997 (n/a)
2005 (n/a)

Online Film Critics
1993 (n/a)

Phoenix Film Critics
1993 (n/a)
1997 (n/a)

Producer's Guild of America
1993 (n/a)
1997 (n/a)

San Diego Film Critics
1993 (n/a)

San Francisco Film Critics
1993 (n/a)
1997 (n/a)

Golden Satellite Awards
1993 (n/a)

St. Louis Film Critics
1993 (n/a)
1997 (n/a)

Toronto Film Critics
1993 (n/a)

Utah Film Critics
1993 (n/a)
1997 (n/a)

Vancouver Film Critics
1993 (n/a)
1997 (n/a)

Washington Area Film Critics
1993 (n/a)
1997 (n/a)

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on March 08, 2009, 01:36:06 PM
Yea, I guess everyone wants to get into the awards biz these days. 

Great research, Lyle.  Thanks for doing it.  I guess the only real anomaly (other than 2005, of course) is 2006 with United 93 winning by a slim margin and not even being nominated at all for BP.  Fans of that film must REALLY be PO'ed!

By the way, what other group gave its award to Crash?  I thought it was just the Chicago Film Critics. 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 09, 2009, 11:30:33 AM
(I edited reply #332 above, as I noticed I had two
identical segments of information in it...oops!) 

By the way, what other group gave its award to Crash?  I thought it was just the Chicago Film Critics.

The new, that year, Austin Film Critics gave it to Crash.  They
should have waited to start the following year!

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 09, 2009, 01:18:28 PM
Two posts from the MILK thread:

Milking Oscar: why Hollywood may start telling more gay stories
ENTERTAINMENT / While Milk didn't win Best Picture, its two awards show changing attitudes of Academy voters
Peter Knegt / National / Friday, March 06, 2009

Three years ago the weeks leading up to the 2006 Academy Awards were filled with headlines proclaiming them "the gay Oscars." Brokeback Mountain, the doomed gay love story, was the frontrunner to become the first gay-themed best-picture winner in history. For this enthusiastic Oscar fanatic it had all the potential of a gleeful night of golden gay glory.

But we all know how that story ended. As presenter Jack Nicholson read the word "Crash" aloud at the end of the night gay-hosted Oscar parties around the globe gasped in horror. I remember sitting on a couch at one of said parties, dazed and confused as to what just happened. "That's not what Brokeback Mountain's called," I kept repeating.

The upset elicited rampant cries of homophobia not just at Oscar parties, but throughout the film industry.

"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 conscious prejudices that they would never breathe to another soul or, likely, acknowledge to themselves," wrote LA Times film critic Kenneth Turan at that time. "And, at least this year, that acting out doomed Brokeback Mountain."

Last month in Hollywood I made my first trip to the scene of the crime to watch as Oscar attempted to make amends. Amid a musical-number-infused ceremony produced by openly gay Dreamgirls director Bill Condon and hosted by the might-as-well-be-gay Hugh Jackman, Gus Van Sant's Milk took home two major awards — Sean Penn won the Best Actor award for his portrayal of gay rights activist Harvey Milk and Dustin Lance Black took home Best Original Screenplay.

While Milk didn't win Best Picture (losing to Slumdog Millionaire) its two high-profile awards are indicative of a changing trend in attitudes among Academy voters. Brokeback Mountain, as fantastic a film as it was, was repeatedly emphasized by director Ang Lee and cowriter Larry McMurty (both heterosexual) as a "doomed love story" rather than a gay story. Milk, on the other hand, was written and directed by two gay men and marketed unabashedly as the story of a gay rights activist.

Some have suggested guilt over California's Proposition Eight — which revoked same-sex marriage rights in that state — may have helped Milk gain supporters within the Academy, but whether or not that's true is irrelevant. Checking off the film on their ballots was a show of support for gay rights no matter where it came from, and by doing so voters gave both Penn and Black worldwide platforms to voice their concerns on the current state of queer rights.

"If Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago," said Black in his acceptance speech, "I think he'd want me to say to all of the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told that they are less than by their churches, by the government or by their families, that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value and that no matter what anyone tells you, God does love you and that very soon, I promise you, you will have equal rights federally, across this great nation of ours."

continues:

http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Milking_Oscar_why_Hollywood_may_start_telling_more_gay_stories-6404.aspx
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 09, 2009, 01:19:17 PM

******

Milking Oscar: why Hollywood may start telling more gay stories
While Milk didn't win Best Picture, its two awards show changing attitudes
of Academy voters
Peter Knegt / National / Friday, March 06, 2009

http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Milking_Oscar_why_Hollywood_may_start_telling_more_gay_stories-6404.aspx

He writes:

In the privacy of their voting booths, Oscar voters saw fit to honour a film
that not only depicted gay themes, but explicitly historicized a gay political
movement. Thus a resounding green light came from one of the United
States' most powerful cultural institutions.

In return gay viewers everywhere reelected Oscar as their associate, forgiving
him for Brokeback Mountain, and asking him to keep having Jackman back
again and again.


I think this journalist from Canada is being a bit too forgiving.  He doesn't
speak for me, that's for sure.  If they had given MILK the Best Picture award
I might have felt forgiving, but they did not.  Just because they gave MILK
two high profile awards doesn't mean anything close to what he is implying.
They gave two high profile awards to Brokeback Mountain and threw in a third
as well.

Quote
Brokeback Mountain, as fantastic a film as it was, was repeatedly
emphasized by director Ang Lee and cowriter Larry McMurty (both heterosexual)
as a "doomed love story" rather than a gay story. Milk, on the other hand, was written
and directed by two gay men and marketed unabashedly as the story of a gay rights
activist.

I have to quibble about this a bit.  The author implies that Brokeback
Mountain was not marketed the way it should've been.  I never had any
problem with the it was marketed.  I don't know anyone who saw the film
who thought it was something other than what it was marketed as, a
love story between two men.  This is being a bit disingenous to make a
point.  And the fact that he divides the argument by gay & straight people
holds no sway with me.  Some of the best films about America were done
by Europeans.  I just think that Van Sant and Black (and the producers) being
gay is an added bonus.  It's not indicative of anything else.  Some of the worst
gay films I've ever seen were made and acted by gay men.  I'm just not of the
opinon that the author's premise is a signal the academy is changing in its
treatment of things gay.  No one expected Milk to win best picture this year.
Sean Penn and the screenwriter "were" expected to win.  I don't agree with
his premise.

And the same types of articles were written three years ago about Hollywood
being more receptive to making a lot more gay stories.  In three years that has
not happened and I doubt Milk's award success is going to make it any likelier.
If it had made tons of money, perhaps, but Brokeback's box office was several
times that of Milk and that's more what interests Hollywood.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on March 09, 2009, 02:19:29 PM
I agree, Lyle:  BROKEBACK was not marketed as something that it was not.  The movie poster didn't have Alma hugging Ennis and Lureen hugging Jack and Aguirre in the middle saying, "These crazy kids just don't don't know who they want!" like the film was a comedy. It was damned honest in its selling.

And I ain't ready to forgive Oscar either, even with the two MILK victories (welcome though they were!) and Heath's win.  BBM's best picture loss was a slap in the face that still hurts like hell even three years later.

Mark
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: falconicia on March 09, 2009, 03:12:42 PM
Hi,  Yes, looking back on the Oscars of 2006 it's still hard to believe the BBM did not  win the best picture award.   That had to be the result of some degree of homophobia in the committee.  With all the gays around hollywood it's a wonder that it could have happened.  The only reason that I can conjure is that of fear.  There may be more closeted gays in the older Hollywood ranks than we know.
All I know is that 4 years after having read the story and seen the movie I can't get it off my mind.  Are there other people out there like that?  Maybe I need to get the CD out of othe truck player. Or a psychiatrist!  Marty
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: button on March 09, 2009, 04:48:16 PM
You don't need a psychiatrist.  You just know a great film when you see one.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on March 09, 2009, 05:52:01 PM
But I thought Toby Jones was much more convincing than PSH (who was too damn big to play Capote).

That's what acting is all about....
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on March 09, 2009, 06:05:38 PM
True, and I thought PSH did a fine job, but still...Jones was better suited for the role physically.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 09, 2009, 09:30:04 PM
I didn't think Hoffman did a fine job.  I thought his portrayal of Capote was as
dry and humorless as melba toast.  It was nothing like the Capote I knew from
talk shows and news programs.  I thought he was second rate.  Compared to
Robert Morse in Tru and then with Toby Jones, either one is better.  Regardless
of PSH's size.

Welcome to the conversation button and falconicia!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on March 10, 2009, 07:43:38 AM
As dry as melba toast...that's funny!   Just one reason I love ya, Lyle, even when we disagree.  I, to my shame, had forgotten about the brilliant job Robert Morse did in TRU!  Thanks for reminding me.  And I just saw a young Morse last week in an ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS!  Morse won a Tony and an Emmy for TRU.  I'd love to see it again.

And yes, welcome button and falconicia--keep posting, please!  Marty, I know just how you feel about the impact BBM has on people. You and i could probably talk for hours and hours about it.  Thank God for this forum, where we meet others who feel as we do.

Mark
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Rosewood on March 10, 2009, 09:42:09 AM
I didn't like CAPOTE either.
And I wondered what all the fuss was about.
Hoffman WAS too big to play Capote.
And of course his size influenced the way he moved and even the
way he conceptualized the character. He just looked too
hale and hearty. I simply couldn't imagine him going on talk
shows and being the Truman I'd seen trading quips with
Dick Cavett or whoever.

And to my mind, there was very little of his sexuality in
the film anyway. If you half closed your eyes you could make believe
that TC wasn't gay and that really, he was just a big sensitive guy
with strange fashion tastes and an oddness you couldn't quite
put your finger on. There was nothing in CAPOTE to make
a 'straight' audience 'uneasy'.

It was a good perfornance.
It was not a superb performance.
Heath Ledger's was superb.

He should have won and I'm thinking maybe the win for
TDK had some element of 'sorry we didn't vote for you then' in it.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on March 10, 2009, 11:37:54 AM
All this about Capote. WOW!! I tend to agree with you all. I loved Hoffman's performace, but I kept on thinking I was watching someone playing or imitating Capote. I prefer the actor playing Perry Smith more compelling to watch than Hoffman.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on March 10, 2009, 12:00:40 PM
I find it difficult to denigrate the PSH performance in “Capote” simply because he received the Oscar instead of Ledger.
In hindsight, of course, the Ledger performance is not only the “best” performance of that year, it is, and will be considered for many years to come, as one of the quintessential performances ever committed to film.  Period, no hyperbole in my opinion. 

But let’s be honest, the performance seemingly came out of nowhere.  Critics, audiences, and certainly the goofy academy,  were not prepared for this type of work from Ledger. 
There is really nothing in his previous work that gives a hint that Ledger might be capable of delivering a performance of this magnitude.
 (In retrospect, yes, but not at the time).

The TDK Oscar recognition is something quite different.
 Yes, the academy is notorious for it’s “sympathy” awards.  Elizabeth Taylor’s for “Butterfield Eight” comes to mind or Judi Dench for “Shakespeare in Love” as  a  “oops sorry” for the recognition she so richly deserved for “Mrs. Brown” and many other similar examples of Oscar recipients that I know we could all dredge up. 
So, no doubt, there was some sentimental voting that went into Ledgers’ Oscar.

However, the sheer brilliance of his performance as the Joker, simply could not denied.  Ledger took a comic book villain and transformed the character into the very essence of evil ..
There is no hint of self-interest motivation in this characterization.
 Ledger’s  Joker simply wants “to see things burn”.
 Once again, an astounding, and thanks to a total re-evaluation of his previous work,  a less surprising performance. 

“Capote” premiered earlier than BBM and everyone had time to analyze and digest the PSH performance.
 And it too, in my opinion, is remarkable.
 “Capote” is not a biopic but rather an examination of the creation of art.
With “In Cold Blood” Truman Capote quite literally created a whole new literary art form from broad cloth. 
The film explores and attempts to explain how this was accomplished. 
To the extent that the film is successful  in this endeavor is due in large part, I think, to the skill of PSH to communicate to the audience the “essence” of Capote’s talent, ego, and inner demons.





Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on March 10, 2009, 10:04:50 PM
Thanks, gary--I agree with much of what you wrote.

Mark
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 11, 2009, 12:22:15 PM
I find it difficult to denigrate the PSH performance in “Capote” simply because he received the Oscar instead of Ledger.

My opinions of his performance have nothing whatsoever to do with that.
As you said, the film was released prior to BBM and so were opinions.

As for the actor awards, I never thought Heath was going to win the
award anyway.  If you know the history of the academy, only one actor
under thirty has won the lead actor oscar and PSH had been talked up
by Hollywood for years as someone who was deserving of actor honors.

Since a famous actor, concerning awards, is said to have uttered that if
they want to give a best actor prize, everyone should line up and play
Hamlet and see who is the best, well, we have three, at least, people
who have played Capote and two films that are identical in the subject
matter, and of those three performances, I have to say that Toby Jones'
performance is indelible in my mind, making Capote's essence come
alive, demons and all; PSH's creation left me cold and unaffected. 
Watching Jones was watching Capote.  Watching Hoffman I was always
aware of him acting; watching technique.  So I have to disagree.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: michaelflanagansf on March 11, 2009, 03:46:45 PM
To the extent that the film is successful  in this endeavor is due in large part, I think, to the skill of PSH to communicate to the audience the “essence” of Capote’s talent, ego, and inner demons.

This is true for me as well - and part of the problem with both films.  Yes, Capote came off as charming on TV in the late 60s and early 70s - I watched those shows as well.  However, from all I've read of him, he was a bit of a creep - his last work "Answered Prayers" was basically a gossipy tell all - and he spent much of the last part of his life talking it up.  Not someone I would want as a friend, I think.  [Now Tennessee Williams - he would have been a lot of fun.... ;)]

http://www.psychobiography.com/articles/capote.html
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on March 11, 2009, 09:54:12 PM
  Watching Hoffman I was always
aware of him acting; watching technique.  So I have to disagree.

Fair enuf.
Disagreement and love,
makes the world go round. :)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on March 11, 2009, 09:57:32 PM
To the extent that the film is successful  in this endeavor is due in large part, I think, to the skill of PSH to communicate to the audience the “essence” of Capote’s talent, ego, and inner demons.

This is true for me as well - and part of the problem with both films.  Yes, Capote came off as charming on TV in the late 60s and early 70s - I watched those shows as well.  However, from all I've read of him, he was a bit of a creep - his last work "Answered Prayers" was basically a gossipy tell all - and he spent much of the last part of his life talking it up.  Not someone I would want as a friend, I think.  [Now Tennessee Williams - he would have been a lot of fun.... ;)]

http://www.psychobiography.com/articles/capote.html

I don't know,
I thought he was pretty odd on Carson et al.
I always thought he was creepy.
"in cold" however is quite a piece of work.
Met Williams.  we should talk. ;)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 18, 2009, 04:40:09 PM
I was watching Who Wants to Be A Millionaire last
weekend and two Netflix representatives were lifeline
guests.  They mentioned during the show that crash was
Netflix most rented title ever.  (ugh!)  I looked up on their
website, out of curiosity, their current Top 100 rented titles.
(The numbers in parenthesis, like this: (-1), are how it has
moved up or down the list from the previous one.)

1. ...ugh
2. The Departed
3. The Pursuit of Happyness
4. The Bucket List
5. (+1) No Country for Old Men
6. (-1) Little Miss Sunshine
7. Casino Royale
8. Blood Diamond
9. The Notebook
10. The Devil Wears Prada
11. Walk the Line
12. Mr. and Mrs. Smith
13. Babel
14. Hotel Rwanda
15. The Holiday
16. Déjà Vu
17. (+1) 3:10 to Yuma
18. (-1) The Da Vinci Code
19. The Illusionist
20. Inside Man
21. Michael Clayton
22. Knocked Up
23. Syriana
24. (+4) Charlie Wilson's War
25. (-1) Failure to Launch
26. The Bourne Supremacy
27. (-2)Click
28. (-1) Million Dollar Baby
29. The Aviator
30. (+1) The Queen
31. (-1) National Treasure
32. (+2) Juno
33. (-1) Stranger than Fiction
34. (+7) Iron Man
35. Gone Baby Gone
36. (-3) Wedding Crashers
37. Shooter
38. (-2) The Guardian
39. (-1) The Last King of Scotland
40. (-1) The Prestige
41. (-1) The Lake House
42. (+1) I Am Legend
43. (-1) Firewall
44. (+1) American Gangster
45. (-1) Night at the Museum
46. The Bourne Ultimatum
47. Finding Neverland
48. Batman Begins
49. The Constant Gardener
50. The Good Shepherd
51. Memoirs of a Geisha
52. Rumor Has It
53. (+6) Get Smart
54. (-1) The Break-Up
55. (-1) Live Free 4
56. (-1) Mystic River
57. (-1) Flightplan
58. (-1) Good Night, and Good Luck
59. (+16) The Dark Knight
60. (-2) Ray
61. (-1) Man on Fire
62. (-1) Hitch
63. (-1) Sideways
64. (-1) Pirates of the Caribbean 2
65. (-1) Flags of Our Fathers
66. (+2) P.S. I Love You
67. Transformers
68. (-3) Pirates of the Caribbean 3: Black Pearl
69. (-3) Talladega Nights
70. (+2) Fool's Gold
71. (-2) Fracture
72. (+2) Into the Wild
73. (-3) Borat
74. (-3) Ocean's Twelve
75. (-2) Ocean's Thirteen
76. Mr. Brooks
77. Dan in Real Life
78. (+1) National Treasure: Book of Secrets
79. (-1) Just Like Heaven
80. Wild Hogs
81. An Inconvenient Truth
82. (+1) 300
83. (-1) Must Love Dogs
84. Music and Lyrics
85. In Her Shoes
86. (+3) Atonement
87. (-1) The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe
88. (-1) Breach
89. (+5) 27 Dresses
90. Munich
91. (-3) The Family Stone
92. (+7) Indiana Jones/Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
93. (-2) Mission: Impossible III
94. (-1) I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry
95. (+1) The Kingdom
96. (-4) Brokeback Mountain
97. (-2) Because I Said So
98. (-1) Thank You for Smoking
99. There Will Be Blood
100. (-2) Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

They don't list the numbers of rentals, much like the ampas
votes, but I would find that interesting as well.

(continued)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 18, 2009, 04:41:33 PM

Right after the Brokeback Mountain oscars, some were
downplaying the influence of ampas's awards and that they
don't mean a great deal.

I looked up the last 4 awards seasons films (this year is too early).

2007
No Country for Old Men (5)
Michael Clayton (21)
Juno (32)
Atonement (86)
There Will Be Blood (99)

2006
Departed, The (2)
Little Miss Sunshine (6)
Babel (13)
The Queen (30)
Letters from Iwo Jima (x)

2005
Crash (1)
Good Night and Good Luck (58)
Munich (90)
Brokeback Mountain (96)
Capote (x)

2004
Million Dollar Baby (28)
The Aviator (29)
Finding Neverland (47)
Ray (60)
Sideways (63)

 
Notice that the movie that WON the oscar for Best Film is the top renter
from each year.

Notice that also all but two films from these 20 are on Netflix
Top Renters list as well!  The two that aren't?  A foreign film
(foreign language film), Letters From Iwo Jima and a film
about a gay man, Capote.

The fact the academy rejected Brokeback Mountain for its
picture award clearly demonstrates it probably affected its
numbers on Netflix top 100 as well.  Which means less people
saw it than would have otherwise, and that is a real shame.

Notice that a picture nomination alone can cause interest in films
that might otherwise not have any appeal to a film goer.  All but two
of those last 4 years being in the Top 100.  Another 13 titles were
nominees or winners, mostly in the acting categories.  (Only one
documentary on the list-An Inconvenient Truth.)

The fact that the top rental was the other film is not surprising when
you realize that it barely broke the top 50 in box office the previous year.
It was already out on dvd as well and no one cared before ampas gave
it their stamp.  Then everyone wondered what all the fuss was about
and since it was immediately available, as it already had been, people
rented it.  (It's also still on regular rotation on the Starz network, which
can be downloaded on Netflix.)  Plus, who wants to own it--lol!

So we have ampas to thank for the interest in a mediocre first effort, as
Haggis himself called his film, and the permission of filmgoers to ignore
Brokeback Mountain since it was rejected by ampas.

I can't believe that film has been at the top for three years.  The day it falls
off there will be a nice day.  Rent The Departed everyone!  LOL!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on March 22, 2009, 05:41:58 PM
Lyle, I'm just so impressed with all your research on here lately.  It's very much appreciated.   :)

I always thought netflix would be the PERFECT place for skittish people to connect with BBM if only because rental-by-mail doesn’t require any face-to-face contact with another person in the way that buying a ticket for it in a theater or renting it at a store does (though if one lives in a homophobic household that might be an issue).  I guess I was wrong.  However, it also may be that so many interested people bought the disc that fewer felt compelled to rent it. 

Remember that when it first came out on video, BBM held the #1 spot on amazon for almost four full weeks (Crash certainly never did that), relegating even King Kong to a sorry #2 for much of that time.

I am surprised, though, that with Heath’s death and then the release of "The Dark Knight," BBM didn’t climb higher on netflix’s list. 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on March 23, 2009, 06:41:15 PM
The rental list doesn't mean that "Crash" is a great movie.  It just means that on Oscar night 2006, the majority of the country went "HUH?!?" along with Jack Nicholson, and promptly decided to rent this movie they'd heard very little about.  The fact that the majority of the Top 15 is other Oscar nominees indicates to me that a lot of people do indeed wait until a film wins some gold, and then seek it out.

The $20 million question is, will "Milk" make the Top 20?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dejavu on March 24, 2009, 10:20:49 AM
Lyle, thanks for that list of the top 100 on Netflix.

It's also a good source of titles that some of us might be interested in renting elsewhere, but which wouldn't occur to us.  A memory-jogger, if you will.  (And it also jogs my memory about some I'd just as soon not have seen in the first place.   :D )
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 27, 2009, 01:55:26 PM
Lyle, I'm just so impressed with all your research on here lately.  It's very much appreciated.   :)

Thanks, Roland, sometimes I like to get into the statistics of things and
see if what people are saying can be backed up as truths or not, or is just
opinions floating in the ether.

I always thought netflix would be the PERFECT place for skittish people to connect with BBM if only because rental-by-mail doesn’t require any face-to-face contact with another person in the way that buying a ticket for it in a theater or renting it at a store does (though if one lives in a homophobic household that might be an issue).  I guess I was wrong.  However, it also may be that so many interested people bought the disc that fewer felt compelled to rent it. 

I'd like Brokeback Mountain to be higher on the list, too, but on thinking
about it, with all of the thousands of films you can get from netflix, the fact
that out of all of them Brokeback Mountain is in the top hundred is pretty
astonishing, I guess, considering there are no other gay themed films on
the list at all.  We also have to take in to account that, as we know from
even ampas members like Robert Duvall, Tony Curtis, Ernest Borgnine
and nominee Mark Wahlberg, who should be viewing the best of their
crafts, straight men have been reluctant to watch Brokeback Mountain,
which I happen to find cowardly at best.  So, I assume, that accounts
for some of  Brokeback Mountain's placement on the netflix list.

Lyle, thanks for that list of the top 100 on Netflix.

You're welcome, Debbie, I am going to tally up and see how many
of them I have seen!

The $20 million question is, will "Milk" make the Top 20?

Yes, I will be interested to see what happens with the rentals.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: gwyllion on March 27, 2009, 03:00:54 PM
Oh yeah, and then there's me who was too embarassed to see BBM until it came around in my Netflix queue!  Damn, I wish I knew how much I was going to connect with this movie!  Off to watch it again at home.  I may never return it to Netflix- it's aready late.  Hell, I'll just return it to Netflix and buy the DVD for myself.  I'm totally beyond caring about what people think of me now.   ;D
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: CellarDweller115 on April 28, 2009, 06:11:47 PM
Damn, I wish I knew how much I was going to connect with this movie!

I don't think any of us knew how this movie was going to hit us!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: bubba on April 28, 2009, 06:17:34 PM
I find it difficult to denigrate the PSH performance in “Capote” simply because he received the Oscar instead of Ledger.
In hindsight, of course, the Ledger performance is not only the “best” performance of that year, it is, and will be considered for many years to come, as one of the quintessential performances ever committed to film.  Period, no hyperbole in my opinion. 

But let’s be honest, the performance seemingly came out of nowhere.  Critics, audiences, and certainly the goofy academy,  were not prepared for this type of work from Ledger. 
There is really nothing in his previous work that gives a hint that Ledger might be capable of delivering a performance of this magnitude.
 (In retrospect, yes, but not at the time).

The TDK Oscar recognition is something quite different.
 Yes, the academy is notorious for it’s “sympathy” awards.  Elizabeth Taylor’s for “Butterfield Eight” comes to mind or Judi Dench for “Shakespeare in Love” as  a  “oops sorry” for the recognition she so richly deserved for “Mrs. Brown” and many other similar examples of Oscar recipients that I know we could all dredge up. 
So, no doubt, there was some sentimental voting that went into Ledgers’ Oscar.

However, the sheer brilliance of his performance as the Joker, simply could not denied.  Ledger took a comic book villain and transformed the character into the very essence of evil ..
There is no hint of self-interest motivation in this characterization.
 Ledger’s  Joker simply wants “to see things burn”.
 Once again, an astounding, and thanks to a total re-evaluation of his previous work,  a less surprising performance. 

“Capote” premiered earlier than BBM and everyone had time to analyze and digest the PSH performance.
 And it too, in my opinion, is remarkable.
 “Capote” is not a biopic but rather an examination of the creation of art.
With “In Cold Blood” Truman Capote quite literally created a whole new literary art form from broad cloth. 
The film explores and attempts to explain how this was accomplished. 
To the extent that the film is successful  in this endeavor is due in large part, I think, to the skill of PSH to communicate to the audience the “essence” of Capote’s talent, ego, and inner demons.




Not sure how I missed this, I agree 1000 percent.  ;D
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on May 24, 2009, 02:46:49 PM
Somewhere along the myriad path of posts that have
left their footprints on this thread since that night of
March 5, 2006, there has been innumerable and
varied reasoning of BBM's best pic oscar loss and
tangential subjects, and someone at Price Waterhouse
Coopers knows the actual vote tallies for that year, and
can't we kidnap this person and waterboard him for the
information?

One time we were wondering about the voting habits of
those who are nominated.  Do people who work on films
that are Best Picture nominated automatically vote for those
films?  I know that Bill Condon voted for Brokeback Mountain
and that screenwriter Barry Sandler did, too, but they didn't
have any films up themselves that year.  I wondered if the
screenwriter of Munich, Tony Kushner of Angels in America
note among others, would have supported Brokeback Mountain.
Being a gay man and certainly knowing that Munich didn't have a
shot to win the top prize (at least he should have known that) would
he have voted for Brokeback Mountain instead of Munich?
    
Did the makers of The Reader vote for it, knowing it had no shot
at the top prize?

A friend of mine went to Chicago to visit his relatives nearby
and also is attending the Tony Kushner premiere play of The
Intelligent Homosexual, at the Guthrie Theatre in Minneapolis
this weekend.  As we were talking before he went on his trip
I laughingly told him to ask Tony Kushner if he voted for BBM
or Munich for the best pic oscar.

While my friend was in the Guthrie Theatre gift store yesterday he
recognized Tony Kushner and his husband in the store as well.
He bought a poster of the play and went over to have him sign it.
As they talked, he said to Tony that he had a kind of odd question
a friend of his (me) wanted to ask him.  Did he vote for Munich or
Brokeback Mounrain as Best Picture for the oscars?

Tony apparently stalled a bit and said that, ah, he wasn't sure he
remembered and, ah...   He then said maybe his husband remembered.
So my friend asked him.  He said that Tony voted for Munich for Best
Picture, but voted for BBM for everything else.  He said Tony had to be true
to his project, right?

So, that's the answer to that question!  Although I would be a bit
skeptical about him having voted for BBM for everything else, though,
since he himself was up for the screenplay award opposite the BBM
writers.  Munich was up for Directing, Film Editing, Original Score,
Adapted Screenplay and Picture.

I am not implying I think he was wrong not to vote for the film
he wrote, either.  I think people up for awards would like to win
them and vote accordingly, and since nearly everyone thought BBM
was a lock...  But it was a question I wondered about and it has been
answered!

Now about those ampas tallies...
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on May 25, 2009, 07:41:02 PM
The game show Family Feud that was on tonight had
the following question:  Name a film that has won
a lot of Academy Awards?


It seems to me there were eight answers on the board,
but I can only remember six of them, maybe it was only six,
anyway...  Here are the six in order of number of responses:

Titanic
Gone with the Wind
No Country for Old Men
Forrest Gump
Brokeback Mountain
Lord of the Rings

The question did not require a best picture winner as the
answer, but notice that all of them are except for one.  (If
there were 8, those were Best Picture winners as well,
because I remember thinking that at the time.)  I was
surprised that Brokeback Mountain was on the list, as
you would've thought other films might have been that
an audience would've written down.  Plus, three is not
what I would've said was a lot.  But it's a good sign
and very happy to see it there.  By the way, both teams
only got Titanic correct during the round.  Their guesses
were Chicago, Citizen Kane (only won 1, I believe) and
The Godfather.

Three years later and Brokeback Mountain's still on the
minds of the public!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on June 01, 2009, 01:13:06 PM
Not sure if this has ever been posted here. I never read it before today.

''Americans Don't Want Cowboys to Be Gay:''
''Brokeback Mountain'' and the Oscars


Quote
The purpose of this essay is not to evaluate the relative merits of
either film as art nor to determine whether the Academy's rejection of
Brokeback Mountain demonstrated Hollywood's latent
homophobia, but rather to explore what the discussion on the
internet over Crash 's victory and carried on in blogs and newspapers
revealed about popular attitudes and perceptions concerning the
place of gays and lesbians in American society.

 It is intended to be a snapshot of a particular moment, and that picture, not surprisingly,
reveals an America that is deeply ambivalent about homosexuality,
even among the most politically liberal straight supporters of gay
rights. Gregory King in the gay newspaper Bay Windows observed,
"the Academy's decision to award the Best Picture Oscar to Crash
rather than Brokeback Mountain says that we have a way to go
before films with gay characters at their core will receive Hollywood's
highest honor. How far, it is difficult to say.

The defeat of Brokeback Mountain was a serious blow, one that suggests that Hollywood
feels unable to endorse a gay love story with its highest honor."



Quote
[3] A rather stunning illustration of what Brokeback Mountain meant
to some gay men is the thread "How Brokeback Affected Me" at the
"Ultimate Brokeback Guide" on DaveCullen.com. As of early May,
2007, it had some 12,000 post with over 350,000 viewings. The posts
describe not only the loneliness of living in small towns and the
resulting sense of alienation, thus the profound identification with
the story of Jack and Ennis, but feelings of luck and fortune at living with their life partners.

http://www.interalia.org.pl/index_pdf.php?lang=pl&klucz=&produkt=1199706037-979 (http://www.interalia.org.pl/index_pdf.php?lang=pl&klucz=&produkt=1199706037-979)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on June 24, 2009, 02:58:48 PM
82nd Academy Awards® to Feature 10 Best Picture Nominees
Beverly Hills, CA (June 24, 2009)

Quote
— The 82nd Academy Awards will have 10 feature films vying in the
Best Picture category, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
President Sid Ganis announced today (June 24) at a press conference in
Beverly Hills.  “After more than six decades, the Academy is returning to some
of its earlier roots, when a wider field competed for the top award of the year,”
said Ganis. “The final outcome, of course, will be the same – one Best Picture
winner – but the race to the finish line will feature 10, not just five, great movies
from 2009.”

http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2009/20090624.html

Be interesting to ponder what the other five nominees might have been in
2005 and if the outcome would have been any different?  Thoughts?
(I am still pondering.)

For reference, here are other 2005 (most likely) nominee possibilities
(and I'm being generous):

Quote
Batman Begins
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Cinderella Man
The Constant Gardener
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
A History of Violence
Howl¿s Moving Castle
Hustle & Flow
Joyeux Noël
Junebug
King Kong
March of the Penguins
Match Point
Memoirs of a Geisha
Mrs. Henderson Presents
The New World
North Country
Paradise Now
Pride & Prejudice
The Squid and the Whale
Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith
Syriana
Transamerica
Tsotsi
Walk the Line
Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit
War of the Worlds
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on June 25, 2009, 05:52:03 AM
10 Best movie picture will not help with the ratings.

But If I had to pick 5 more in 2005 here they are.

Walk the Line
History of Violence.
Cinderella Man
Match point
Syianna
Maybe:
The Chronicles of Narnia or
Batman Begins
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on June 25, 2009, 02:11:55 PM
I guess I'd agree with you on three of those, but I think
The Constant Gardner would replace Syriana.  It won
for supporting and had several nominations and was
a political film people liked alot more than Syriana.  I
also think Memoirs of a Geisha might have snuck in
there.  It won three oscars and was admired by many.
I was thinking King Kong because a couple groups
awarded it Best Picture, but perhaps not.  I don't think
opening up the list to ten nominees is going to change
academy voters minds about documentaries getting
nominated (that has never happened even when they had
ten nominees before) or animated (Snow White and Bambi
and Fantasia weren't nominated when they had that many
slots, either.  So, I don't think Penguins woulda had a shot
even in this year.   The only other one I was considering was
Pride & Prejudice which had some healthy nominations in
other categories and the academy has a large British block
of voters...

My ten probables would be:

Brokeback Mountain
Capote
Cinderella Man
The Constant Gardener
Crash
Good Night and Good Luck
A History of Violence
Memoirs of a Geisha
Munich
Walk the Line

The question:  Would having ten nominees have changed the outcome is
a probable this year, because people surmise the vote was close.  So any
Brokeback Mountain or crash voters who may have preferred one of the
additional five nominees could have changed things.  I can see scenarios for
both sides of the argument, but I cannot form a definite opinion on what might
have occurred.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on June 25, 2009, 02:13:56 PM
Fom an L.A. Times article about the 10 nominees:

Quote
I think it's going to help the musicals and comedies and the genre films, but I
don't think this means they will be winning," agreed Jon Favreau, director of
"Iron Man" and "Elf." "I think this means more people are in on the party, but I
think you will still see [the same types of] films sweep.  I also think it could hurt
small films that have won in the past, like 'Crash' and 'Slumdog Millionaire,'
which may suffer when there's more choices."

I like when crash and suffer are in the same sentence.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Guardian on June 26, 2009, 05:35:10 PM
Personally, I could care less what the Academy does with their discredited award. But I have to chuckle at how desperate it is to pump some excitement into a process that most people now see as nothing more than just another popularity contest that has little or nothing to do with artistic accomplishment.

Sid Ganis now reveals himself for the Oscar pimp he is.  Instead of being concerned with the scandalous lack of credibility in the Academy’s voting methods, he is concerned that there are not enough people watching its boring telecast.  This should have been obvious to all when they decided to move up their awards show a month, from late March and early April to late February.  Thus making it even more impossible for the industry members to see all the nominees in every category.  This should have been a tip off even before the Brokeback Mountain debacle as to where the Academy’s priorities lay.  They were in effect announcing in advance that the impossibility of industry people being able to see all the nominees in time for voting was not a concern to them.  After all, everybody knows that Academy members don’t bother to see all the nominees.  Even the ones they vote for.  Let alone the ones they vote against!  They were more concerned with positioning their telecast so that they would not be the also-ran of the awards season.  In short, they were saying that they cared more that their telecast garner more ratings and thus more advertising bucks for ABC (and more of a licensing fee for the Academy) than that the awards have any credibility.  It was almost as if they were admitting that no one really believes the Academy members actually vote the awards on merit.  They vote for the movie and the performance that has the most hype.  Sort of like American Idol.  Except that it’s not only a popularity contest, but a way of drumming up advertising dollars for all concerned.

Since this bit of pandering to the television audience didn’t work, they have now decided on a more Draconian method.  Ganis and the benighted board (at the urging of ABC no doubt – note Ganis’ quote, “Our partners at ABC are very, very happy”) have increased the Best Picture nominees from five to ten.  That means there will be five more movies that the Academy members can avoid seeing.

If nothing else this move cheapens the nominations.  It now will not be a distinction to get an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture.  Anyone and his Aunt Minnie will be eligible.  As one observer pointed out, since the Academy recognizes, on average, 300 films as eligible for the Best Picture prize in any given year, that in essence means that one out of every thirty movies has a chance of getting a Best Picture nomination.  Although the possibility of an embarrassing nominee has always been there with even five nominees (Dr. Dolittle, anyone?) one can only imagine what stray dogs the Academy is going to have make excuses for in the future.

Nor do I think anyone will be fooled by this ruse.  Inevitably there will be Best Picture nominees that will not receive any other important nominations (Director, Screenplay, Performances) and will be written off by the media and moviegoers as also-rans, there simply to fill out the ballot.  The Dark Knight, for instance.  Since the other categories would still be held to five nominees, it would still not have a nomination for directing or writing and only one nomination for acting (our dear Heath!) and thus would’ve been given little chance of winning the big prize.  Let’s not forget, even though the members of the Academy don’t feel it’s necessary to actually see all the nominees, they do feel it’s their duty to give the prize only to socially significant or important films.  All the better to make themselves feel significant and important.

It will be amusing to see what the Academy will do going forward to shore up its award’s dwindling popularity.  Maybe in an effort to get the special effects crowd they’ll come up with the Best CGI Movie.  Or the beer-swilling college set, the Best Gross-Out Comedy.  For the teenyboppers they could come up the Best Performance by a Hunk.  There are any number of ways the Academy can prostitute itself.  And as long as the powers that be in Hollywood (Stephen Speilberg, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, et al) look the other way the Academy will get away with it.  Remember when Rob Lowe made a fool of himself dancing with Snow White at an awards ceremony back in the eighties?  There were still members like Billy Wilder around to complain about the lack of dignity that was being displayed by the Academy.  And the Academy listened.  Now, the Hollywood crowd is so greedy and spineless they wouldn’t dare risk losing a future golden man by even suggesting that the Academy could improve its operations.

The only way the Academy can regain any of its old prestige for its award is an entire overhaul of the voting system.  But then they would have to admit that up till now the Academy members have been cavalier with their exalted privilege.  Instead they’ll continue putting band-aids on gaping wounds and hope everybody won’t notice.  Or more to the point, ignore it for their own personal reasons.  If the Academy keeps it up they’ll be no more meaning to the award than the gilded hunk of metal that it
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Guardian on June 26, 2009, 06:08:12 PM
Sorry -  the last line of my post should've read:

If the Academy keeps it up they'll be no more meaning to the award than the gilded hunk of metal that it is.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: bubba on June 27, 2009, 05:26:43 PM
10 Best movie picture will not help with the ratings.

But If I had to pick 5 more in 2005 here they are.

Walk the Line
History of Violence.
Cinderella Man
Match point
Syianna
Maybe:
The Chronicles of Narnia or
Batman Begins




Cinderella Man

A History of Violence

Hustle & Flow

King Kong


Memoirs of a Geisha

Mrs. Henderson Presents

The New World

North Country

Pride & Prejudice

Transamerica

Tsotsi

Walk the Line

War of the Worlds



I could have seen a best picture nod for any of these.  Especially Cinderella Man, that so deserved one!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on June 27, 2009, 08:58:54 PM
Guardian--as you alluded to, here is some more tampering.

In the midst of the hoopla about the best picture category
ampas news, these two items were overlooked:

Quote
New Song Rules Approved for 82nd Academy Awards
Beverly Hills, CA (June, 2009) — The governors of the Academy of
Motion Picture Arts and Sciences approved a significant change in the
Music – Original Song category.  The governors approved the Music
Branch Executive Committee recommendation that if no song achieves
a minimum average score of 8.25 in the nominations voting, there be no
original song nominees and thus no Oscar presented for the category. If
only one song achieves the required minimum, it and the song with the
next highest score will be deemed the nominees. If two or more songs
achieve the minimum score, they will be the nominees though no more
than five nominees can be selected. Previously, the rules dictated that
there be no more than five but no fewer than three nominees in the
category.

Academy Board of Governors Votes to
Honor Testimonial Award Recipients at New Event

Beverly Hills, CA (June, 2009) — The Board of Governors of the Academy
of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has voted to establish a new annual
event at which it will present its testimonial awards – the Irving G.
Thalberg Memorial Award, the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award and
the Honorary Award. Honorees will be selected and announced in
September and presented their awards at a celebratory dinner event in
November. They will also be acknowledged at the year’s Academy
Awards ceremony.

“For some years now, the Board has struggled to balance the desire to
truly honor worthy individuals with the time limitations that the Oscar
telecast imposes on these honors,” said Academy President Sid Ganis.
“By creating a separate event for recognizing these outstanding people
in the movie industry, we’re insuring that each honoree will be given his
or her full due, without compromise.”  The Academy’s Board will hold a
special meeting in September for the sole purpose of selecting the
year’s honorees. There will not be more than one Hersholt nor more
than one Thalberg Award voted in any given year. No more than four
testimonial awards will be given in a single year.

“We wanted to achieve more flexibility with these awards,” explained
Ganis. “But we also need to maintain the integrity of them. By setting the
limits that we have, the members of the Board feel they have achieved
the appropriate balance.”  A black-tie dinner event for about 500 invitees
will include film clips as well as remarks from the honorees’ colleagues
and admirers.  Previously, these awards were voted at the Board’s
December meeting.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on June 28, 2009, 04:25:33 PM
I venture some predictions:

Within five years the film academy will increase the number of nominees in the acting and directing categories to ten, and all of the "technical" categories will be announced at a separate ceremony, so that the "Oscars" program will be no longer than two hours, and will consist of a red carpet "fashion show" followed by the awards in seven categories: Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, and Supporting Actor and Actress, and Foreign Film.  (Maybe they will also include the writing categories.)  The remaining categories will be presented on a cable ceremony or something like it.  The first categories to be demoted to the cable show will be the documentaries, followed by the purely technical categories.  Even music will be demoted.

All that remains will be strictly celebrity oriented.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on June 30, 2009, 08:25:10 PM
Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway are among the newly invited members of the A.M.P.A.S.

Here's a list of the actors invited:

Casey Affleck
Emily Blunt
Michael Cera
Viola Davis
James Franco
Brendan Gleeson
Anne Hathaway
Taraji P. Henson
Emile Hirsch
Hugh Jackman
Melissa Leo
Jane Lynch
Eddie Marsan
James McAvoy
Seth Rogen
Paul Rudd
Amy Ryan
Michael Shannon
Michelle Williams
Jeffrey Wright
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on September 03, 2009, 02:01:29 PM
Preferential Voting Extended to Best Picture
on Final Ballot for 2009 Oscars®


Beverly Hills, CA (August 31, 2009) —

Quote
“Instead of just marking an ‘X’ to indicate which one picture they believe
to be the best, members will indicate their second, third and further
preferences as well,” Academy President Tom Sherak said.
“PricewaterhouseCoopers will then be able to establish the Best Picture
recipient with the strongest support of a majority of our electorate.”

From 1936 through 1943, there were 10 nominees for Best Picture and
the preferential system was used for final balloting. In 1944 and 1945,
the preferential system continued to be used, though there were only five
nominees in the category.

http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2009/20090831a.html

Does anyone think Brokeback Mountain would have fared any differently
if this system had been used in the Spring of 2006?

My opinion:  Since people think the vote was close, although we don't
know for a fact, I think it could have made a difference in the outcome.
You have to think that people like Spielberg and the gay screenwriter
Tony Kushner, voted for Munich for Best Picture (we know Kushner did)
and so Tony probably would have (and maybe Spielberg) put Brokeback
Mountain as #2 on their preferential ballot.  Perhaps a lot of the people
who voted Brokeback Mountain as #1 would have put something else
2nd, like Good Night and Good Luck and all of this would have put the
winner as Brokeback Mountain.  I think it is very possible, if indeed, the
conventional wisdom is that the vote was close.  I suppose it also does
depend on our knowledge of exactly how a preferential voting system
determines the outcome.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Guardian on September 04, 2009, 10:06:26 AM
Quote
Does anyone think Brokeback Mountain would have fared any differently
if this system had been used in the Spring of 2006?

I don’t think the outcome would have been any different.  The whole idea of preferential voting is to produce a compromise choice. 

I remember when the New York Film Critics organization first initiated preferential voting after a particularly contentious voting session for the 1968 Awards.  The mainstream critics (from the dwindling daily newspapers) were, for the most part, lined up behind The Lion in Winter, while the new generation critics (from the magazines) were behind John Cassavetes’ Faces.  The voting process became so bitter that when The Lion in Winter finally eked out a win, the Faces supporters threatened to bolt the organization.  To mollify them the New York Films Critics agreed to a preferential voting system which exists to this day.

The way it works is: if a movie or achievement doesn’t receive two-thirds of the votes on the first ballot then the members list their top three choices in that category.  The weighted voting then gives the first choice three votes, the second choice two votes and the third choice one vote.  I presume this is what the Academy has in mind.

The thinking is that if that voting system had been in place in 1968 neither The Lion in Winter nor Faces would have won the Best Picture prize.  Instead, the award would’ve gone to Paul Newman’s Rachel, Rachel (as it was, Newman won for Best Director).  The idea being that the two warring camps which were adamantly against the other’s film winning would have settled on a choice they could agree was worthy of the prize.

Since the voting in 2005 seemed to be between Brokeback Mountain and Crash (or more accurately, the anti-Brokeback faction using Crash as a stalking horse)it’s more likely that the winner would have been Goodnight, and Good Luck or Capote.  In any case it is hard to see how Brokeback Mountain could’ve won with a preferential voting system when the general thinking is that so many Academy members were adverse to either seeing it or allowing it to win the top prize.  If they wouldn’t vote for it as their first choice for either of the two reasons I just listed, why would they vote it as second or third choice?

The bottom line is simply that the Academy has no intention of fixing the awards where they need to be fixed – compelling members to actually see all the nominees.  By forcing the members to list the nominees in descending order of preference means that they will either go along with odds-makers listings or arbitrarily put everything after their first choice in willy-nilly order.

Let’s face it, the biggest problem is that there is not enough time to see all the nominees before the early February deadline.  Only those retired industry members would have the leisure time to even sit and watch a DVD in their own homes.  Do you think those who are working at the time would have interest in watching a two hour or two hour plus movie after a long day at the studio?  And many of the members are just intellectually lazy.  They will not bother to see a movie that holds little interest for them.  So they will continue to guess as to who the winner should be or hand the ballot to their gardeners to fill out.

In any case, preferential voting will not eliminate the bigotry that doomed Brokeback’s chances.  The fix was in.  The only cure for voting members who wish to remain willfully ignorant of a film’s artistic achievements is to force them to see the film.  That would require a verification system where each member is required to prove they have seen all nominees in a category.  It may seem like a cumbersome system to institute, but I think it would be the only way to break down the hostility against a movie that members are reluctant to see.

I firmly believe that if each member who voted for the Best Picture prize was forced to actually see Brokeback Mountain (and conversely, Crash) - Brokeback would’ve easily won.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on September 04, 2009, 11:00:32 AM
Since the voting in 2005 seemed to be between Brokeback Mountain
and Crash (or more accurately, the anti-Brokeback faction using Crash
as a stalking horse) it’s more likely that the winner would have been
Goodnight, and Good Luck or Capote.  In any case it is hard to see
how Brokeback Mountain could’ve won with a preferential voting
system when the general thinking is that so many Academy members
were adverse to either seeing it or allowing it to win the top prize.  If they
wouldn’t vote for it as their first choice for either of the two reasons I just
listed, why would they vote it as second or third choice?

You are assuming that that there was a huge homophobic backlash to
Brokeback Mountain's winning and I am assuming it was just enough
to tip it to crash.  In that case, I would think many who voted for their own
movie, may indeed have put Brokeback Mountain in the second slot.
Munich was not going to win yet I am pretty confident that Tony Kushner
would have put Brokeback Mountain down in second place, for example.
People who voted for Capote first, about a gay man, I doubt would have
a problem with placing it second on their ballots as well.  Even people
who voted for crash first could have put it down second.  They use the
same system to determine the five nominees in the first place after all.
It wouldn't have even been nominated at all if there was that much of a
backlash to it.

You may be right that Good Night and Good Luck had a better chance
under the preferential system, but I don't believe for a second that
Capote would have had any benefits from it.

I also base my possibility of change reasoning on the fact that
the academy's mood that year concerning all of these films seemed
tepid at best.  No film won more than three awards.  Even crash was
favored in the best song category and that mercifully didn't happen.
So with all things bent on being relatively even, a voting change could
have produced a different outcome.  So I'm not so firmly ensconced in
the absolutely no change at all camp.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Guardian on September 04, 2009, 04:14:48 PM
Quote
You are assuming that that there was a huge homophobic backlash to
Brokeback Mountain's winning and I am assuming it was just enough
to tip it to crash.

Yes, Mooska, I am assuming there was a huge homophobic backlash and, more to the point, it was organized.

Organized by the enabling media and a purported phone campaign launched by the Crash people and Lionsgate, its distributor.  To me, that's the only explanation for an unequivocally mediocre film like Crash winning.  If there were no organized backlash to Brokeback than the anti-Brokeback votes would've been split among all the other nominees and Brokeback would still have won. 

I am firmly convinced that this was an organized campaign that was decided upon before the nominations even came out.  In a posting I did in early 2006, before the awards, I catalogued the various negative statements by the likes of David Carr of the New York Times, David Poland of Movie City News, Tom O'Neill of the theenvelope.com, Lou Leminick of the New York Post, etc.  Their general tone was that of throwing cold water on the idea of Brokeback Mountain being allowed to win by a wary Academy membership.  They used such dubious logic as a love story couldn't win the Best Picture prize (Marty?  Titanic?  The English Patient?  Annie Hall?);  homophobia not being as being as sociallly relevant as racism; and peaking too early (Lord of the Rings?  Titanic?  Slumdog Millionaire?) Do you remember any other front runner that had collected so many pre-Oscar awards receiving such a cold treatement? 

The establishment on both sides of the silver screen were determined not to see Brokeback Mountain win Best Picture.

But that is neither here nor there.  What is wrong with the Academy Award is the not so dirty secret that Academy members make little or no effort to see all the nominees and thus have no credibility in making a decision.  No amount of fine tuning by the Academy board is going to change that.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on September 04, 2009, 11:32:13 PM
The day another film with more mixed reviews--Roger Ebert and Leonard Maltin notwithstanding--that doesn't even make Rotten Tomatoes' Top 100 movies of the year somehow manages to take the top Oscar over a 15-point-higher reviewed, 22+ "Best Picture" award-cited film, then and only then will I finally not regard 2006 as a grotesque injustice and statistical near-impossibility.  I've never even been able to enjoy looking at Sandra Bullock since I heard about her robo-calling Academy members and reminding them that they could vote "Brokeback" for Best Director and "Crash" for Best Picture.  I understand rooting for "the home team," but...
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Guardian on September 05, 2009, 09:29:05 AM
dback,

That rumor about the Crash cast members making robo-calls to Academy members is so disturbing that if the public ever got wind of it the Academy would be in hot water up to its gold dome.  How true are those stories?  And can they be verified?  Needless to say neither the Academy or the Crash people have ever commented on the charge.  They should be made to.

Needless to say robo-calls brings new meaning to campaigning for an Oscar.  It is one thing to create calls promoting your own film, but creating calls that suggest a deal in which two films can honored, thus depriving one of them from getting the top prize is cynicism of such high order that even Hollywood would blush.  We are entering the territory of dirty political tricks.  Nixon would be proud.

If there is any truth to it than it should be researched and the Academy and the Crash people should be outed for it.  But alas, where is the brave and commited journalist that would care to take on the Academy?  Don't expect Hollywood's big players ( Spielberg, Clooney, Hanks, Pitt, et al) to take on the responsibility.  They're all in Oscar's pocket.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: button on September 05, 2009, 03:44:59 PM
I heard about Sandra making calls but lets face it, most of these people have no integrity.  It all about that little golden man.  They all want it wheather they deserve it or not.  I use to have respect for pitts, spielberg, clooney but no more.  They are not homophobic, they are cowards.  Clooney had the nerve to get up there and talk about how the academy was so open, but if it was, he wouldn't have been the one making a acceptance speech, it would have been jake.  None of these people made any outcry, yet this year at every award show, they had tears in their eyes for heath.  I hope part of that was regret and shame.  I have not watch the Academy awards since Crash won, I didn't even watch to see heath win.  I don't care anymore, their creditability  is shot.  They can't get it back. I can almost forgive roger ebert because he is married to a black woman so I think he looking at crash differntly.  He also like Monster's ball. He said it was the best film of that year that it came out.  I thought it was a good film but not great but you see the connection- race.  He was a great movie critic but something has happen over the years.  I know he has been ill but this was before his illness. And one more thing, I am black and not gay and Brokeback is the most beautiful film, I have ever seen.  I have never had a film imprint my soul but this has.  I think about jack and ennis almost everyday.  I think we can all agree that we have Heath and Jake to think for that.  They may have not gotten that little golden man, but they got something more.  Our love and respect.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on September 07, 2009, 02:26:09 PM
Right on, button.  Just remember the loooooooong list of classic films that we can't believe today didn't win Best Picture (just a few: "The Adventures of Robin Hood" "The Wizard of Oz" "The Grapes of Wrath" "It's A Wonderful Life" "Citizen Kane" "A Streetcar Named Desire" "Sunset Boulevard" "Mary Poppins" "Dr. Strangelove" "Dr. Zhivago" "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" "Bonnie and Clyde" "The Graduate" "MASH" "Cabaret" "Star Wars" "Manhattan" "Apocalypse Now" "Raging Bull" "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" "Raiders of the Lost Ark" "The Right Stuff" "A Soldier's Story" "The Color Purple" "Moonstruck" "Dangerous Liasons" "Goodfellas" "Beauty and the Beast" "A Few Good Men" "The Shawshank Redemption" "L.A. Confidential" "Apollo 13" "The Crying Game" "The Sixth Sense" "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon" etc.) as well as ones that weren't even nominated (any Marx Brothers movie, "Rear Window" "Vertigo" "Psycho" "North by Northwest" "Singin' In the Rain" "2001 A Space Odyssey" "Blade Runner" "Blue Velvet" "A Hard Day's Night" "Hair" "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" "Yentl" any Disney animated feature besides "Beauty," a host of foreign films, etc.)  "Brokeback" is in exceptional company, and I expect it to start turning up on various critics' polls next year of the 10 best films of the past decade.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on September 07, 2009, 03:04:31 PM
Right as rain, Dean, but isn't it too bad that BBM wasn't one of the rare occasions where Oscar got Best Picture RIGHT?  (ALL ABOUT EVE and CASABLANCA immediately come to mind as two other of the all-too-rare occasions.)  It sure would've helped ease the pain for Heath, Jake, and Michelle losing and not shot the Academy's credibility to hell for the umpteenth time.

Mark
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on September 08, 2009, 09:29:54 AM
Those are two really good examples, and some might claim "Gone With the Wind" over "The Wizard of Oz" or "The Godfather" over "Cabaret" or "Annie Hall" over "Star Wars" or "Terms of Endearment" over "The Right Stuff" were years were there should've been ties.  I also have no quibbles with "Amadeus" "Gigi" "Ben-Hur" "The Lord of the Rings" "Chicago" "Schindler's List" and a couple others.  However, it's really astonishing when you go back and look at 80 years of Best Pictures, how almost 2/3 of them are unmemorable, or clearly the "wrong" choice, especially if they're "make-up" awards to filmmakers who lost previously.  (This also happens in the acting categories, where--let's face it--Heath had additional momentum to win for "The Dark Knight" after losing for "Brokeback.") 

2006, however, is one of the few years (besides 1973, when Academy members were afraid "The Exorcist" would win) were there was an obvious and VOCAL smear campaign going on--and 2006 was unique in its ability to exploit academy members' homophobia and simultaneously flatter them with an anti-racism tactic.  (Notice, of course, they didn't nominate Spike Lee's "Do The Right Thing" in 1990.)  And a big chunk of the media was asleep at the wheel, because 1) they'd already assumed "Brokeback" would win, so weren't paying attention to the smears, the robocalls, etc., and didn't call the Academy out on it in advance, and 2) didn't pursue the story after the fact except for a general, "Huh, that was weird.  Guess 'Crash' is a reallly good, underrated movie."  (God knows, Oprah and Roger Ebert were beating the tom-toms for it from Day 1.) 

Strangely, it wasn't until "The Black Donnellys" and "Crash" the TV series hit that a lot of columnists really started to unleash on Paul Haggis and the Academy, basically ripping them up and down for stereotyped characters, too much yelling, plots based on convenience (sound familiar?), etc., at which time more than one critic finally stepped up and said, "How exactly did this man and this film, based on the evidence we see here, deserve a Best Picture award?"  However, I don't think Paul Haggis deserves the brunt of the criticism for the Academy's votes--he made the movie he wanted to make, pure and simple.  It's the AMPAS that deserves the brickbats.  And boy, are they scrambling right now with this expanded 10 Best Picture field, and the new tiered nominating process!  I think they're STILL gun-shy from 2006, thought they'll never admit it.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on September 08, 2009, 01:34:17 PM
Right as rain, Dean, but isn't it too bad that BBM wasn't one of the
rare occasions where Oscar got Best Picture RIGHT?  (ALL ABOUT EVE
and CASABLANCA immediately come to mind as two other of the
all-too-rare occasions.) 

In 1943 I would've voted for The Ox-Bow Incident.  In 1950 I would've
voted for Sunset Boulevard.  Let's face it, if we made up our own lists
for each year we'd have as many lists as there are possibilities.

I've never been one to tow the line when people suppose such things
as "Casablanca is one of the best films ever", for example.  Not to me
it isn't.  Casablanca is one of those films that growing up I had always
heard was "the" classic and the "best" and on and on and on with it.
And on the surface it sure seems like a film I would really love for a
myriad of reasons.  But guess what?  I don't like it.  It bores me.  But
because I didn't care for it the first time I saw it and because of it's
notoriety as one of the best ever, I explored that.  I read books about it.
I took a film class about it.  I've read article after article about it.  I've
seen screenings of it with good and bad prints.  I've seen it at home
on video.  I've seen it in color.  I've seen the props and costumes from
it.  Guess what?  It still bores me.  Oooh, but if you say you don't care for
a film like Casablanca you are stared at like you just broke one of the
Ten Commandments.  Which is why people are simply afraid to say
they don't like films on ten best lists.  Or why many critics feel they "have"
to include a film on a list they might otherwise not--how could you not
put Citizen Kane on a list, for example.  Easy.  Don't if you don't care for it.
Just because you say you like Casablanca or Citizen Kane or The Third
Man makes you seem no smarter about film to me if you really don't.

2006, however, is one of the few years (besides 1973, when
Academy members were afraid "The Exorcist" would win)

I was afraid it would, too, and am glad it did not.

No groups decisions are welcomed by everyone, so you can't
pick out the years you like and say they are idiots all the other
years.  I don't like all the NY or LA Film critics decisions every
year, or the HFPA or AFI's lists.  I don't like half the films on every
critic's yearly 10 best lists.

The more movies everyone lists as should'ves or could'ves, the more
people can disagree.  I don't like half the chosen winners that every
group has chosen or nominated I would guess. 

As for the robocall thing--this isn't something I've heard a lot about
before, but since it's not substantiated, I have to discount it for the most
part.  Also, it really doesn't make much sense.  Except for the fact that
Sandra Bullock could say she is in a film that won Best Picture, what
would she have to gain--taking the time to call ampas members to
campaign for voting your way?  Wouldn't that just really piss off a huge
number of people you might be working with later on?  When any
singular person has stepped over a boundary like that before in some
way it has been roundly criticized or pounced upon--Chill Wills or
Margaret Avery for example--and that was when they were nominated!
It really doesn't make much sense.

The thing about the Brokeback Mountain year is that it was an
aberration of ampas's own track record of bestowing it's best picture
award
.  Every rule of prognostication that people have used to "divine"
the outcome of the Best Picture winner since it's inception was broken
this time around.  And this time around the film that lost out was a gay
themed film.  It's true that we almost always know what film is going
home with the Top Prize whether we think it's the right choice or not.
Even when there's that occasional minor surprise, like Chariots of Fire
or Shakespeare in Love, you can find the outcome as less surprising
when you look back at those same "rules of prognostication" and find
the line of outcome to be there, even if it was less clear than most years.
The year of Brokeback Mountain, you cannot find that -- unless you
ascribe a level of homophobia to it, no matter how large or small,
organized or not.  And that's the difference.  When you look at all the
possibilities for that year's outcome for the best picture winner, in all
scenarios it really makes no sense unless a level of homophobia is
ascribed to it.  Then the pieces silently and disturbingly fall exactly into
place.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: bubba on September 08, 2009, 01:59:34 PM
LONDON, England (CNN)  -- If Cannes Film Festival raises the curtain on the spectacle that is the movie awards season, then the fall festival circuit is the critical first act.

With Venice underway and Toronto just a few days from kicking off, the fall festival season is in full swing. Critics, producers, distributors, actors and agents are almost halfway through a nearly month-long stretch of critical fests that can shape the race for film awards.

"Venice is the very beginning of awards season campaigns," Lee Marshall, a film critic for industry mag Screen International, said in an interview from Venice.

With its parade of red carpet stars, the festival, currently underway at the Lido, has traditionally served as a launching platform for awards season. It screened "Brokeback Mountain" in 2005, which won director Ang Lee an Oscar.




http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/07/fall.festivals/
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on October 17, 2009, 11:46:28 AM
Virtual Oscars Roundtable: The Directors

2. Much has been made of the trivial nature of paying any sort of  serious attention to the Oscars at all.   It is easy to dismiss them  as a silly group of people who have bad taste, for the most part, and  who vote only for what they like with no regard to film history or cultural importance. On the other hand, when President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize win was  announced, the only other award anyone could come up with to compare  it to was the Oscar.   Do you think the Oscars  still matter?


Damien Bona: When Mason Wiley and I set out to write Inside Oscar 25 years ago, it wasn’t because we thought the Oscars were the end-all in terms of defining quality films. Quite the opposite.  We were fascinated by the Academy Awards because of the way they’ve reflected popular culture in any given year.  For instance, while The Greatest Show On Earth winning Best Picture is objectively indefensible, its win at the 1952 Oscars made perfect sense given the political and cultural climate of the time.  And that’s what makes looking at the Oscars so interesting.   But anyone who takes seriously a prize that went to Marty in the year of Night of the Hunter, Kiss Me Deadly,  Rebel Without A Cause and It’s Always Fair Weather (and the fact that none of them actually stood a chance only emphasizes the silliness of the Oscars), or to Ben-Hur rather than Imitation Of Life, Some Like It Hot and North By Northwest has severe deficiencies in cinematic appreciation.   And what can you say about an award that has gone to Delbert Mann, John G. Avildsen, George Roy Hill and Mel Gibson, but not Alfred Hitchcock or Howard Hawks or Hal Ashby or Otto Preminger, with Nicholas Ray, Douglas Sirk, Paul Mazursky and Blake Edwards never even being nominated.

But the Oscars remain important as a cultural touchstone, a reflection of what’s going on both in Hollywood and America at large.  Academy members tend to be politically liberal and artistically conservative, and the fact that a mediocrity like Crash could beat the critically-beloved Brokeback Mountain indicated that if Hollywood embraced risibly melodramatic kumbaya racial pablum rather than sexy gay cowboys, then homophobia is a more deep-seated problem in this country than many of us realized.

Milos Forman once said, “The Academy Awards are a wonderful game.  But if you take then seriously, you are in trouble.”  He was spot on.  It’s great fun to analyze and predict the Oscars, but one should never lose sight of the fact that we’re talking about the collective taste of (mostly) rich middlebrows, few of whom have little claim to artistic credentials. Though I was aware of it previously, the night that A Beautiful Mind was deemed the best thing released during the calendar year really hit home the fact that these people are not to be in any way taken seriously for their taste or judgment. Your opinions and mine are just as valid (correction more valid, and I doubt that my two favorite pictures from last year, Paranoid Park and Flight of the Red Balloon were in the top 50 of Oscar contenders.)  And so one should analyze the Oscars as one does a pennant race.  Look at the players, the possibilities, the potential surprises,the track records.  But for God’s sake, don’t think the Oscars have any real meaning as a signifier of artistic excellence.  

Despite all that, yes the Oscars still matter.

In short, the Oscars are important because they are an ingrained part of popular culture. And people do take them seriously,   And they’re fun.  And they add millions to a film’s grosses.  They’re just  not important beyond that.

http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=13982&cpage=1 (http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=13982&cpage=1)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on November 21, 2009, 10:13:39 PM
On my Comcast channel for On Demand, if you dial up Starz, "Crash" just became available as a free movie.  The capsule states that "Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director went to this study of multiple lives in Los Angeles over a period of several days."

WTF?!?!   :o
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on November 21, 2009, 10:29:01 PM
A lot of that going around lately.

This is from an article in the Toronto Sun last week:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I witnessed first-hand stars smoking like chimneys when I attended the Governor's Ball, the chi-chi party that followed the 2005 Oscars.

A merely opportunistic smoker myself, I started up a conversation with Heath Ledger (who won for Brokeback Mountain), who had a pack of Camel Lights,


http://www.torontosun.com/entertainment/celebrities/2009/11/15/11751881-sun.html (http://www.torontosun.com/entertainment/celebrities/2009/11/15/11751881-sun.html)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on November 23, 2009, 11:13:30 AM
^^^^^^^

Re: the oscar misinformation...when Robert Osborne had a column in
the Hollywood Reporter in the '80's he regularly had a line or two that
corrected oscar misinformation.  He would call out anyone and everyone
that made incorrect statements about oscar facts.  In the case of oscar,
it seems no one ever checks their facts, they appear to assume that
whatever they think is true, is true.  But, based on his column back in the
80's, it seems to happen every day.

Even someone that never makes mistakes abut oscar information, made
one at the Brokeback Mountain screening at the academy:

« Reply #1033 on: August 05, 2008, 11:55:02 PM »   
Quote
Randy also did something he never does.  He made a factual error.
As an academy representative and producer of these film series, he
knows his oscar history, but last night he commented at one point about
Brokeback Mountain’s 10 Oscar Nominations.  There were "8" as we
know.

Which is why we must always keep repeating the reasons behind why
Brokeback Mountain did not win.

On my Comcast channel for On Demand, if you dial up Starz, "Crash" just became available as a free movie. 

Now they have to give it away!  I had read, when I was at one time
looking at the compilation list of Netflix's most rented movies, which I
believe crash to still be number one, is that somehow Netflix is affiliated
with Starz and they add in the "rentals" of movies people view on that
network and crash has been in rotation on there since it appeared.  Now
that it's FREE I suppose they'll add in the "free" rentals to the total as well.

As dback writes: 

WTF?!?!   :o
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on November 23, 2009, 11:26:00 AM
It's nearing the end of the decade (!) and people are starting
to make lists of the "Best Films of the Decade".  Think that
isn't important?  Raging Bull was released in 1980.  It was
a box office flop, but garnered some critical acclaim in a few
quarters, especially for its acting and directing.  The reviews
in 1980 were decidedly mixed.  (This information comes from
the film editor who was at a Q&A of a screening of the film 2-3
years ago.)  She said that the revised thinking of this film
happened over that whole period of the 80's.  It came to a
head when a compilation of critics hailed it as the "Best" film
of the decade.  Now it's considered a classic.  (I have to interject
my opinion.  I would say Raging Bull is a great film in all regards
except one:  It's about someone you have no empathy for.  So it
leaves you cold and uninvolved at the end.  So it is hardly embracing.
It's a pretty big flaw in my book.  Not to mention the misogynistic
treatment of the women.)

Anyway, I don't think Brokeback Mountain needs a revision, it was
considered a classic by film critics and audiences almost since
the day of its release.  But it would be nice if these critics still feel
the same when they're making their lists now.  We shall see.
It might be useful to post these "results" when they become
available.  The first two, that I know of, are from England.  I guess
its because their time zone is way ahead of us.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on November 23, 2009, 11:27:53 AM
Top Films of the Decade:
London Telegraph


From the London Telegraph, the Top 100 films of the decade.

#2 - Brokeback Mountain
Ang Lee, 2005: Director Ang Lee insists on calling this simply "a love story" but it broke new ground as a gay cowboy movie. Achingly moving, with career-high performances from Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal as the strong, silent, repressed lead characters. A stunning achievement, brilliantly executed, with an acute sense of time and location.

# 98 - Crash
Paul Haggis, 2005: Oscar voters loved this multi-stranded depiction of contemporary LA’s combustible race politics.

Worth noting is that two other Best Picture nominees from 2005 were ranked higher than Crash:
#19 - Capote
#89 - Munich

And one other film from 2005 that won a few Best Picture honors, but was not nominated was ranked higher:
#71 - A History of Violence

Other items of interest—besides BBM and Capote, other gay themed films:
#49 - Far from Heaven
#81 - Milk

Jake film:
#58 - Donnie Darko

Heath film:
#43 - The Dark Knight

Ang Lee film:
#33 - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Top-100 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/6501160/Top-100-movies-defining-the-noughties-00s-in-film.html)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on November 23, 2009, 11:31:53 AM
Top Films of the Decade:
The Times (UK)


From The Times Online (UK), the Top 100 films of the decade.

#17 Brokeback Mountain
(Ang Lee, 2005)
This achingly sad love story gave Heath Ledger a chance to explore
hitherto unsuspected depths. It’s a hugely powerful performance — his
inarticulate yearning is almost painful to watch.

#98 - Crash
(Paul Haggis, 2004)*
This surprise Oscar champ of 2004 inspired myriad syrupy "We are all,
like, totally connected" imitators (see The Air I Breathe), and yet the savvy
narrative chicanery and superlative performances (including Sandra
Bullock’s racist housewife) lift this LA-set ensemble far above the crowd.

Worth noting is that another Best Picture nominee from 2005 was ranked higher than Crash:
#21 - Good Night and Good Luck

And one other film from 2005 that was not nominated was ranked higher:
#40 - Syriana

Other item of interest, other gay themed films:
#22 - Far from Heaven
#53 - Milk

Jake film:
#20 - Donnie Darko

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/filmsofthedecade (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6902642.ece)


*They listed this film with the wrong year,
but I left it the way they listed it.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on November 23, 2009, 11:41:45 AM
The Times also asked five British film
"insiders" for their individual Top Ten lists:

Top Films of the Decade:
The Times (UK)
British film insider top tens


From The Times Online (UK), the Top 10 films of the decade.
We have asked an array of British film talent for their
top ten films of the decade.


Julian Fellowes, screenwriter, The Young Victoria, Gosford Park
#2 FAR FROM HEAVEN
#4 CRASH
The best films make you change your mind about the characters as the story progresses. I have never seen this done better than here.


Richard Eyre, director, Stage Beauty, Notes on a Scandal
(Not in order of merit)
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
It’s the only film that I have chosen that’s a studio film. It’s beautifully made and compelling and very touching. And Heath Ledger is remarkable – really the performance of the film.

Alison Owen, producer of films including The Other Boleyn Girl
#5 BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
I've watched this movie so many times I thought I was going to have to start Brokeback Anonymous. And still, when he puts his face to that shirt at the end...don't start me off....

Nick Hornby, writer and screenwriter (An Education)
(Not in order of merit)
I'M NOT THERE (a Heath film)

Christine Langan, Creative Director, BBC Films; executive producer, In the Loop, The Damned United
#1 BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
A gay love story, told with all the lush romance of a Hollywood classic.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/insider (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6906023.ece)

Do I detect a pattern here?  The two women and one gay man
selected Brokeback Mountain in their Top Ten.  The two straight
men did not.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on November 23, 2009, 02:26:22 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thank You Lyle for posting.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on November 24, 2009, 02:52:17 PM
^^^^^^^^^
Thanks, Tom.

2 1/2 months before the nominations are announced, here is what
The Gurus of Gold + Awards Daily are saying for possible nominees.
Both places have a compendium of reviewers and film critics that
give their opinions on the films and upcoming awards season based
on what they know at present:

Best Picture:
1 Precious   
2 Up in the Air   
3 Invictus
4 The Hurt Locker   
5 An Education
6 Up
7 Nine
8 The Lovely Bones   
9 A Serious Man
10 Inglourious Basterds

Four years ago today, on November 24, 2005, here is what they were
speculating might receive an oscar nod for Best Picture.  (Four years, damn!)

1   Munich
2   Walk The Line   
3   Brokeback Mountain   
4   Memoirs of a Geisha   
5   Capote   
6   Mrs. Henderson Presents   
7   The Constant Gardener   
8   A History Of Violence   
9   The New World   
10 Crash

And, in fact, over the next month, crash moved off the
top ten list altogether, until evil forces began brewing.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on November 24, 2009, 04:15:23 PM
Article in today's issue of The Brock Press, Brock University, Canada

Hollywood homophobes

MONTREAL (CUP) - What's the deal with Hollywood? It's a town built on the reputation of such liberal ideals, yet it's so afraid of the lending voice to the gay and lesbian community. Sadly, the term "homosexual" still holds negative connotations within the world of cinema.

The 2005 film Brokeback Mountain, which garnered eight Oscar nominations for its portrayal of two gay cowboys, was met with as many discriminators as admirers. A frontrunner for best picture, its legacy as the first crossover film to achieve such prestige was not to be. When Jack Nicholson announced the winner on Oscar night in 2006, a dismayed murmur rang out in the Kodak Theatre, as the racially charged Crash beat out the film so many felt was the true stand-out of the nominees. Even Nicholson was shocked, stating to reporters afterwards that he, a long-serving academy member, voted for the gay-themed romance.

Why is this a taboo subject? Well, in the case of Brokeback, its defeat came with many of the older - and I mean older - academy members' disdain for what they saw as America's purest genre, the Western, tarnished by two men falling in love and, gasp, having sex. The decrepit Ernest Borgnine, all of 89 years young at the time, had the most disheartening comments of all.
"I didn't see it and I don't care to see it . . . If John Wayne were alive, he'd be rolling over in his grave," he said. While the actor's slur came across as being appallingly arrogant, it also reinforced a hidden fear - a fear that some in tinsel town still cannot concede to homosexuality, nor comfortably market it to the masses or themselves.

With rare exceptions like Ellen DeGeneres and Neil Patrick Harris, the choice in coming out has long been acknowledged, more or less, as career suicide within the North American market. A notable example is that of Rock Hudson, a dashing leading man recognized for romantic comedies of the 1960s. One of the first major stars to succumb to the AIDS pandemic, Hudson's death was thought to be the result of a tainted blood transfusion. When word got out of his homosexuality, many colleagues and friends were taken by surprise, with no idea of his secret life.


http://tinyurl.com/y962xzo (http://tinyurl.com/y962xzo)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on November 25, 2009, 12:52:09 PM
Hollywood homophobes
When word got out of his homosexuality, many colleagues and friends were taken by surprise, with no idea of his secret life.
http://tinyurl.com/y962xzo (http://tinyurl.com/y962xzo)

I'd need some facts to support this authors opinion that many friends and
colleagues were taken by surprise...  Maybe because this year I have read
several books detailing gay Hollywood over the years, but I could come
up with a great amount of opposite opinions.  Of course, it depends on what
you mean by secret?  And from whose point of view.

Also, I really don't recall that the film of Brokeback Mountain was "met with as
many discriminators as admirers."  Even people who are against anything gay
and who actually saw the film said it was great propaganda, a backhanded
compliment to the film's artistry.  Unless I am mistaking the intention of his
premise, I would say that line is a better definition of crash as a film than
Brokeback.

However, I am always glad to read an article that brings up the reason for
Brokeback Mountain's oscar fate.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on November 25, 2009, 01:17:55 PM
Robert Osborne updates his oscar book every 5 years
or so.  The current edition came out a year ago and is
called 80 Years of the Oscar by Robert Osborne.
Does anyone have this book?  I have a couple editions
of this book, but not the current one.  I have wanted to know
what Robert Osborne says about the Brokeback Mountain
year.  I thought I would come across this book in a bookstore,
but there are less and less bookstores around and the ones that
I have been in don't have this expensive book on the shelves.

I am curious what he says about the 2005 awards because I
know that his "personal" opinion of Brokeback Mountain not
winning is that it is one of the biggest upsets ever and that
homophobia was an ingredient in that outcome.  He's said that
in interviews.  What I don't know is if he says that in this current
book.  This book is ampas endorsed, unlike most oscar books,
which is why it's the "official" book.  It's mostly a facts & figures
book, which used to be interesting for us award buffs, but all
the info contained can now be obtained online just as easily
and save you 50 bucks or more!  I have tried to find out what he
might have said about 2005 in this book online, but I have not
come across anything about what he's written.

Do you have this book in your library Michael F.?

Also, I would NOT buy this 880 page book:
Cinema, Year by Year: The
Complete Illustrated History of Film
by Robyn Karney
--because of this one line in the opening of the publisher's editorial review:

A must for any film buff, this work contains the latest from around the
world. From the earliest flickering pictures to the soaring triumph of
"Crash", this year-by-year guide to the films, the stars, and the
innovations of movie-making brings the silver screen to life.


Any book that calls it a soaring triumph is
not something that I will have on my shelves.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on November 25, 2009, 01:31:56 PM
I haven't read the book.

Osborne did talk about it last year when he was out promoting the book, but nothing was said about his statements being in the book.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Dick Donahue -- Publishers Weekly, 10/13/2008 8:10:00 AM

An interview with author and Turner Classic Movies host Robert Osborne, whose 80 Years of the Oscar: The Official History of the Academy Awards will be published later this month by Abbeville Press.


Quote
What do you think was the biggest Oscar upset ever?

I think it goes back to 1951, when the two big important films of the year were A Streetcar Named Desire and A Place in the Sun. They were duking it out, but the winner was An American in Paris. It was a movie that had already played off; MGM could get no future money out of it basically, because there were no DVDs or anything like that; and they also had Singing in the Rain coming out, which they were concentrating on, not American in Paris. American in Paris winning was kind of thrilling, but it was a total, total upset. I’d say the next biggest upset, for me, was not that long ago, when Brokeback Mountain was up, which seemed like such a sure thing, and was such a fine film and Ang Lee won the best director award and all of a sudden the winner was Crash, which I didn’t take that seriously as an important film. It was a good film, but not an important one, and it’s also one of those films that I don’t think will have any shelf life at all. That really surprised me, because I thought it was all homophobia more than anything and had nothing to do with filmmaking. I thought if anything the film industry would be more tolerant of something like that because it was so beautifully done.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6604714.html (http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6604714.html)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on November 25, 2009, 04:04:19 PM
Thanks for posting his quotes about that.  I'll see
the book someday.  I am also curious about what picture
from BBM they might have included in it.  I just thought
I'd have seen it before now!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on November 25, 2009, 05:07:56 PM
When word got out of his homosexuality, many colleagues and friends were taken by surprise, with no idea of his secret life.

Couldn't have been much of a secret. I remember my father, a Cincinnati police sargeant with no Hollywood ties, telling me that Rock Hudson was gay... and getting it on with Jim Nabors... back in the early 60s. I didn't believe him, of course, about either guy.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on December 01, 2009, 10:58:28 AM
A Daily Show writer screens movies and watches, closely

Elliott Kalan is a writer for The Daily Show With Jon Stewart who also moonlights as host of Closely Watched Films, a monthly screening series at the 92Y Tribeca. The series’ next installment takes place Wednesday, Dec. 2, when Kalan and guest Kristen Schaal will screen Preston Sturges’ unwanted-pregnancy romp The Miracle Of Morgan’s Creek. Kalan recently spoke with The A.V. Club about working at The Daily Show, why the Oscars are no longer real to him, and what James Cagney can teach us all about modern movie pacing

AVC: You helped create the infamous gay-Western montage at the Oscars, when Jon Stewart hosted. How did that come about?

EK: That was something Jon came to us with. Brokeback Mountain was the big movie that year, and he wanted to do something about how homosexuality in Westerns is not a new thing. There was always this undercurrent of veiled homoeroticism, and I was attached to that because I was known as the guy who knows movies at the show. So we spent a couple months scanning through Westerns for these very brief moments of guys locking eyes with each other, or touching guns in phallic ways. I watched about 25 westerns in one month. That was a very exciting dream come true. Unfortunately, it had the side effect of… The Academy Awards no longer seem real to me now. It was instantly like, “Oh, if I was involved, it must be like a fake Oscars that’s appearing on my television only and never anywhere else.”

http://www.avclub.com/newyork/articles/a-daily-show-writer-screens-movies-and-watches-clo,35793/ (http://www.avclub.com/newyork/articles/a-daily-show-writer-screens-movies-and-watches-clo,35793/)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on December 03, 2009, 01:47:23 PM
Three Dollar Bill  


Fade to black

Richard Burnett


Back during the 2006 Oscar race for Best Picture, I was surprised to see this column blurbed in a film company ad campaign for Oscar-contender Brokeback Mountain. It was the first time I'd ever been blurbed for a Hollywood film.

"One of the most beautiful and most haunting love stories I've ever seen," I wrote. "Heath Ledger's monumental performance should win him an Oscar."

Brokeback should also have won the Oscar for Best Film that year.

Instead Crash won, just as LA Weekly's Hollywood business columnist Nikki Finke predicted that film would since "[that] year's dirty little secret [was] the anecdotal evidence pouring in to me about hetero [Academy Awards] members being unwilling to screen Brokeback Mountain."

I too should have seen it coming when the sniping in reviews of Brokeback began to tell the real tale, like this doozy by Gene Shalit of NBC's Today Show: "Jack [played by Jake Gyllenhaal], who strikes me as a sexual predator, tracks Ennis [Heath Ledger] down and coaxes him into sporadic trysts," Shalit said on-air.

Yes, you read right: sexual predator.

Or how about Christy Lemire of the Associated Press, who noted, "The truly tragic element in all this, though, is not that these men cannot be who they want to be, it's that they're not sure who they are."

Uh, hold on a second there, Christy, while I take that cock out of my mouth.

But Hollywood has always been a four-letter town.

The same shit happened to the 1953 big-screen adaptation
of James Jones' 1951 classic novel From Here to Eternity, which was based on Jones's own army experiences in Hawaii on the eve of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Not only did his publisher edit most of the homosexual scenes and F-words from his book, but Hollywood erased them completely, Jones's daughter, novelist Kaylie Jones, reveals in her recent essay for the U.S. news website the Daily Beast.

http://www.hour.ca/columns/3dollarbill.aspx?iIDArticle=18816 (http://www.hour.ca/columns/3dollarbill.aspx?iIDArticle=18816)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 04, 2009, 12:04:37 PM
That is a good find, John.

I had looked up some reviews of that book last month; I was
planning to see a screening of it but did not, and I found these
two passages from current book reviews of the novel that were
interesting.  (I doubt you'd even find it mentioned at all when the
book was first published.)

I put them here because the real point, to me, is that even people
of today look back on a time and are "surprised" to find that gay subjects
were dealt with in literature, and not just pulp novels and magazines,
but award winning literature.

The book The Brick Foxhole was tremendously popular in the mid '40's
and dealt with a gay bashing by two servicemen.  But, erasing the gay
subject matter from history, the film changed the title to Crossfire and
the theme to anti-semitism.  (Imagine people deciding anti-semitism
is "more acceptable" to their audience than another issue.  It does
boggle the mind.  The film was nominated for Best Picture and is to be
shown next summer in an ampas film series.)

I also read a short story called "Ship's Company" about the new "gay
sailor" on board a WWII battle ship.  Wonderful.  That's why gay history
and gay stories are so important.  Gay people are a matter of course, not
a constant surprise as many would like you to believe.

The passages I noted:

There are apparently three options for the Army men serving in Hawaii
in the days just before Pearl Harbor: get an island girl (or some other
Asian or Pacific Islander) in a shack; visit one of the many, many local
whorehouses (if you have $15, apparently you can even go "around the
world"); or get liquored up courtesy of a wealthy, gay sugardaddy. That
was a scene you didn't see...Montgomery Clift and Frank...Sinatra play
in the movie version.  And it was one of the many surprises in this epic
book.

The reality of otherwise straight men using homosexual men for cash
(maybe or maybe not in exchange for sexual favors) is treated shockingly
rationally for a sixty year old book. There is a fair amount of homophobic
teasing (the word "queer" is thrown around a lot), but none of the men in
the unit who partake are shunned, or beaten--it's looked on as a natural
consequence of their circumstances. And the two gay civilians are
portrayed not as caricatures, but as real, feeling people. This really
floored me, in light of "don't ask, don't tell" and how far we've come in
gay rights just in the past ten years, to see someone in WWII be so
frank about what was sooooo taboo then.


See--my point is that in real life, it wasn't that taboo.  It was just there in
what the author above said "as a natural consequence of their
circumstances."  Illegality aside.   

*****************

One of the book aspects deals with the homosexuality in the Honolulu
of the times. It's clear that some of the enlisted men had liaisons with
the gay men that treated them to things their meager income didn't
allow them to have. Maggio, is one of the ones instrumental for involving
Prewitt into visiting his closeted friends.


Not only does the gritty novel deal with gay subjects, but the also pretty
taboo 1950's subjects of adultery and prostitution.  Not only were the gay
aspects of the novel eliminated in the film, but you have the now pretty
laughable scenario of men lining up to see "dance hall hostesses"
instead of prostitutes.  Even straight sex, especially with prostitutes, had
a hard time being portrayed.

There's a novel, based on an actual woman, called The Revolt of Mamie
Stover.  She's a Honolulu prostitute with a great business sense who
gobbled up any land or buildings available after the war started with her
enormous sums of money she made as a prostitute on Hotel Street and
earned a fortune, to the dismay of the "regular folks."  Why they ever tried
to make it into a film in 1957 with Jane Russell is beyond me, because
it's really amusing to see the degree they went to avoiding the obvious.
The soldiers and sailors spend enormous amounts of money to be
alone with these women in rooms that don't even have a bed in them!
It's not a great film, but certainly a curiosity, with Agnes Moorehead as
the blonde in charge of the girls!

And even though the film is toned down in all aspects of this activity,
in the film Mamie has to repent of sorts.  All she wants to do is to return
to her small town so she gives all that enormous amount of tainted
money she earned away to charity before doing so.  Realllllllly now.

I also read a history book called "The First Strange Place" which deals
with the melting pot of U.S. military recruits when they all got together in
Hawaii during WWII.  The authors, a man and a woman, present a view
of circumstances there in all their totalities.  One of the representations
of gay life in Hawaii had a footnote that prompted me to write to the
authors asking for further reference.  It was the fact they interviewed
some military there at the time and they talked about the gay sailors
that were hidden and those that weren't.  I was surprised to find in the
mail one day a lengthy package of material that the author copied
from research they had done (alot from the military files where people
under investigation were interviewed) which involved "gay all-male
parties" with sailors doing imitations of Carmen Miranda, guys in
fights on ships over their boyfriends, a very well known Honolulu
photographer who did color portraits of sailors, but would "fancy them
up" with make-up--lipstick and all, and other tid-bits of gay-life in Hawaii
during WWII that was absolutely fascinating and just made me laugh
that "gay people are gay people, no matter what decade and where they
are."  Apparently a known crusiing spot in Honolulu for wealthier gays
or the upper military echelons, was in the Royal Hawaiian Hotel.  The
regular service grunts favorite cruising spot was at the statue of King
Kamehaha!

Obviously, this was "normal enough" if you will, that James Jones
honestly wrote about it in his book.  In the article John quoted, the
author quotes a deleted passage from the novel provided by James
Jones' daughter, dealing with gay subject matter, but at least it was not
totally excised.

One passage from the book I remember is that, as has been noted,
the sailors would go to restaurants with gay men who'd pay for their
meals etc. in exchange for possible favors later on, but the gay men
upon entering the restaurant, would check their keys and wallets in
with the maitre d's or cashiers because some of the military guys
would just use them and steal their wallets or keys, sometimes
involving physical violence.  So, the gay men would leave the
restaurants without their wallets and after their dates were finished
would return to pick them up.  Obviously, restaurants would accomodate
this routine for it to be normal enough.

And I write all this, not only because I find it interesting, but that is
why BBM was also so important.  If the film of James Jones novel had
included those little facts of gay life in it, BBM wouldn't have been so
shocking to those that, as I said, are constantly surprised by it!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 04, 2009, 01:25:10 PM
Top Films of the Decade:
Entertainment Weekly


From Entertainment Weekly, the Top 10 films of the decade.

#2 - Brokeback Mountain
2005:  Everyone called it ''The Gay Cowboy Movie.'' Until they saw it. In the end, Ang Lee's love story wasn't gay or straight, just human.

Heath film:
#4 - The Dark Knight

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20321301_20324027,00.html
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on December 07, 2009, 09:54:53 AM
I was wondering when the "10-best-of-the-decade" lists would start hitting.  Guess right about now.  Nice to see EW be the first out of the gate.  (I was at Fred Meyer the other day doing some Christmas shopping--no copies of "Brokeback Mountain," 3 of "Crash."  What-ev-er.)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: fritzkep on December 07, 2009, 05:18:19 PM
Shows what people are buying, and what they're leaving behind.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 08, 2009, 03:59:58 PM
100 Greatest Miscellaneous Whatnots of the Naughts

From Entertainment Weekly, this list has 100 various cultural
touchstones that impacted the mediums of Entertainment.  I
haven't been able to find the actual list posted online yet, I saw
an article in another arena pertaining to the film elements.  There
are 13 films represented on the whole list as well as things like
youtube (#3) and American Idol (#9)--if anyone finds the whole list
or link...please post...

#11 - Brokeback Mountain

Heath film:

#17 - The Dark Knight
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on December 08, 2009, 04:14:30 PM
Rolling Stone cites Brokeback Mountain among 10 Best Films of the Decade


Peter Travers of Rolling Stone says this of Brokeback Mountain and Heath Ledger's performance:

Ledger gave the film its soul. He didn't just know how  Ennis moved, spoke and listened; he knew how he breathed. Seeing him inhale the scent of the shirt hanging in Jack's closet is a scene that pierced your heart. This landmark movie did the same.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on December 08, 2009, 05:20:06 PM
Amen on all counts.  Thanks for posting this, John.

Mark
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on December 09, 2009, 10:59:33 AM
As long as we're doing lists.

I stumbled on a top 15 list today:

Top 15 Movies Filmed in New Mexico

It probably comes as no surprise that New Mexico has hosted its share of westerns, including Brokeback Mountain, Appaloosa, and 3:10 to Yuma. Or that the state's desert landscapes have been selected for apocalyptically themed movies such as the upcoming Terminator Salvation and The Book of Eli and the beginning-of-time flick Year One.

http://qa.reelzchannel.com/movie-news/3144/top-15-movies-filmed-in-new-mexico (http://qa.reelzchannel.com/movie-news/3144/top-15-movies-filmed-in-new-mexico)

Brokeback didn't actually make the list, but it was mentioned.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 10, 2009, 02:53:31 PM
For Your Consideration:  25 Things
The Academy Got Right In The 2000s

by Peter Knegt

With the first wave of awards season precursors [coming], I figured I would use the very last edition of this column...to provide some optimism...because as hard as it is for those prone to bitching about the Academy to admit, they don’t always get it wrong.  In fact, it was surprisingly easy to find twenty-five examples of where they most certainly got it right (though mind you, it was even easier finding fifty things they got wrong).  So for what it’s worth, here are my picks in descending order for your anticipatory pleasure.

#23.   8 nominations and 2 wins for “Milk”
Three years after stunning everyone with their “Brokeback” best picture snub, the Academy gave Gus Van Sant’s Harvey Milk biopic just as many nominations as “Mountain” and two major wins: best actor for Sean Penn and best original screenplay for Dustin Lance Black. While some saw this a result of the film’s considerable mainstream appeal, it remains that “Milk” was written and directed by gay men and dealt explicitly with a pivotal moment in the gay rights movement.  The fact that it received its nominations with little of the controversy that met “Brokeback” suggested maybe things truly had progressed, even just a little, in the three years since.

(Lyle says:  MAYBE.  MAYBE NOT.  The ampas controversy over BBM was the fact that it might win best picture, not the other categories.  No one thought that Milk was going to win best picture over the favorite.  By the way, if box office is a measure, BBM made more money than Milk, so how can one say Milk had more mainstream appeal if less people saw it?)

Also (Ang film):
#16. 10 nominations and 4 awards for “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”
While it remains quite saddening that in the end, “Gladiator” ended up taking away the Academy’s first realistic opportunity at awarding a foreign film in it’s top category, never have we seen such a deserving foreign film break through with Oscar like “Dragon.” And it’s four wins - for cinematography (Peter Pau), art direction (Timmy Yip), original score (Tan Dun), and foreign language film -  did make it one of the most honored foreign language films in Oscar history, which in large part helped the film gross over $128 million in the U.S. alone, bringing it to audiences that otherwise might never have noticed.

Gay Themed Film:
#5.  4 nominations for “Far From Heaven”
Let’s just get this out of the way: “Far From Heaven”‘s snubs for best picture, director, supporting actor and actress, costume design, and art direction are all woeful shames. But in another take-what-we-can-get inclusion on this list, let’s half-heartedly commend the Academy for not completely screwing it up and giving the film nominations for four of its greatest achievements: Julianne Moore’s performance, Todd Haynes’s screenplay, Edward Lachman’s cinematography, and Elmer Bernstein’s score. 

http://www.indiewire.com/article/ (http://www.indiewire.com/article/for_your_consideration_25_things_the_academy_did_right_in_the_2000s/)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 10, 2009, 02:55:10 PM
Top 15 Movies Filmed in New Mexico

Brokeback didn't actually make the list, but it was mentioned.

I forgive them since the footage was ever so brief.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 10, 2009, 02:57:12 PM
London Film Critics Hold Poll for
Best Film of the Past 30 Years


The poll was held to celebrate the 30th anniversary
of the London Film Critics Awards, held every February.
The poll took in all the recipients of the circle's best film,
best British film and best foreign language film awards
for the past thirty years.


#5 -- Brokeback Mountain

TOP 5 FILMS

1. Apocalypse Now
2. Schindler's List
3. The Lives of Others
4. Unforgiven
5. Brokeback Mountain

Interestingly, Apocalypse Now was named best film
at the first London Film Critics Awards.  Also,
really--Unforgiven?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8388124.stm
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on December 11, 2009, 08:32:50 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
3 of my Favs are on this list. WOW!!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on December 11, 2009, 02:30:39 PM
James Schamus: “[The] assertions here are unequivocal, hurtful, and remarkable”

indieWIRE received the following from James Schamus this week, in a response to a recent indieWIRE article that mentioned “Brokeback Mountain.” We are publishing his comments in their entirety.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently, Peter Knegt posted an interesting blog entry on indieWIRE tracking the changes made to the trailer for Tom Ford’s upcoming film “A Single Man.” He then had this to say about its “de-gaying”:

“Call it the “Brokeback Mountain” approach.  When that film was released back in 2005, distributor Focus Features published a  series of “For Your Consideration” advertisements emphasizing the heterosexual relationships between both Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams’s characters, and Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway’s (take a look for yourself here).  And we all know how “Brokeback Mountain”‘s Oscar campaign worked out in the end…”

If one went to the page Knegt linked to, one could see three selected “For Your Consideration” trade advertisements featuring Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway in scenes with Jake Gyllenhall and Heath Ledger, preceded by the following:



“Check out my story on indieWIRE about the remarkable de-gaying of “A Single Man” in its new Oscar-buzz emphasized trailer, and take a trip down memory lane with these For Your Consideration ads for “Brokeback Mountain” back in 2005, which are oh so gay themselves….More whitewashing after the jump.”

Knegt’s assertions here are unequivocal, hurtful, and remarkable: that Focus Features deliberately “de-gayed” Brokeback’s marketing in the run-up to the Academy Awards, and that that strategy had something to do with the film’s not winning a Best Picture Oscar that year.  Needless to say, Knegt’s assertions are entirely false. By selectively presenting just three out of more than 28 of our award campaign looks; and by ignoring the enormous impact of our trailer, our poster, our massive publicity campaign, and the incredible groundswell of public debate and conversation about the film’s groundbreaking subject matter, Knegt deliberately attempts to paint our work in support of Michelle and Anne’s campaigns as some kind of “de-gaying” of the film, as if such a thing were even possible, let alone desirable, after the extraordinary reception of the film. I don’t believe Peter Knegt is being consciously sexist here, but the idea that we should have banished such tragically poignant images entirely from the awards campaign for the film – images that put our lead characters’ relationships with their wives into the mix, however modestly – would seem to me to have been a disservice to the film and to its supporting cast.



It is interesting that the fantasy – and indeed it is a fantasy – that somehow Brokeback’s marketing “whitewashed” the film still pops up from time to time, even among otherwise intelligent and informed observers of the film business such as Peter Knegt. I have dealt with this issue elsewhere, after Daniel Mendelsohn, in the pages of the New York Review of Books, went so far as to actually lie about the content of our press kit for the film. (You can read my final reply to him here.) I would be more than willing to discuss with Peter any time why such a powerful – and to me, clearly, a powerfully false – narrative frame for Brokeback’s release gets invoked as it does.  In the meantime, here are a few of the other trade ads for Brokeback that I wish indieWIRE would have also reproduced. They speak for themselves.

(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj282/SanFranciscoJohn/091211_schamusADS32ND.jpg)

(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj282/SanFranciscoJohn/091211_schamusADS2ND2.jpg)

http://www.indiewire.com/article/2009/12/11/james_schamus_the_assertions_here_are_unequivocal_hurtful_and_remarkable
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 12, 2009, 12:11:25 PM
I never bought into that idea--that Focus was tailoring its campaign to
more hetero tastes, simply because they had an array of ads.  Also, there
were the statements that the trailer had been recut so that people wouldn't
know that the film was gay themed -- I don't know anyone who ever saw a
trailer like that, did anyone here?

There were some gay journalists at the time who wrote a lot of complaints
about BBM, all wanting it to have comformed to their own particular notions
of what it should be, including it should have been cast with gay actors, etc.

Also, the idea that BBM didn't win because of false advertising is ludicrous.
If there was anyone who didn't know BBM was about gay cowboys, I'd be
downright shocked.

But I love that these issues keep coming up.  I can't comment on
A Single Man's advertising approach, but the gay writer/director
has been on some of the nightly talk shows this past week and
there's no mistaking from his appearances that he's gay and it's
from a novel by a gay author with gay characters.

Also, I loved the film, but it is definitely NOT a film that is going
to appeal to mass audiences, and that has nothing to do with its
gay themes.  It's an art house film.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on December 12, 2009, 12:43:58 PM
Michael Philips and A. O. Scott - on their film review program AT THE MOVIES - are selecting their picks for the Top Ten films of the decade.  i believe Philips is the critic for the Chicago Tribune and Scott for The New York Times.  

On this weeks show they are down to Number 3, and Scott's pick was Brokeback Mountain.

Moreover - if you go to that program's website - (link below) - you can vote for YOUR favorite film of the decade!

http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/specials/bestofthedecade/index.html

Get busy, everyone.

So far, this week's viewer favorites are:

Viewer's Top 10 Pick This Week:
1. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
2. The Dark Knight
3. WALL-E
4. There Will Be Blood
5. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
6. The Departed
7. No Country For Old Men
8. Pan's Labyrinth
9. Children of Men
10. Mulholland Dr.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on December 12, 2009, 04:03:25 PM
There were a great many people who didn't know Brokeback Mountain was the "gay cowboy" film. The manager of my local video store told me they had to establish a policy of asking people if they knew about the film whenever they brought it to the checkout because they had so many complaints from customers. He said in the 15 years he's worked there, they've never had to do that before. So obviously advertising for the film was not all that clear.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on December 12, 2009, 05:55:36 PM
There were a great many people who didn't know Brokeback Mountain was the "gay cowboy" film.

by the time Brokeback was in video stores everyone should have known what the subject matter was unless they were living on another planet.

The people complaining about it probably knew exactly what they were renting. they just had to complain about it because they didn't want the employees in the store thinking they wanted to see a 'gay' movie.

I used to work in an adult bookstore, and we had customers renting "bi' videos (tapes in them earlier days) all the time and complaining about the content after they viewed it and asking for a refund or exchange.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on December 12, 2009, 09:30:11 PM
I know very few people who pay a lot of attention to movies or tv... which is why I treasure the ones who do. Around here we are down to one multiplex and when I was going to the movies on a regular basis, there was never more than a half dozen or so people in same theater as I was. Once, up in Bristol (about 30 miles,) there were maybe 2 dozen people watching Brokeback and I was amazed. Interest in film really depends on your location and I think urban/suburban people are more into that type of entertainment than rural families. Give us a tractor pull or demolition derby!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on December 12, 2009, 09:44:40 PM
that's how it was when i went to see the movie in Michigan. A few times I was alone in the theater.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on December 13, 2009, 12:31:58 AM
Do you know how many people go into the wrong theater at a multiplex and sit through the first chunk of a film--sometimes INCLUDING THE OPENING CREDITS--and the realize their mistake?  Some people are just too dumb to live.

I think BayCityJohn's theory is right on; people just wanted to make a stink so no one would think anything about them having rented it.  There were four older-ish teenage boys when we saw "The Chronicles of Narnia" who were having a nervous breakdown during the previews, lest they be "forced" to see the "Brokeback" trailer.  (Um, not on the front of "Narnia," you dweebs.)  They were being very vocal and embarassing themselves by making sure that all of their friends--indeed, everyone around them--knew they were all supposedly straight.

The heterosexual male mind is a sometimes embarassing thing.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: trekfan on December 13, 2009, 10:44:12 AM
I first heard about BBM because of SNL.  I was watching it and saw a skit based on the movie.   I don't think they had many ads on TV for the movie that was why I came into the game late (so to speak) 

BUT I went looking online to learn more and the first scene I came across was the dozy embrace (I had no idea where in the movie this scene was shown)   SO if I didn't know it was about two gay cowboys I must have been watching with my eyes closed.   PLUS wouldn't the synopsis on the cover of the DVD give it away?

I didn't find that focus ever tried to create an image for BBM that took any gay themes out.   I think everyone was proud of this movie, and after seeing just how successful it was (Focus certain was looking at those box office #s)  they weren't about to cover up what the movie was about when it came time for Oscar consideration.

If anyone was really afraid of the content then Focus wouldn't have made the movie and BBM would have stayed in limbo (thank GOODNESS that didn't happen.  I can't think of a more worthwhile story being made into a movie than BBM.   It changed so many lives, affected so many people.    And showed us two actors who brought those wonderful men to life so convincingly that they are very real to us)

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on December 13, 2009, 04:45:34 PM
The American Film Institute has named their selections for Ten Best Movies of 2009:

AFI MOVIES OF THE YEAR-OFFICIAL SELECTIONS

CORALINE

THE HANGOVER

THE HURT LOCKER

THE MESSENGER

PRECIOUS

A SERIOUS MAN

A SINGLE MAN

SUGAR

UP

UP IN THE AIR

(Notice what's missing:  Avatar; Inglorius Basterds; Invictus)



And the LA Film Critics have just announced their awards:

The gritty Iraq war drama “The Hurt Locker” was named best film of 2009 by the Los Angeles Film Critics Assn. this afternoon. The film’s director, Kathryn Bigelow, won for best director.

The runner-up in the best film category was the comedy-drama “Up in the Air,” and Michael Haneke was the best director runner-up for “The White Ribbon.”

Jeff Bridges was named best actor for his performance as Bad Blake, a hard-living, washed-up country singer in “Crazy Heart.” Colin Firth was runner-up for “A Single Man.”

Yolande Moreau earned best actress honors in “Séraphine,” as Séraphine Louis, a devout housekeeper who was a self-taught painter. Carey Mulligan was runner-up for “An Education.”

Christoph Waltz was named best supporting actor as the sadistic Nazi officer in “Inglourious Basterds.” Peter Capaldi was runner-up for “In the Loop.” Mo’Nique won best supporting actress as an abusive mother for “Precious.” Anna Kendrick was runner-up for “Up in the Air.”

Wes Anderson’s “Fantastic Mr. Fox” edged out “Up” for best animated film. The French drama “Summer Hours” was named best foreign film, with “The White Ribbon” earning runner-up honors.

T Bone Burnett and Stephen Bruton won best music/score for “Crazy Heart.” Alexandre Desplat was runner-up in the category for “Fantastic Mr. Fox.”

Philip Ivey earned production design honors for “District 9,” with Rick Carter and Robert Stromberg named runner-up for ‘Avatar.” “District 9” director Neill Blomkamp won the New Generation award.

Best cinematography went to Christian Berger for “The White Ribbon.” Barry Ackroyd was runner-up for “The Hurt Locker.”

Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner won for their screenplay for “Up in the Air.” Runner-up was Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci and Tony Roche for “In the Loop."

“The Beaches of Agnés” and “The Cove” tied for best documentary/nonfiction film.

Last year, the critics gave the Disney-Pixar animated hit “Wall-E” best picture honors -- “Slumdog Millionaire” went on to earn the best picture Oscar. The last time the LAFCA and the Academy Awards agreed on best film was for 1993’s “Schindler’s List.”
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on December 14, 2009, 11:33:33 AM
And the New York Film Critics weigh in:

New York Film Critics
Association Awards 2009
         
Best Film
“The Hurt Locker”

Best Director
Kathryn Bigelow for “The Hurt Locker”

Best Screenplay
“In the Loop”

Best Actress
Meryl Streep for “Julie & Julia”

Best Actor
George Clooney for “Up In The Air” and “Fantastic Mr. Fox”

Best Supporting Actress
Mo’Nique for “Precious”

Best Supporting Actor
Christoph Waltz for “Inglourious Basterds”

Best Cinematography
Christian Berger for “The White Ribbon”

Best Animated Film
“Fantastic Mr. Fox”

Best Non-fiction Film
“Of Time and the City”

Best Foreign Language Film
“Summer Hours”

Best First Feature
“Hunger,” director Steve McQueen
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 14, 2009, 04:13:47 PM
The American Film Institute has named their selections for Ten Best Movies of 2009:

AFI MOVIES OF THE YEAR-OFFICIAL SELECTIONS

(Notice what's missing:  Avatar; Inglorius Basterds; Invictus)

Glad to see A Single Man on there, but they also left out movies like
Star Trek (this year's The Dark Knight) and District 9, sci-fi, ya know,
ain't top ten worthy to most critics groups.

The past few years the AFI has always put on a comedy like The Hangover
so they don't seem like out of touch fuddy duddies.  In 2005 it was The
40 Year Old Virgin.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on December 16, 2009, 10:21:51 AM
The only consensus across the boards that I'm seeing thus far is that EVERYONE seems to love "The Hurt Locker" and "Up in the Air."  "Precious" "A Single Man" "Nine" "Inglorious Basterds" also are looking like contenders; jury's still out on "Invictus" and "Avatar," though "The Lovely Bones" looks like it's heading for the scrap heap. Acting awards seem to be scattering all over the place, but I'm seeing George Clooney, Colin Firth, Meryl Streep, Mo'nique and Christopher Waltz with some regularity.   Animated film is looking like a brutal fight this year between "Up" "The Princess and the Frog" and "Fantastic Mr. Fox."  "(500) Days of Summer" and Joseph Gordon-Leavitt seem to be dark horses with some support as well.

I'm a little surprised that Sam Rockwell in "Moon" and "District 9" aren't being mentioned more in year-end awards.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 16, 2009, 12:56:40 PM
Like I said, sci-fi is not taken seriously by the Academy.
Star Trek was one of the best reviewed movies of the year.
Alien or Aliens could have been a Best Picture nominee.
Back to the Future.  Or more a more serious themed one
like 2001. 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 16, 2009, 01:01:48 PM
At the "Whatever Happened to Ennis del Mar?" event
at the Autry last weekend, film critic Kenneth Turan, one
of the panelists, who is based in Los Angeles and presumably
has contact with academy insiders, suggested that although
you don't get to have "do-overs" with the oscars, that if they could,
he believes the academy would reverse this decision and award
Brokeback Mountain the best picture oscar. 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on December 16, 2009, 01:18:33 PM
At the "Whatever Happened to Ennis del Mar?" event
at the Autry last weekend, film critic Kenneth Turan, one
of the panelists, who is based in Los Angeles and presumably
has contact with academy insiders, suggested that although
you don't get to have "do-overs" with the oscars, that if they could,
he believes the academy would reverse this decision and award
Brokeback Mountain the best picture oscar. 

That was nice to hear.

I still think it had to be a pretty close vote.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on December 16, 2009, 03:07:57 PM
Peter Knegt has written a response to James Schamus


Quote
Peter Knegt says on December 15, 2009 at 3:25pm:

Though I completely understand where Mr. Schamus is coming from, in my defense I must emphasize that the reference to “Brokeback Mountain” in this story was simply a footnote to another, more detailed one.  I did not intend for it to wholly represent “Brokeback”‘s campaign.  I understand it is a small fraction of a campaign that is very complex and extensive (I actually wrote a chapter of my Master’s thesis on the campaign, so am well aware of its many sides), and apologize if it seemed to suggest otherwise.

That said, I stand by my opinion regarding those three specific ads, but obviously understand that an analysis of something like an advertisement can be quite subjective. 

Also, when I wrote “And we all know how “Brokeback Mountain”‘s Oscar campaign worked out in the end…,” it did not intend to claim that those ads were the reason “Brokeback” lost.  I don’t believe that in the slightest. I was simply attempting to be playful in noting what happened to “Brokeback Mountain”‘s on Oscar night.

It should also be noted that this particular sentence - and the entire quotation used in the above letter - was written on my personal blog, not the article in question.  My blog is one that I do not take particularly seriously, and do not intend for an extensive audience.

More than anything, though, let me make this clear, which is perhaps why I’ve found this situation particularly unfortunate.  I loved “Brokeback Mountain,” I’m a huge fan of Mr. Schamus’s work, and the article in question was 99% about something other than both.  I look forward to giving “Brokeback Mountain”‘s Oscar campaign a more fair analysis on indieWIRE in the future.  But in the meantime, I felt it was necessary for me to defend what my article intended, which was certainly not to be unequivocal, hurtful or remarkable.
 



http://www.indiewire.com/article/2009/12/11/james_schamus_the_assertions_here_are_unequivocal_hurtful_and_remarkable
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on December 18, 2009, 03:29:54 PM
Wilshire & Washington on Variety.com

The "Brokeback" Vote, Reconsidered

Quote
Much has changed in the years since "Brokeback Mountain," having won nearly all the major awards leading up to the Oscars in 2006, was rejected in favor of "Crash" for the ultimate best picture trophy.

Same-sex relationships have gained a greater acceptance, even if the idea of marriage has progressed in fits and starts.

One of the most prominent critics of the Academy that year, the Los Angeles Times Kenneth Turan, believes that the vote would have turned out differently today.

"I can still feel my anger," Turan said at a recent panel on the movie as part of Out West, a new series at the Autry National Center of the American West. "I really think that if the Academy could have a do over they would vote for 'Brokeback.' I think that their decision over time has come to seem less acceptable and less like the right thing."

----------------------------------------------------

Quote
"Brokeback" has lived on in the form of "Brokies" fan groups, who write their own stories of the characters and continue to watch the movie, over and over again. Its lines are still part of the cultural lexicon. And the fact that the Autry Museum is spotlighting "Brokeback," and the gay west in general, is considered something of an achievement.

Quote
The idea that Academy voters acted on their unspoken prejudices in 2006 is a much debated theory, and one that never can be proven. But it's hard to doubt something else that Turan wrote that night, a prediction that the movie would stand the test of time in ways that "Crash" would not: "Sometimes you win by losing."

http://www.wilshireandwashington.com/2009/12/the-brokeback-vote-reconsidered.html

Wilshire & Washington highlights the enduring relationship between entertainment and politics. More than a mere curiosity, the intersection of these worlds play out daily in fund raising, celebrity causes, show business lobbying and creative expression. Variety managing editor Ted Johnson provides the daily dose with contributions from reporters in L.A. and D.C.

Winner, Blog of the Year 2008, Southern California Journalism Awards.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 21, 2009, 04:57:03 PM

The best films of the '00s:
The AVClub


From the AVClub website, Top Fifty films of the decade:
 
#43 - Brokeback Mountain (2005)
(http://media.avclub.com/images/articles/article/35931/43-Brokeback_Mountain_jpg_595x1000_q85.jpg)
It can be prohibitively difficult to separate the considerable aesthetic merits of Brokeback Mountain from the culture-wide wave of controversy, snickering jokes, and embarrassed tittering it unleashed upon its 2005 release. Honestly, it was as if Americans had never seen a serious film about gay cowboys before. Four years on, it’s much easier to extract Ang Lee’s tragic romance from the hype. In a powerfully internal lead performance, Heath Ledger plays a tormented ranch hand who stumbles into a passionate affair with rodeo cowboy Jake Gyllenhaal while tending sheep one summer. Over the next two decades, their forbidden bond looms over their doomed attempts to conform to society’s narrow conception of masculinity. Brokeback Mountain attains a devastating cumulative power as time, circumstances, and Ledger’s profound ambivalence and self-loathing conspire to keep these two lovers apart. Though the seemingly incongruous juxtaposition of cowboy iconography and homosexuality made Brokeback Mountain a pop-culture phenomenon, it endures as a powerful, universal story of love won and lost. 

Heath film:
#41 - The Dark Knight (2008)

Another film from 2005
not nominated for Best Picture:
#37 - A History Of Violence (2005)

Ang Lee film:
#29 - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)  

Film with a main gay character, a real-life hero even,
never identified as such:
#22 - United 93 (2006)

Jake Film:
#21 - Zodiac (2007)

http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-best-films-of-the-00s,35931/4/

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 21, 2009, 05:32:31 PM
The Best-Reviewed Movies of the Decade, 2000-09
from Metacritic


This is a review site like Rottentomatoes.
I don't know how they compute the scores,
but these are the results:

#63 - Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Ang Lee film:
#9 - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Gay themed film:
#21 - Beau Travail (or at least homoerotic)
#49 - Capote

Gay character:
#31 - United 93 (not identified as such)

They rent Brokeback Mountain in it:
#99 - Knocked Up (2007)

Unless you are a cinema aficionado, you probably noticed something else about the list above: you haven’t heard of many of those movies. Indeed, a large portion of that Top 100 is occupied by foreign films and less-publicized art house films — films that played in few theaters (especially outside of Los Angeles and New York). A full 43% of the films listed above are foreign-language films, and many of those that are in English are obscure gems, like the documentary Los Angeles Plays Itself (which isn’t even available on DVD) and the unconventional buddy drama Goodbye Solo.

What if we filtered out those limited release movies, and compiled a list of the
Top 100 wide releases from the past ten years?


The Best-Reviewed Wide-Release Films of the Decade, 2000-09

#27 - Brokeback Mountain   2005

Ang Lee film:
#7 - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Gay themed films:
#23 - Capote
#40 - Milk

Heath film:
#62 - Dark Knight, The

Movies rated higher than crash, 2005:
#66 - History of Violence, A
#79 - Good Night, and Good Luck

Gay characters:
#15 - United 93 (not identified)
#80 - Little Miss Sunshine
#87 - Precious: Based on the Novel by Sapphire

Jake film:
#96 - Zodiac

Metacritic's Best-Reviewed Westerns of the Decade, 2000-09

#1 -   Brokeback Mountain

http://features.metacritic.com/features/2009/the-best-movies-of-the-decade/
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 21, 2009, 05:37:43 PM
I have to comment on Capote's high metacritic rating.
Perhaps I will never understand, even after all the reviews
I have read of that film, and commentary, why critics thought
so much of it.  Usually I can figure out why some like a film in
ways that I do not, but in this case, I really don't get it.  And even more
so after seeing Infamous which was the same telling of the same
story.  I will just have to agree that they were all wrong and someday
they'll figure it out and then someday after that admit it.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: fritzkep on December 21, 2009, 06:10:41 PM
I have to comment on Capote's high metacritic rating.
Perhaps I will never understand, even after all the reviews
I have read of that film, and commentary, why critics thought
so much of it.  Usually I can figure out why some like a film in
ways that I do not, but in this case, I really don't get it.  And even more
so after seeing Infamous which was the same telling of the same
story.  I will just have to agree that they were all wrong and someday
they'll figure it out and then someday after that admit it.

About as likely as the person who dreamed up New Coke will admit that that was a mistake, Lyle!  :D

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on December 23, 2009, 11:55:13 AM
Worst Movie of the Decade: ‘Crash’

by Sara Libby



Quote
I haven’t created any best-of or worst-of lists yet, but I think that the 2000s featured one cultural phenomenon that deserves its own special shoutout for true heinousness: the 2004 2005 best picture winner “Crash.”

It’s been called a “feel-good” racism movie – one that leads people to believe they’re on the right side of racism, when in fact they’re just having their buttons pushed and their preconceived notions re-affirmed.


Quote
The fact that racism exists should go without saying, and yet “Crash” wastes an entire film trying to prove what we already know is true. The movie beat out “Brokeback Mountain” for a surprise best picture win at the Oscars. It’s no surprise, really, given all the clamor about our “post-racial” society, while the gay rights movement is still suffering setback after setback.

http://trueslant.com/saralibby/2009/12/23/worst-movie-of-the-decade-crash/ (http://trueslant.com/saralibby/2009/12/23/worst-movie-of-the-decade-crash/)

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on December 23, 2009, 12:03:09 PM
Best. Gay. Decade. Ever. (December 23, 2009)


by Michael Jensen, Editor
December 23, 2009

THERE WAS BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE
Much like 2006 seemed it could be a pivotal moment in kicking down the celebrity closet, the release of Brokeback Mountain in 2005 also seemed like it might mark a turning point in how Hollywood approached gay material.

After all, the movie was a critical success taking in $175 million around the world while becoming the most critically acclaimed movie of all time before somehow losing the Best Picture Oscar to Crash. Fortunately, our readers have twice named it the Greatest Gay Movie of All Time so not all is lost.


(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj282/SanFranciscoJohn/bbmhug.jpg)
Will anyone ever get tired of this picture? No, seriously. Anyone?

http://www.afterelton.com/bgwe/12-23-09?page=0%2C7 (http://www.afterelton.com/bgwe/12-23-09?page=0%2C7)

There is a poll on the site:
Quote
But which gay movie did you think was the decade's best? Frankly, since we all know the answer to that is going to be Brokeback Mountain, I'm going to let everyone pick two movies. I'm also including polls for best gay indie movie and worst Hollywood movie.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on December 23, 2009, 12:12:25 PM
2 more polls in the same article on AfterElton.

I'm posting the poll here and highlighting the correct answers  ;D

What was the best gay/bi pop culture story of the decade?

Neil Patrick Harris, T.R. Knight, Lance Bass coming out

The success of Brokeback Mountain

The success of Adam Lambert

Luke and Noah finally having sex on ATWT

Dustin Lance Black's Oscar acceptance speech

Matthew Mitcham wins gold medal at the Beijing Olympics

Torchwood becomes a smash hit

Richard Hatch wins Survivor

Neil Patrick Harris' success after coming out

George Takei and Brad Altman marry

Kevin and Scotty get married on Brothers & Sisters

The success of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy



What was the worst gay/bi pop culture story of the decade?


Brokeback Mountain loses Oscar to Crash

Stephen Gately dies unexpectedly

Heath Ledger dies unexpectedly

Perez Hilton turns Carrie Prejean anti-gay icon

Tim Hardaway airs homophobia on radio

Snicker's Superbowl kissing ad

The Adam Lambert controversy

Torchwood kills off Ianto Jones




POLLS:
http://www.afterelton.com/bgwe/12-23-09?page=0%2C9
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on December 28, 2009, 06:23:37 AM
Quote from: BayCityJohn link=topic=27999.msg1745571#msg1745571 date=1261595545

[b
What was the worst gay/bi pop culture story of the decade?[/b]

Heath Ledger dies unexpectedly

POLLS:
http://www.afterelton.com/bgwe/12-23-09?page=0%2C9


THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN #1 IN MY BOOK.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on December 28, 2009, 10:19:09 AM
The Movie Madden here in Minneapolis named CRASH one of the worst movies of the decade. I forget her name. She was on the movie special that was on Public Radio. Its a Yearly thing. This year's was about the Decade.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 28, 2009, 04:04:41 PM
This is an article about when ampas chooses a different
best picture winner than the director winner's film.
In the article he gets the year wrong, even though
he says it's "our favorite year"...lol... 

"Oscar Flashback – Famous Big Splits"
Sasha Stone/Awards Daily

Quote
No, we’re not talking about Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins (sob), but of those recent years where Picture and Director split. 
[...]
Then we get to our favorite year, 2004, the Crash v. Brokeback Mountain year.  This is unique from the others in that Brokeback was not a war film.  It was an epic, though, and it was most certainly the critics’ darling (and the guilds, etc.) Crash was an uplifting story with an unbelievably miraculous ending.   I mean unbelievably and unbelievable.  Brokeback Mountain was the better movie, there is no question.  I know that more people “liked” Crash better – that is, the muggles for sure.  More people told me they liked Crash in real life than Brokeback.  Me, I preferred Brokeback to almost every other film that year.

http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=17024#more-17024

Broughtback Mountain:
A couple replies to the article that show this still irks the hell out
of us when it is broughtback to our attention.

And, no, I am not Jay, lol:

Quote
screenguy 
December 24th, 2009 at 10:07 am Reply #5

Nice piece, Sasha. I’d never really looked at the splits that way, but most of the recent ones (and some historical ones where the big entertainment piece beat out the “auteur” director film (Around the World in 80 Days/Giant; American in Paris/A Place in the Sun; Greatest Show on Earth/The Quiet Man) definitely show a trend in that direction.

I’m not sure Crash/Brokeback really fits the mold though. I think Brokeback did not win best picture for one simple reason: Some very vocal Academy members let it be known that they would never even watch a “gay cowboy movie” let alone vote for it, and they championed Crash as the alternative.

Quote
Jay
December 24th, 2009 at 10:09 am  Reply #6

Chariots also won the Golden Globe for foreign film. And remember, there were very few precursors back then, so even though it was an upset, its not like anything had overwhelming support. Reds was robbed.

Every year I post articles by Ken Turan and Erik Lundegaard, and my own rants about why the Oscars have no integrity since the Brokeback loss. I am reposting them again below. I think the success of California Prop 8 only reinforces what I am saying (and each year, more and more people seem to agree). Its a source of great satisfaction that Brokeback, along with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, seems to be on the most major best of decade lists, while Crash is nowhere to be seen on any. The London Film Critics 10 Best of the Past 30 Years (with Brokeback #5) was also pretty amazing.

In any event, thanks to Sasha for indulging me these posts, but I think they are worth reading, as they present a valid point of view as to what the Oscars truly are, a corrupt political body, alas like so many others. Thanks.

“The Oscars are an endless source of irritation to me, so I’d love to try to convince you why they are corrupt and not worth your time. To provide context, I used to have a 100+ person Oscar party every year in my apartment, Jodie Foster and some less famous types attended a few times, so I know what you mean by the entertainment value. However, in 2005 they abandoned the shred of integrity they still possessed, they outraged not just me but thousands of film buffs and people generally appalled by discriminatory politics, so I have been on a mission to provide context to those willing to listen.
Truth be told, the Academy’s history mirrors the country’s mood at any given time. They committed unforgivable artistic atrocities in the 1950s under the influence of the McCarthy era, and they have done the same the past decade or so as the country turned against Clinton per Monica, and over to Bush, the worst of all It is not just about some stupid movie award, they yield a lot of power as a microcosm of the American power elite, so I find it all most interesting.

It is fine for people to prefer Brokeback to Crash,
or Crash to Brokeback. Roger Ebert preferred Crash; he
is not a bigot (but he is virtually the only major
critic in America who did prefer Crash, virtually all
others overwhelmingly preferred Brokeback). However,
for those of us who call the Academy bigots for
selecting Crash, there is
a huge amount of evidence. I never previously called
the Academy bigots for denying other films with black
or Jewish or gay themes the Oscar, but this was
different. The Crash upset over Brokeback Mountain is
considered by many film historians to be the biggest
and among the most egregious in film history for the
following reasons:

Please try to forget one’s own personal opinion of
Brokeback as you read this (believe it or not, I am),
and consider Oscar history. In its 78 year history,
the “best” film of the year has rarely won the Oscar,
10-20 times at best, a poor history. But last year’s
Best Picture upset was unprecedented, and it happened
for insidious reasons. Brokeback, prior to the Oscars,
was the most honored film in movie history for a
single year, winning more Best Picture/ Director
prizes than any other film ever, including Schindler’s
List (though admittedly there are more prizes now, but
Brokeback still did slightly better than even that
film when you take Director prizes into account).
Nothing with its combination of critical AND guild
prizes had ever lost. L.A. Confidential swept the
critics’ prizes in 1997, but then Titanic’s onslaught
gave it the Globe, major guilds prizes, and the stage
was set for the Oscars. But Brokeback won the
Producers, Directors and Writers Guild awards. No
film with those 3 had ever lost. Brokeback won the
Golden Globe, DGA and had the most nominations. No
film with that combination had ever lost. Brokeback
had the New York and Los Angeles Film Critics awards,
with the most nominations, again, a trio that had
never lost. There are other combos along those lines.
And
it even won major prizes in Europe, like BAFTA,
Venice, ultra- prestigious Sight & Sound’s #1 film,
etc. I can go on.

Just as important, Brokeback was the top box office
earner among the nominees and,
rated the number 1 box office story of the year among
all 2005 films, per major site Box Office Mojo. And,
Brokeback was undeniably a cultural zeitgeist. When
you do the math, there is absolutely no way, no how
Brokeback should have lost. The only other losing
film even in Brokeback’s league vis-a-vis pre-Oscar
prizes was Saving Private Ryan. But even Ryan didn’t
have Brokeback’s overwhelming dominance at critics’
prizes,
plus Ryan fell short at the Writers Guild and other
screenplay prizes, whereas Brokeback won many,
including the Globe, Guild, etc. So what happened???

Shortly after the nominations, the
Academy received a petition signed by 60,000 right
wingers stating that they would never watch the Oscars
again if “the gay movie” won, and that their friends
felt the same. Then, the late night talk shows
stepped up the gay jokes, and the film started to
become a bit of a joke. Then, Hollywood
relics/legends Tony Curtis and Ernest Borgnine each
publically stated that neither they nor any of their
friends would even see Brokeback, because “John Wayne
would roll over in his grave”. As an aside, can you
imagine the (rightful) outcry there would have been
had people said they refused to see the black film,
the Jewish film, the hispanic film?

Anyhow, that’s when the pundits started saying that
perhaps another film would win. Nobody believed them
because of the overwhelming dominance of Brokeback,
and besides, there was nothing to support. That’s
when Crash become “the great straight hope”. Pundits
like Tom O’Neil who predicted Good Night and Good Luck
prior to the Globes gave up on that film, while
everyone knew that both Munich and Capote were lucky
to be nominated (deserving, but still lucky, most
thought Walk the Line would take one of their slots).
Crash, which had was not a factor in any major
critical races except for the Roger Ebert awards -
excuse me – the Chicago Film Critics awards, suddenly
won the Actor’s Guild Ensemble prize, and suddenly,
there was a film to rally behind. Never mind that
that ensemble award is NOT a Best Picture prize, past
winners include The Birdcage, The Full Monty, Gosford
Park, etc., none of which were remotely serious
contenders for the Oscar. At the Oscars, however, 3
performances were nominated from Brokeback, only 1
from Crash, further confirming that SAG voters likely
appreciated the huge cast of Crash and supported it as
such (plus that video onslaught); Brokeback had a
number of important rolls, but really it’s a 2-4
person movie, at most; Crash had a solid dozen. But
still, Crash got a 69 at metacritic,
a terrible score, the lowest of any nominee (I think
since metacritic’s inception), and Crash wasn’t even
nominated for the Golden Globe. Since the Globes
started in 1943, every single Oscar winner had at
least been nominated for the Globe, with only one
exception, The Sting, and supposedly that was on
account of category confusion – was Sting a drama or
comedy. (I had the same problem with Crash, but it
wasn’t supposed to be funny). But there was nothing
else, and Lion’s Gate mounted an extremely aggressive
campaign, giving the anti-Brokebackers – the senior
males of the Academy – something to rally behind.
People like Ebert (one of only two 100 major national
critics who took part in a what should win poll who
didn’t support Brokeback, the other being a
conservative from Kansas City) and Oprah Winfrey
chimed in, and instead of condemning Curtis and
Borgnine for their blatant homophobia, things became
strangely, shockingly silent in Hollywood re:
Brokeback. Everyone suddenly talked Crash – but NOT
for Crash’s newly discovered merits (it was the
earliest release of all nominees and pretty much a
non-event), but because the Academy decided to play it
safe, go with politically correct Crash, and cower to
blant bigotry. This was not a
Warren-is-too-arrogant-so-we’ll-pick-Chariots-over-Reds
backlash. This was not Harvey Weinstein going door to
door (literally) for Shakespeare in Love. This was a
blatant act of cowardice by the Academy. There is
truly no other explanation, I wish there was, but
there is no way that they suddenly deemed it better
when almost everyone else disagreed. The Academy had
never been mavericks, the Picture favorite almost
always wins. [By the way, this is not meant to chide
Ebert & Oprah, they both cited Brokeback as a great
film, each genuinely preferred Crash, fair enough, but
their influence was used by others to create the
illusion of
mediocrely-received Crash as a true contender]

I had been an Oscars fanatic since I was 8 years old,
saw a list of major winners, and with an odd
photographic memory remembered them all. I still do.
And, I had disagreed with the Academy’s Best Picture
choice all but twice in the prior 20 years. But I
realized my opinion wasn’t the thing: was the Academy
being honest? I thought they were. But now, members
were admitting they were voting without even watching
all the nominees, the overwhelming slam-dunk
front-runner, because “John Wayne would roll over in
his grave”. Am I the only one incredibly offended by
that? Gay/straight, black/white, etc., should not
matter, we should all be
offended because that is prejudice at its worst. And
besides, where is the Academy’s credibility if their
members aren’t forced to watch all nominees before
voting, at least in the categories where they vote?
Committees are appointed to nominate foreign films and
documentaries, and I agree with that policy since
obviously Academy members are too busy to see every
film, whereas committee members commit to do so. It
is it too much to ask the Academy to watch their Best
Picture nominees, and if they feel they have a
personal conflict with one (to put it kindly), to
recuse themselves and not vote? And is it too much to
ask the Academy to condemn bigotry, in whatever form,
from their members? I still cannot believe Brokeback
Mountain lost, although so did Citizen Kane, The
Grapes of Wrath, Raging Bull, Dr. Strangelove, The
Graduate, Goodfellas, Fargo, The Pianist, non-nominees
2001, Vertigo, The Searchers, Singin’ in the Rain,
Some Like It Hot, City Lights, Touch of Evil, etc. But
despite the greatness of these other movies,
Brokeback’s is the most egregious loss because it was
“supposed to win” more than any other ever (playing by
the Academy’s own rules), because it so deserved the
prize – even Paul Haggis said so in Entertainment
Weekly (“EW: can anything stop Brokeback?; PH: No, and
nothing should, it’s a wonderful film” – good for
Haggis). And it lost because a very large contingent
refused to open their minds and hearts, or to even
watch it, the antithesis of what an Academy should do.

As a crazy avid movie buff, it is painful for me to
shut off the Academy after 30 years, but I am done. It
is the right thing to do. I am aware of the Academy’s
power, I don’t care if my protest is in a vacuum
(though am pleased to have discovered so many others
who agree). But I hope it’s not, because like
everyone else, they too are slaves to almighty
ratings. If enough people demonstrate they will not
tolerate bigotry and cowardice, perhaps in time they
might lose some of their luster. I hope so. Thanks
for reading.”

P.S. Not even nominated, English-language only: The
General, Sunrise, The Crowd, The Wedding March,
Frankenstein, City Lights, Duck Soup, Top Hat, Modern
Times, Make Way for Tomorrow, Bringing Up Baby, Snow
White and the Seven Dwarfs,
Gunga Din, Fantasia, The Lady Eve, To Be or Not
To Be, Miracle of Morgan’s Creek, Meet Me in St.
Louis, My Darling Clementine, Brief Encounter,
Stairway to Heaven, Notorious, Odd Man Out, Monsieur
Verdoux, Letter from An Unknown Woman, Red River, Kind
Hearts and Coronets, The Third Man, The African Queen,
Singin’ in the Rain, The Band Wagon, Rear Window,
Night of the Hunter, Rebel Without a Cause, Bad Day at
Black Rock, The Searchers, Paths of Glory, Sweet Smell
of Success, Vertigo, Touch of Evil, Some Like It Hot,
Rio Bravo, Psycho, Spartacus, The Manchurian
Candidate, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, 2001: A
Space Odyssey, The Wild Bunch, Easy Rider, Young
Frankenstein, A Woman Under the Influence,
Close Encounters, Manhattan, Blade Runner, Sophie’s
Choice, Once Upon a Time in America (& West), Blue
Velvet, A Cry in the Dark, Do the Right Thing,
Thelma and Louise, The Usual Suspects, Breaking the
Waves, Gods and Monsters, The Truman Show, Fight Club,
Being John Malkovich, Almost Famous, Mulholland
Drive, Far From Heaven, Finding Nemo, Eternal
Sunishine of the Spotless Mind, The Constant Gardner,
A History of Violence, Before the Devil Knows You’re
Dead.

Just a few famous nominated, deserving include Grand
Illusion, The Wizard of Oz (good thing for Wizard they
had 10 nominees back then or it wouldn’t have made the
cut- GWTW, Wuthering Heights, Stage Coach, Mr. Smith &
Goodbye Mr. Chips all did much better than Oz at the
nominations, those would have been the 5), The Grapes
of Wrath, The Magnificent Ambersons, Double
Indemnity, It’s a Wonderful Life, Great Expectations,
Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Sunset Boulevard,
Streetcar Names Desire, Place in the Sun, High Noon,
Shane, Giant, Defiant Ones, Dr. Strangelove, Doctor
Zhivago, Virginia Woolf, The Graduate, Bonnie and
Clyde, The Lion in Winter, Butch Cassidy, MASH,
Clockwork Orange, Last Picture Show, Exorcist or
American Graffiti, Cries and Whispers, Chinatown,
Barry Lyndon, Nashville, Jaws, Network, Taxi
Driver, All the President’s Men, Star Wars, Apocalypse
Now, Raging Bull, Reds, Raiders of the Lost Ark,
E.T., Tootsie, Field of Dreams, Goodfellas,
Beauty and the Beast, Pulp Fiction, The Shawshank
Redemption, Quiz Show, Babe, Sense and Sensibility,
Fargo, LA Confidential, Saving Private Ryan,
Crouching Tiger, Traffic, Fellowship of the Ring, The
Pianist, Brokeback Mountain, and oh yeah, Citizen
Kane, which got only one award in 1941.

Oscar misfire: ‘Crash’ and burn
The Academy takes yet another step toward irrelevance
with its latest pick

COMMENTARY
By Erik Lundegaard
MSNBC contributor
Updated: 3:09 p.m. ET March 6, 2006

Talk about ruining a perfect evening. Jon Stewart was
funny, George Clooney was sharp, Salma Hayek looked
to-freakin’-die-for, Philip Seymour Hoffman won in
humble-but-lovable fashion and Ang Lee, the director
of one of the best movies of the year, became the
first non-Caucasian to win the Academy Award for best
director.

Then Jack Nicholson, presenting the best picture
winner, ruined everything. He didn’t say “Brokeback
Mountain”; he actually said…“Crash.”

No, he didn’t. Did he? He did. My god.

This is the worst best picture winner since “The
Greatest Show on Earth” in 1952. It may be worse than
that. “Greatest Show” was a dull, bloated romance set
against the backdrop of a three-ring circus but at
least it didn’t pretend to be important. “Crash”
thinks it’s important. “Crash” thinks it’s saying
something bold about racism in America.

But what is it saying?

That we all bear some form of racism. That we all
“stereotype” other races. That, when pressured, racist
sentiments spill out of us as easily as escaped air.

Here’s my take. Yes, we all bear some form of racism —
that’s obvious. Yes, we all “stereotype” other races
in some fashion — that’s obvious. (Particularly
obvious in the Los Angeles of “Crash,” where so many
characters are stereotypes.) But, no, we don’t easily
give voice to our racist sentiments. And that’s why
“Crash” rings so false.

Last month I wrote an article on the best picture
nominees (called “Anything But ‘Crash’”) in which I
talked about how the most potent form of racism in
this country is no longer overt but covert. Once upon
a time, yes yes yes, it was overt, which is another
reason why “Crash” sucks. It’s doing what
simple-minded generals do: It’s fighting the last war.

The “Crash” quiz
Here, let’s take a little quiz. Say you’re an Asian
woman who has just rear-ended the car in front of you.
What do you do? Do you…

Wait in your car until a police officer arrives
Exchange licenses with the driver of the other car
Notice that the driver of the other car is someone who
looks like Jennifer Esposito, immediately assume she’s
Mexican-American (as opposed to, say,
Italian-American), and then tell the African-American
police officer that “Mexicans no know how to drive.”
How about this one? You’re talking to a bureaucrat on
the phone about getting extra care for your father who
is having trouble urinating, and she is not helpful.
You ask for her name and she tells you: Shaniqua
Johnson. You still need her help. What do you say?

“Shaniqua. That’s a beautiful name.”
“Shaniqua. You could do a better job of helping my
father, who is in pain.
“Shaniqua. Big f—ing surprise that is.”
One last one. You’ve just been told by your hot, hot
girlfriend, with whom you’re lucky to be sleeping in
the first place, that she is not Mexican as you
presumed; that her mother is from Puerto Rico and her
father is from El Salvador. What do you say?

“I’m sorry, honey. I’m surprised I didn’t know that.
Now come back to bed.”
“Really? How did they meet?”
“Who took [all Latinos] and taught them to park their
cars on their lawns?”
And on and on and on. Every scene. Put a little
pressure on somebody and they blurt simplistic racist
sentiments. Right in the face of someone of that race.

Worse, none of it feels like sentiments these
characters would actually say. It feels like
sentiments writer/director Paul Haggis imposed upon
them to make his grand, dull point about racism, when
a more telling point about racism might have emerged
if he’d just let them be. “Crash” is like a Creative
Writing 101 demonstration of what not to do as a
writer. To the Academy this meant two things: Best
screenplay and best picture.

The Sandra Bullock/Ludacris scene
A few readers objected to my column last month — and
will no doubt object to this one. They felt “Crash”
taught them something important about race. More’s the
pity. They said they learned that even good people do
bad things, and even bad people have moments of
compassion. Sorry they didn’t already know this. They
felt like “Crash” was a movie the average person could
support. “Average,” I guess, is the key word here.

Some agreed with me that the most potent form of
racism today is covert rather than overt; but they
added that this was a movie, after all, not a book,
and in a movie you can’t show characters thinking.

Ah, but you can. Paul Haggis even did it in “Crash” —
in the scene where Sandra Bullock’s character grabs
her husband’s arm as two black men approach. Her move
toward her husband is silent and instinctive, and
Ludacris’ character suspects she does what she does
because he’s black, and she’s scared of him, but he
has no evidence. We only get the evidence later, from
her, when she argues with her husband about the Latino
locksmith. And even this scene is handled ineptly. She
should have argued with her husband upstairs, away
from the help. But Haggis wanted her to complain about
the Latino locksmith within earshot of the Latino
locksmith — because apparently that’s how we all do
it. Lord knows if I don’t trust someone because of
their race and/or class I raise my objection within
earshot of them. Doesn’t everyone?

The main point is that you can dramatize our more
covert forms of racism. But here’s how bad “Crash” is.
Even though the Bullock/Ludacris scene is one of the
more realistic scenes in the movie, it is still
monumentally simplistic. I have a white female friend
who lives close to the downtown area of her city.
Usually she walks home from downtown. If she does this
after dark, and two men are walking towards her,
she’ll cross to the other side of the street to avoid
them. But if the two men are black? She won’t do this,
because she’s afraid of appearing racist. That’s how
much of a conundrum race is in this country. “Crash”
didn’t begin to scratch that surface.

So why did it win?

There are rumors that older Academy members shied away
from even viewing “Brokeback Mountain” for the usual
homophobic reasons. Lionsgate also pushed “Crash” on
Academy voters; it handed out a record number of DVDs
and advertised heavily. I don’t know which explanation
bothers me more. All I know is I feel sick. It feels
like the ’72 Olympic basketball finals, when the
Russians cheated and won; it feels like the ’85 World
Series when a blown call in game six tilted the
balance towards the Royals. It feels like the good
guys wuz robbed.

My friend Jim is more interested in the Academy than
anyone I know who isn’t involved in the industry.
(He’s a chauffeur in Seattle.) By early summer he’s
already talking up possible nominees. The discussion
reaches a fever pitch in November and December when
the prestige pictures are rolled out and critics make
their “best of” announcements. He goes to see these
films. He talks about them. He actually cares.

Not anymore.

“Crash’s” win did him in. The Academy, he said
afterwards, “is not a serious body of voters who vote
rationally. If they’re influenced by a DVD sales
pitch, they’re not worth my time.”

Are they worth anyone’s time? Once again, they showed
themselves susceptible to something other than a
legitimate search for “the best.” Once again,
marketing appears to have won. The Academy is 78 years
old and acting every bit of it, and last night they
took another doddering step towards irrelevancy.

Breaking no ground
Why ‘Crash’ won, why ‘Brokeback’ lost and how the
academy chose to play it safe.
By Kenneth Turan, Times Staff Writer
March 5, 2006

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 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.

“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 actually do that job in the present.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on December 29, 2009, 06:23:21 AM
^^^^

The reply from Jay was great. Jay was a member of this fourm at one time. I forgot his stage name here on the site. He nailed back than and he nailed now.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on December 29, 2009, 11:16:21 AM
Another list I found as Brokeback at #2 movie of the decade.


http://hollywoodandfine.com/fineblog/?p=432
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 29, 2009, 12:43:56 PM
Thanks for posting that, Tom.

It is interesting to me that another film from 2005 is making
a great many of the best of the decade lists--A History of Violence.
I, too, thought it one of the best of at least 2005.  A haunting film,
yet entertaining with a lot to say.  Directed by a man who also
made another film named Crash.  It seems the academy couldn't
even get the nominees right that year.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on December 29, 2009, 12:59:01 PM
Very interested to see what USA TODAY says on Thursday.  If it's Claudia Puig, who knows; she was a big "Crash" fan, but also a huge "Brokeback" proponent.  (Conversely, Scott Bowles, who often does movie writing, always seemed to emphasize "the Oscar-winning Best Picture 'Crash'" every chance he got, and said very little about "Brokeback.")  Mike Clark, however, is one of the paper's most senior critics and handles the video column, and his anger after the 2006 Oscars knew no bounds. 

But for those keeping track, "Brokeback" has now been chosen as one of the best of the decade (indeed, often in the Top 10) by Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone, Metacritic, and the London folks.  Nice.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on December 29, 2009, 03:07:07 PM
Thanks for posting that, Tom.

It is interesting to me that another film from 2005 is making
a great many of the best of the decade lists--A History of Violence.
I, too, thought it one of the best of at least 2005. 

Yes, I think so too. LOL, we had quite the discussion
about this way back when.  I think DC and I were pretty much at each other's throats.  :o
Oilgun or dback, as I remember, had to pull us apart.
Anyway, it is a good flick.  Not sure Hurt deserved an Oscar nom but I'm not sure who
I would have put in his place either.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 29, 2009, 03:51:51 PM
From Movieline:

9 Characters of the '00s
Who Changed Movies Forever

S.T. VanAirsdale | Movieline | 29 Dec 2009

While the ’00s — or the Aughts, or whatever you want to call the decade
almost past — end at midnight Thursday, they leave a spectrum of legacies
for us to consider heading into the ’10s. Not a lot of them were very good for
movies, unfortunately, but filmgoers can still find some pretty significant
influences in all the debris and disappointments. And love them or hate
them, some of the most important influences came in convenient character
form.


[In order of appearance]

· Leticia Musgrove (Monster’s Ball, 2001)
· Jar Jar Binks (Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, 2002)
· Joel Barish (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 2004)

· Ennis Del Mar (Brokeback Mountain, 2005)
(http://www-movieline-com.vimg.net/images/decade_characters_ennis.jpg)
There’s not a lot more that can be said of Heath Ledger’s lovesick Wyoming
cowboy, who signaled a sea change in Hollywood’s approach to gay
characters at the movies. Beyond his political implications, however, Del Mar
was just the perfect role for Ledger: Masculine yet sensitive, brooding but not
especially self-aware, old soul in a young man’s body, and a milestone of
heartbreaking grace. Naturally he would be overlooked by Oscar voters, who
conveniently waited until after Ledger’s demise in 2008 to officially recognize
him. But forget the statuette — it’s what he did for Ang Lee’s camera that
makes him immortal.

· Effie Brown (Dreamgirls, 2006)
· Daniel Plainview (There Will Be Blood, 2007)
· Speed Racer (Speed Racer, 2008)
· Carrie Bradshaw (Sex and the City, 2008)
· Neytiri (Avatar, 2009)

 http://www.movieline.com/characters-of-the-00s.php (http://www.movieline.com/2009/12/9-characters-of-the-00s-who-changed-movies-forever.php?page=all)

P.S.:  Only two characters rated photos along with their inclusion, one being Ennis Del Mar.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on December 29, 2009, 07:56:17 PM
For what it's worth, after A.O. Scott chose BBM as his #3 film of the decade, I went back to his 10 Best List from 2005 to see what else he had chosen that year. 
What a shock to discover that not only wasn’t BBM at the top of his list, but it didn't even make his top 10!  In fact, it was listed only in the honorable mention category. 

I wonder what happened in that time to have caused him to make such an amazing re-appraisal of the film.   

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/25/movies/25scot.html
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 30, 2009, 01:03:10 PM
That is "verrrrrry(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_k07pirzBU34/SlQNlG6avqI/AAAAAAAABp8/iXjMz0mk0wo/s400/ResizedImage250239-arte-johnson.jpg) interesting" Roland.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on December 30, 2009, 01:34:54 PM
Re:  A. O. Scott -- I was trying to find a review he might have
written for BBM but I don't think he did.  Also, it's a great question to
ask a film critic, but I also cannot find a link to email him...

********

Three of Hitfix's columnists have made Top Movies of the decades lists.

The following guy won't post the remainder of his list
until tomorrow etc.

The Fien Print's Top 31 Movies
of the Decade: No. 31 - No. 21

 Wednesday, Dec 30, 2009 By Daniel Fienberg

#23 - "Brokeback Mountain" (dir. Ang Lee)
- Saddled from the beginning with the nom d'laziness "The gay cowboy movie," "Brokeback Mountain" never really got a chance to just be a movie. It was Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal trailblazing new frontiers for on-screen intimacy. [Sigh. "Saddled." "Trailblazing."] It was Ang Lee following up "Hulk." It was the seemingly unstoppable Oscar frontrunner. And then it was the Oscar frontrunner that lost to the worst Best Picture choice in Oscar history. Someday, people will just be able to appreciate the sincere feelings behind this doomed love story, made additionally tragic after Ledger's passing. This was truly his best performance, even if Oscar came posthumously and for more flamboyant work. And Gyllenhaal is his equal. Beautiful score and cinematography as well, plus an understatedly lovely turn from Michelle Williams.

Ang Lee film: 
#22 - "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" (dir. Ang Lee)

*****

The 50 Best Films Of 2000 - 2009
Tuesday, Dec 29, 2009 By Drew McWeeny

(Brokeback isn't on his list at all, but
Jackass: The Movie and Anchorman are!)

Ang Lee film:
#1 - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Gay themes:
#5 - Hedwig and the Angry Inch

Jake film:
#20 - "Zodiac"
  
Heath film:
#30 - The Dark Knight

*****

An 'Awards-worthy look at the top 25 films of the decade
Wednesday, Dec 23, 2009 By Gregory Ellwood

#2 -  "Brokeback Mountain" (2005)
An even bigger achievement for Lee than "Crouching," "Brokeback" is one of the quintessential American love stories of our time.  Every performance and moment is spot on.  A true classic in every sense of the word.

Gay Characters:
#19 -  "Precious" (2009)

Ang Lee film:
#3 - "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" (2000)

Heath film:
#1 - "The Dark Knight" (2008)

 http://www.hitfix.com/ (http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-the-fien-print/posts/the-fien-print-s-top-31-movies-of-the-decade-no-31-no-20) 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on December 30, 2009, 05:57:57 PM
Re:  A. O. Scott -- I was trying to find a review he might have
written for BBM but I don't think he did.  Also, it's a great question to
ask a film critic, but I also cannot find a link to email him...



He didn't do the official NYT review, Holden did.
It is rather odd though, isn't it, and I agree it would make a good question.
I think I can find his email.  If so, I will pm you.
G
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on January 01, 2010, 07:02:11 PM
He didn't do the official NYT review, Holden did.
It is rather odd though, isn't it, and I agree it would make a good question.
I think I can find his email.  If so, I will pm you.
G

You can A. O. Scott a question by going to the At The Movies website:

http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/ask_the_critics.html

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on January 01, 2010, 07:08:10 PM
Worst Movie of the Decade: ‘Crash’

by Sara Libby

http://trueslant.com/saralibby/2009/12/23/worst-movie-of-the-decade-crash/ (http://trueslant.com/saralibby/2009/12/23/worst-movie-of-the-decade-crash/)


Ms Libby's article is also quoted in Jim Emerson's blog at the Chicago Sun Times, in which he summarizes what appears to be a growing consensus that Crash was indeed the worst movie of the decade:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/12/the_worst_movie_of_the_decade.html

Read some of the extensive comments if you want to wallow in the anti-Crash sentiment.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: KittyHawk on January 02, 2010, 12:44:29 PM
A tireless friend of the Forum and fan of BBM has sent many emails over the past several weeks about BBM's standing on the best of the decade movie lists. There may still be a few more to follow, but here are the first ones he sent. My apologies if you all have already covered these.

London Film Critics, naming Brokeback the #5 film of the past 30 years and #2 of the decade!!!
30TH ANNIVERSARY AWARD: BEST OF OUR WINNERS SINCE 1980

1.  Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1980)
2.  Schindler’s List (Steven Spielberg, 1994)
3.  The Lives of Others (Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, 2007)
4.  Unforgiven (Clint Eastwood, 1992)
5.  Brokeback Mountain (Ang Lee, 2005)
6.  Cinema Paradiso (Giuseppe Tornatore, 1990)
7.  L.A. Confidential (Curtis Hanson, 1997)
8.  Fargo (Joel Coen, 1996)
9.  Distant Voices, Still Lives (Terence Davies, 1989)
10. The King of Comedy (Martin Scorsese, 1983)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Moviephone/1800FILM Top 10 movies of the decade
1.  LOTR: Return of the King
2.  City of God
3.  LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring
4.  The Dark Knight
5.  Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
6.  Brokeback Mountain
7.  The Incredibles
8.  The Departed
9.  The 40 Year Old Virgin
10. Harry Potter & The Prisoner of Azkaban
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NY Times & At the Movies - A.O. Scott
1.  Wall-e
2.  A.I.
3.  Brokeback Mountain
4.  The Pianist
5.  Where the Wild Things are
6.  Best of Youth
7.  4 Months 3 Weeks 2 Days
8.  Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind
9.  25th Hour
10. Million Dollar Baby
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cinema Magazine - top movie magazine of Greece
1.  Cache
2.  Pan's Labyrinth
3.  Brokeback Mountain
4.  Zodiac
5.  Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
6.  In the Mood for Love
7.  Mulholland Drive
8.  Syndeche, New York
9.  No Country for Old Men
10. The Return
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Indiewire - Listed Top 21
1.  Mulholland Drive
2.  In the Mood for Love
3.  Yi Yi
4.  There Will Be Blood
5.  Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
6.  The New World
7.  Before Sunset
8.  Zodiac
9.  Platform
10. A.I.
11. Syndromes and a Century
12.  25th Hour
13.  No Country for Old Men
14.  Brokeback Mountain
15.  Death of Mr. Lazarescu
16.  In Praise of Love
17.  The Son
18.  Inland Empire
19. Kings and Queens
19.  Punch-Drunk Love
21.  The Werckmeister Harmonies
 
Brokeback's placement on the Indiewire list is relatively low, but its still fine because (a) it made it, (b) its an artsy list with movies nobody ever heard of, (c) Lord of the Rings didn't make it, (d) Brokeback is the commercially most successful on the list, etc.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Katherine Monk (critic for Vancouver Sun, Edmonton Journal, Canwest News Service, etc.)
1.  Wall-e
2.  The Barbarian Invasions
3.  There Will Be Blood
4.  Brokeback Mountain
5.  An Inconvenient Truth & Idiocracy (she chose them as a duo)
Runners-up
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
Away from Her
Mystic Ball
Little Children
Juno
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jay Stone (critic for Canada.com, National Post, Ottawa Citizen, etc.)
1.  Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
2.  A History of Violence
3.  Lord of the Rings Trilogy
4.  Atanarjust, Fast Runner
5.  United 93
Runners Up
Far From Heaven
Eternal Sunshine
Requiem for a Dream
Memento
Wall-e
Sideways
No Country for Old Men
4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days
Brokeback Mountain
The Bourne Trilogy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Gawker Critics Poll
1.  There Will Be Blood
2.  Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
3.  Lord of the Rings Trilogy
4.  No Country for Old Men
5.  Memento
6.  Brokeback Mountain
7.  The Dark Knight
8.  Almost Famous
9.  Catch Me If You Can (first list I've seen this on)
9.  Pan's Labyrinth
9.  Wall-e
12.  City of God
12.  The Departed
12.  The Incredibles
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: KittyHawk on January 02, 2010, 12:46:10 PM
More best-of-decade lists:

Here is the decade list from the prestigious Wexner Center for Media Arts in Toronto.  Very artsy.  Its good that Brokeback makes both the commercial and mega-artsy lists.
 
Bill Horrigan, Director of Media Arts
(in chronological order)
La Commune (Paris, 1871) (Peter Watkins, 2000)
Gerry (Gus Van Sant, 2002)
Distant (Nuri Bilge Ceylan, 2002)
Paradise Now (Hany Abu-Assad, 2005)
L’Enfant (Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, 2005)
Brokeback Mountain (Ang Lee, 2005)
Tearoom (William Jones, 2007)
Shirin (Abbas Kiarostami, 2008)
Hunger (Steve McQueen, 2008)
Summer Hours (Olivier Assayas, 2008)
If the list were longer: In Vanda’s Room (Pedro Costa, 2000), Y tu mamá también (Alfonso Cuarón, 2001), Russian Ark (Alexander Sokurov, 2002), Los Angeles Plays Itself (Thom Andersen, 2003), they shoot horses (Phil Collins, 2004), Chats perchés (Chris Marker, 2004), The New World (Terence Malick, 2005), Play Pause (Sadie Benning, 2006), not a matter of if but when (Julia Meltzer and David Thorne, 2006), My Winnipeg (Guy Maddin, 2007).
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: KittyHawk on January 02, 2010, 12:46:43 PM
CNN Top 10 Oscars That Weren't

Film classics and actors the Academy overlooked


By Ambreen Ali| Posted Feb 24, 08 12:00 PM CST|    
 
(Newser) – In the Academy Awards' 80-year history, many classic films, performers, and directors have been robbed of their statues. CNN's Screening Room names the 10 most crushing Oscars that weren't, many of which lost out to—gulp—musicals:
1941: Seminal Citizen Kane loses to sappy How Green Was My Valley
1956: James Dean gets bested by The King and I's Yul Brynner
1958: Vertigo's Hitchcock loses best director to the man behind Gigi
1964: Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove flattened by My Fair Lady
1976: Al Pacino as Michael Corleone gets whacked by Joel Grey in Cabaret
1979: Robert Duvall wows in Apocalypse Now, but Melvyn Douglas wins
1990: Kevin Costner's Dances With Wolves bests Martin Scorsese's Goodfellas
1994: Pulp Fiction takes a backseat to family-friendly Forrest Gump
1997: LA Confidential gets sunk by Titanic and its flimsy script
2005: Brokeback Mountain loses to just-OK Crash
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: KittyHawk on January 02, 2010, 12:47:17 PM
Irish Film and Television Network Best of the Decade

Best Film of the Decade

1.    There Will Be Blood
2.    Downfall
3.    Brokeback Mountain
4.    The Diving Bell And The Butterfly
5.    The White Ribbon
6.    Hidden
7.    United 93
8.    City Of God
9.    Little Miss Sunshine / In The Mood For Love
10.  Spirited Away / Let The Right One In
11.  Far From Heaven
12.  Pan's Labyrinth
13.  Sideways / Lost In Translation
14.  The Lives Of Others
15.  Adaptation
16.  Wall-E / Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind / Mulholland Drive
17.  The Best Of Youth
18.  The Dark Knight
19.  Zodiac / Before Sunset / Letters from Iowa Jima / Waltz With Bashir / Irreversible
20.   Together / Infernal Affairs
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: KittyHawk on January 02, 2010, 12:49:28 PM
And then he sent me this about the Oscars, which I kind of enjoyed:  :D ;) >:D


NYT Critic Manohla Dargis Shares Some Four-Letter Words for the Industry
http://tinyurl.com/y96mhlu

Gotta give it to her... she's right

BY: Brad Brevet | December 14th 2009 at 2:15 PM
 ....
"Let's acknowledge that the Oscars are bullshit and we hate them. But they are important commercially… I've learned to never underestimate the academy's bad taste. Crash as best picture? What the fuck."
....
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 03, 2010, 10:38:31 AM
^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks for all those interesting posts!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: gwyllion on January 03, 2010, 11:36:32 AM
Brokeback's appearance on all these lists is certainly making it easier to explain my obsession to family members!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 03, 2010, 11:52:05 AM
Another good thing!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 03, 2010, 12:14:45 PM
Very interested to see what USA TODAY says on Thursday. 

What did they say?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on January 03, 2010, 12:44:54 PM
Here's what I say...
about all these lists...
most of the films on them... probably 90%... I haven't seen
and of the ones I  have seen, 99% I didn't like.
Personally, I'd just as soon Brokeback didn't keep such company.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: CellarDweller115 on January 03, 2010, 07:43:17 PM
Thanks for all the lists, Lyle and Lydia!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on January 04, 2010, 10:50:16 AM
^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks for all those interesting posts!


I agree. Ironic thing is: Crash was not mentioned at all. I wonder why?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: graylockV on January 04, 2010, 09:01:17 PM
The National Society of Film Critics has chosen The Hurt Locker as Best Picture.  One of the critics discusses their deliberations:

http://www.moviecitynews.com/columnists/wilmington/2010/100103.html

I thought it interesting how some arcane rule regarding proxy votes could change the outcome for Best Actor.

It makes me remember that all these awards (including Oscars) are really little more than parlor games.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on January 05, 2010, 11:42:37 AM
What did they say?

They didn't, they just did the best films of the year.  Colin Firth was picked as one of the 5 best male performances of the year, though, which was nice (and very deserving).  "Brokeback" did place in the Oregonian's Top 50 films of the decade this past Sunday, just missing the top 25.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: KittyHawk on January 06, 2010, 10:00:05 AM
Here's what I say...
about all these lists...
most of the films on them... probably 90%... I haven't seen
and of the ones I  have seen, 99% I didn't like.
Personally, I'd just as soon Brokeback didn't keep such company.

I don't rely on these lists to determine what I'm going to put on my Netflix queu, but I DO think it's interesting that BBM consistently appears on all kinds of lists, populist, artsy, and any other type.  I've got a few more to share.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: KittyHawk on January 06, 2010, 10:04:09 AM
This is a very unusual list from a newspaper covering the Hudson Valley region of New York. (had to look it up). Other than Brokeback & Lord of the Rings, none of these movies are on any other major lists. Its certainly not a critical art list, but telling of the culture and the mood.
 
 
By Chris Farlekas
For the Times Herald-Record
Posted: January 04, 2010 - 2:00 AM
A mark of a movie's greatness is that it takes you to places you've never been — both in geography ("Avatar," "The Lord of the Rings") and in the heart and soul of people ("Brokeback Mountain," "Billy Elliott"). This has been a terrific decade of moviegoing, so here (a little fanfare, please) are my choices of the decade's best.

1. "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" and "Brokeback Mountain" (tie)
Both movies dealt with relationships between men. "Rings" was created on an epic scale, but director Peter Jackson never lost sight of the relationships, which were the heroic bedrock of the story. The Oscar-winning score by Tuxedo Park's Howard Shore was indispensible.
The story of Ang Lee's "Brokeback" is written on a far more intimate level, and is sparked by the truly memorable performances of Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal. This is a movie that can break your heart. Watch it this time by looking into the characters' eyes, including Anne Hathaway (a former Vassar College student), as Gyllenhaal's wife. Lee, a Hudson Valley resident, came a cropper this year with "Taking Woodstock."
3. "Billy Elliott"
The story of a lad growing up in England's coal mining country is the evergreen story of finding your way in the world, sparked by a superb cast and some of the best dancing you'll ever see. Jamie Bell is pure magic as Billy.
4. "Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson" and "Man on Wire" (tie)
Johnny Depp narrates "Gonzo," which traces Thompson's life from his time as a Times Herald-Record reporter — living in poverty in Cuddebackville after he's fired — and his subsequent life as a best-selling writer and sometime freak of nature, who became overburdened by his fame and copious drug use.
 "Man on Wire" is the life force known as Philippe Petit of Ulster County, who memorably walked on a wire between the towers of the World Trade Center. The film is fashioned like a thriller and ends up a hallelujah chorus of the best of courage and poetry.
6. "Avatar"
It's "Dances With Wolves" set in the future, with James Cameron's technology paving the way for this new decade. As in "Dances," a man leaves the narrow vision of the Army and discovers a new world for which he's willing to die. If you can, see this in 3-D and, even better, IMAX.
7. "Remember the Titans"
This true football story has it all. The decade's best sports movie stars two-time Oscar winner Denzel Washington as a coach who takes over a Virginia high school during the rough years of integration. Washington attended military school in New Windsor.
8. "The Last Samurai"
It's one of the most aesthetically beautiful films of the decade. Tom Cruise is an alcoholic Civil War hero who became disillusoned with death. He finds his soul in a mountainous village in Japan.
9. "The Bucket List"
What do you want to do before you die? That's what the movie is about. Jack Nicolson and Morgan Freeman are at the top of their Oscar-winning forms. This is an essential movie to jump-start your life.
10. "The Laramie Project"
In October 1998, 21-year-old gay college student Matthew Shepard was found dead, tied to a fence. His murder caused the people of Laramie, Wyo., to take stock of their prejudices. In this prize-winning 2002 movie — produced by Middletown native Declan Baldwin — a cast of pros brings the town to life by acting out its words.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: KittyHawk on January 06, 2010, 10:05:24 AM
2 more semi-major decade lists posted today, one artsy, the other populist. Only two films overlap (Brokeback & Spirited Away). 
 
Slate.com crix poll
1.  Eternal Sunshine
2.  There Will Be Blood
3.  4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days
4.  No Country for Old Men
5.  Mulholland Drive
6.  Before Sunset
7.  Yi Yi
8.  Brokeback Mountain
9.  Spirited Away
10.  In the Mood for Love
 
Popular website Andy at the Movies
1.  Fellowship of the Ring
2.  40 Year Old Virgin (on several popular lists!)
3.  Dark Knight
4.  Wall-e
5.  Brokeback Mountain
6.  Zodiac
7.  Spirited Away
8.  City of God
9.  Inglorious Basterds
10.  Juno
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on January 06, 2010, 10:12:44 AM
I will never understand the way critics slobbered over "Mullholland Drive."  A film built out of an abandoned TV pilot, which has plot threads that go nowhere and make no sense, and then halfway through the main story pretzels into...something else.  (I had to find a website that literally broke down the plot scene by scene and explained it.)

Apparently, during the climax (SPOILER ALERT) when the little old people creep under the door and then start chasing Naomi Watts around the apartment, one guy sitting in a balcony in Los Angeles turned to his friend and screamed, "OH MY GOD!  Are you SURE we're not high?!!?"  Best. Response. Ever.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 06, 2010, 11:09:56 AM
I will never understand the way critics slobbered over "Mullholland Drive."  A film built out of an abandoned TV pilot, which has plot threads that go nowhere and make no sense, and then halfway through the main story pretzels into...something else.  (I had to find a website that literally broke down the plot scene by scene and explained it.)

I'm sure I don't understand, either.  One thing to enjoy something like
this film, but another to put it on best of the decade lists?  Really?  Was
it not out in the 90's?  I coulda sworn...  Hey, though, I am not sure why
I'd put Twin Peaks on a best of tv list, either, but I would...
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on January 07, 2010, 11:36:05 AM
I'm sure I don't understand, either.  One thing to enjoy something like
this film, but another to put it on best of the decade lists?  Really?  Was
it not out in the 90's?  I coulda sworn...  Hey, though, I am not sure why
I'd put Twin Peaks on a best of tv list, either, but I would...

it came out in 2001 I think.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: KittyHawk on January 13, 2010, 08:22:04 AM
Here's one more with Mulholland Drive at the top.

Los Angeles Film Critics Best of the Decade:

1. Mulholland Dr. -  David Lynch

2. There Will Be Blood -  Paul Thomas Anderson

3. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind -  Michel Gondry

4. Brokeback Mountain -  Ang Lee

5. No Country for Old Men -  Joel and Ethan Coen and Zodiac -  David Fincher (tie)

6. Yi Yi -  Edward Yang

7. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days – Cristian Mungiu and The Lord of the Rings – Peter Jackson (tie)

8. Spirited Away -  Hayao Miyazaki

9. United 93 – Paul Greengrass (tie) and Y Tu Mama Tambien -  Alfonso Cuaron (tie)

10. Sideways -  Alexander Payne

Funny they couldn't keep it to just 10. The top 13 of the decade, I suppose.

One reason some of these lists are so irrelevant to me is that out here in the hinterlands, we never even see some of the films. A couple of theaters that specialize in art films may bring some to Lexington or Louisville, but definitely not to the smaller towns.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on January 13, 2010, 08:31:54 AM
Fine choices, for the most part.  The LA critics just loved that creepy MULHOLLAND DRIVE, probably since it's in LA.  It gave me the williies.

BBM is #1 in my opinion!!!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on January 13, 2010, 09:30:49 AM
Fine choices, for the most part.  The LA critics just loved that creepy MULHOLLAND DRIVE, probably since it's in LA.  It gave me the williies.

BBM is #1 in my opinion!!!


I agree!!! Yet, no CRASH!!  :D :D
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 13, 2010, 10:23:24 AM
Not just L.A., I have seen that film listed on several best lists
of the decade.  Not at the top position, however.  These lists never
come with much explanation, though, so...   Zodiac (Jake film) has
been making a lot of lists, too, which I'm happy to see, as I thought
it was a terrific film.  Even though critics generally reviewed it well,
I don't remember it being on a whole lot of "best of the year" lists,
so to see it on several best of the decade lists is interesting.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on January 13, 2010, 10:42:17 AM
I agree, Lyle.  I thought ZODIAC was overlooked when it came out, maybe because of the disappointing box office (I'm proud to say I saw it twice).  Glad to see the critics are remembering it fondly.  Jake and Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards and especially Robert Downey, Jr. were superb in it.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on January 15, 2010, 09:10:08 PM
A bit off-topic, but I thought I'd mention that Brokeback Mountain has recently been added to netflix's list of "instant view" films.   :)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on January 18, 2010, 07:18:27 PM
Hello from Kathy!  I'd like to comment on something that's bothered me for years - pls. bear with me!
I've already posted on how furious I am that BBM did not win best picture from that so-called "academy".  To give it to something as unworthy and just plain bad as "TRASH" is the most tremendous error in years; everyone knows it, and if I have my way I'll never let those hypocritical cowards forget it.  However, I'm just as furious that Heath did not win best actor. Jake should have won best supp. actor as well.  (Just an aside - R. Ebert had his own personal agenda for praising "TRASH" to the heavens, and many other damned "critics" of his kind followed along like mice).  Can't stand Ebert, Shalit, and their kind  - never could - and Shalit has always been a tremendous jerk.  Ebert was a big part of the whispering campaign against BBM; I know there were many others, and that shows how hateful they are.
 
But, if I may go back for a while, I wish to make it known that younger men never seem to be awarded best actor awards.  Oh, they'll give it to a young female bimbo, but as far as the men go - that's a different story. You see, when I was no more than girl, in April of 1963, I saw "Lawrence of Arabia" for the first time.  (Countless times afterward).  When I saw Peter O'Toole's beautifully handsome face - well, let's say I've loved him so ever since, and he's my unrequited love.  But there's more.  Peter gave his immortal performance as LOA.  Oh, he's done many good things since, but let's face it - as David Lean said when Peter was tested and given the role - "The boy IS Lawrence".  Today it's taken for granted that Peter won for Lawrence, but alas he did not. The film naturally did as best picture of 1962 and won 7 awards in all (maybe they were smarter then?)  Anyway, Peter was only 30 yrs. old, you see, and they MUST give it to someone else.  (He was 28-30 when the film was made, so he was even younger then).  Sure, 40 yrs. later - in April 2003, after 7 nominations and no wins - they give him an "honorary" award for his "body of work".  B.S.  Then in 2007 they insulted him again by denying him best actor for his 8th nomination for "Venus".  What a  despicable, mean-spirited bunch those bums are.  Of course, it bothers him!!  But he did go on to become a legend.  Another important one - Clark Gable (another legend and immensely handsome too) - gave his immortal performance as Rhett in 1939.  GWTW swept the awards in 1940, except for Clark and Max Steiner for his beautiful score.  I read years ago that it bothered Clark for the rest of his days. 

Perhaps the above is indicative of how rotten that "academy" is now.  How insignificant it's become because of their lousy stupid choices.  Same for that damned AFI, which is so busy lowering the true classics to put inferior films above them.  Isn't it time for them to cut out those damned lists anyway?  Don't get me started on them!  I agree 100% with every word Ms. Proulx said of them. 

Well - to get back to my original point.  Heath, Jake et al.  BBM is already recognized as a great classic.  Heath's Ennis is already recognized by so many for the great performance he gave. But, like Peter, I think of Heath as giving that great performance and going on to much greatness. He was robbed of best actor, as the film was robbed of best picture, etc., etc.   It should have won everything!    

Well, that's what I've felt ever since that night in CA in 2006.  Thanks for listening.  :)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 18, 2010, 11:13:28 PM
Welcome to the forum kathy  ;D
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 18, 2010, 11:23:31 PM
Kathy

A lot of us were upset too. Back in February 2007 we had a large gathering up in Bay City, Michigan to watch Brokeback Mountain instead of the Oscars.

Here's a little excerpt from the souvenir program that we made, along with a picture of the cover.
 

(http://baycityforums.com/images/OscarNight.jpg)




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet each man kills the things he loves
By each let this be heard
Some do it with a bitter look
Some with a flattering word
The coward does it with a kiss
The brave man with a sword

Some kill their love when they are young
And some when they are old
Some strangle with the hands of Lust
Some with the hands of Gold
The kindest use a knife, because
The dead so soon grow cold



When Oscar Wilde wrote ‘The Ballad of Reading Gaol’ while imprisoned in Reading Prison for gross indecency in 1897 he could easily have been describing the world of Ennis Del Mar in ‘Brokeback Mountain’. Who hasn’t found themselves looking back at a world that could have been, only to say those saddest of words ‘if only’?

Oscar himself would become the posthumous victim of Lord Alfred Douglas (affectionately known to Wilde as ‘Boise'). Douglas would call Wilde "the greatest force for evil that has appeared in Europe during the last three hundred and fifty years." Unlike Ennis Del Mar’s feelings toward Jack Twist, Douglas would later say that he intensely regretted having met Wilde.

Had Wilde been prescient he probably would have regretted ever having met Douglas. Wilde (with Douglas’ encouragement) brought suit for libel against Douglas’ father who had called him a sodomite. In court Wilde denied that there was any substance to the allegations - and found himself on trial when several young men were brought to the stand to testify otherwise.

Have we come very far from the world Oscar lived in? In 2006 we found the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences wanted to disassociate themselves from the powerful indictment of homophobia that existed in ‘Brokeback Mountain’ - choosing instead to celebrate ‘Crash’ as the best picture of the year - a film which posits that everyone is racist. So instead of celebrating a film which argues for compassion we found the Academy casting its vote with those who would say that bigotry is part of the human condition. This snub came after a season of vile commentary - from reviewers like Gene Shalit, who called the character of Jack Twist a rapist; from Jack Cafferty on CNN who said ‘there aren't too many closet doors that are left closed in this country’ and from Tony Curtis who told Fox News that he hadn’t see it and that John Wayne wouldn’t like it. Surely these views on homosexuality fit right in to the 19th century world of Oscar Wilde.

We find ourselves in 2007 living in a world where a film about homosexuality has never won a ‘best picture’ award. Of course this has been true for a while, ‘The Color Purple’ lost out to ‘Out of Africa’ in 1986 and ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’ lost to ‘Forrest Gump’ in 1995. And yet a film about a transvestite serial killer has won (‘Silence of the Lambs’ in 1992) and a film about a schizophrenic man whose homosexual encounters have been conveniently excised from his story has won (‘A Beautiful Mind’ in 2002). Actors and actresses have won for gay roles, of course - Tom Hanks for ‘Philadelphia’ and Philip Seymour Hoffman for ‘Capote’. So to take a broad view the Academy appears to be telling us that if you want to be successful in a gay film you should be dead or obvious - but don’t scare the horses by appearing to be an everyday person, please. Clearly these are views that would make perfect sense to Oscar - thinking like this made him deny his own homosexuality in court.

Gay people and their friends have been fans of the Academy Awards for a long time. It just appears that the feeling isn’t reciprocated. So perhaps it is time for us to kill the thing we loved and move on. We don’t need their Oscar - we have our own. And in his ‘De Profundis’ he says:

“. . . Suffering is one very long moment. We cannot divide it by seasons. We can only record its moods, and chronicle their return. With us time itself does not progress. It revolves. It seems to circle round one centre of pain.”

Can there be any question that he would understand the world of Ennis Del Mar?


Michael Flanagan, San Francisco


Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on January 19, 2010, 06:25:43 PM
 :) Hello from Kathy:  I'm trying to manage a smile, because I'm having an awful time posting.  I've deleted three msgs. already.  Forgive me for being frustrated.  I even tried to reply to the Daily Sheet Post and couldn't do it!  I'm so sad about this coming Friday being the date 2 yrs. ago when dear Heath left us.  They never even checked on him; I know in my heart he would have been saved.  Those two stupid dopes.  I keep weeping for him; I miss him.  Lonesome cowboy...

BaycityJohn:  Thank you for your welcome and the info with it.  And thanks so much to all of the members who welcomed me to the forums!  It's very kind of you.  I, like you, love BBM so much!
I agree with you 100%, John.  Society has not changed since Wilde's day.  It was hateful then, hateful in 1963 and thereafter for Ennis and Jack, and is hateful now.  I cannot understand why compassion is in such short supply.  It is an awful thing not to be with the man you love.  Ennis was so closed; Jack was open.  Remember the scene after the first reunion, they looked so happy, and Jack wanted Ennis to have a small cow and calf operation together?  Jack said "Alma and you - that's a life"- the terrible hurt look on Jack's face as Ennis defended(?) Alma and the lousy life he led?  Yet they wanted, needed, loved each other.  But they (especially Heath's Ennis) conformed to that day's society, married, had children, etc.  And all the while apart, all they did was think of each other!  In the end it ended so tragically. Their society is no different from today's, sad to say.  And so tragic for both of them.  Whatever will become of Ennis w/o Jack??  My opinion is that their love will never die and will go on in the hereafter; Ennis is completely devastated, as much as when his daddy took him to see Earl's dead body.  He'll never get over it, will feel a lot of guilt, and forever love Jack. "Jack, I swear"...".  If only we could go back...

I also must write that I definitely agree 100% with Ms. Proulx's comments about the damned AMPAS and their "heffalumps" and "red blood on the carpet".  Cowardly bums.  Oh so liberal on the outside, but as closed in as ever on the inside.  Jerks like Curtis & Borgnine bragging about never seeing BBM, Ebert with his own personal agenda praising "TRASH" to the sky, the rest of his kind, ugly and vile comments by rotten FOX news(?), and all the rest.  They are as rotten and hateful as all the other heffalumps.  I become very upset when those kind of people bring John Wayne's name in this.  John's a true legend; I love him & his films. And back in 1960, when making "The Alamo", Laurence Harvey wouldn't leave him alone, following John around and almost begging him to sleep w/him. John said "no" and that seemed to be it.  And never was a bad word mentioned about L. Harvey from John Wayne.

P.S. In my posting yesterday, I feel badly that I didn't say enough about Clark Gable. I love GWTW as much as I love LOA and Peter.  (My two co #1 favorites).  These two classic films will live forever.  Clark gave the performance of his life as Rhett; he was the King of Hollywood in its heyday and noone ever comes close to him every after.  But he was denied best actor for his role, as so many actors/actresses were in his day.  I know that BBM is a true classic too; everyone knows it. I LOVE it; and it will live forever too. And I'll do my best to never let anyone forget about the blundering injustice done to it by that rotten "academy" and its cohorts that night in CA in the year 2006. 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on January 20, 2010, 02:44:16 PM
 :)  Hi Nax!  Kathy here.  Thank you very much for informing me of where "novices" like me can go to for help with questions, postings, and anything/everything else.  I will definitely be more concise with my comments too.  I guess I left the computer on by mistake and the time went by...
The messages I received from many members welcoming me made me smile, and the info from BayCity John was so interesting.  I agree so much w/him.
Bye for now - again thanks.  I am so happy to be part of this; I believe nothing has really effected me so much as BBM, Heath and Jake's superb performances, etc., etc. I love it.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on January 20, 2010, 02:45:19 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Great post. Glad you stopped by and talked "Trash". You are spot on. This year will be no differant They will ram Avatar thru. I can't stand it, it's all about the $$$$$$$$$$. Love the movie but Best Picture it is not. If it weren't for the special Effect, it would have been so so..

Again thanks for the nice post.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 20, 2010, 02:50:11 PM
The messages I received from many members welcoming me made me smile, and the info from BayCity John was so interesting.  I agree so much w/him.


Thank you Kathy, but I just want to point out that the Oscar Wilde article was written by Michael Flanagan (michaelflanagansf)

The program cover was my idea, and I asked Michael to write something up to explain the picture.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 20, 2010, 02:53:30 PM
Something you might enjoy from them earlier days.

A message from Ang Lee that was read at the Brokeback Mountain screening in Beverly Hills in August 2008 as part of the 'Great to be Nominated' series:


Quote
Greetings from director Ang Lee, who won an Oscar for his direction of
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN...
 
“This is a film that was blessed even as we were making it.  It was
filled with so much love, compassion, and a benevolent spirit.  I’m very
happy that it is being shown again in the Goldwyn Theater as one to be
remembered in the Oscar “pack”.  It was great to be nominated.
 
By the way, does “Great to be Nominated” really mean “Should have Won?”

Anyway.  Hope you enjoy the film again.
 
Ang Lee – 7/24/08

http://www.davecullen.com/forum/index.php?topic=30966.0
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: KittyHawk on January 20, 2010, 05:36:33 PM
Speaking of awards, here's one that I think Forum members could just about guarantee that BBM can win.  It's Awards Daily's poll on the best love stories every filmed. Check it out and vote here:
http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=18150

Will you help spread the word to other BBM fans? We're in second place now with Eternal Sunshine ahead by only 17 votes.

There's no notice of when voting stops, so let's keep asking friends to vote until we've
knocked it out of the park!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: CellarDweller115 on January 20, 2010, 05:50:39 PM
Thanks for posting this Lydia!

I've posted this in a few other threads, and over on BetterMost too.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: KittyHawk on January 20, 2010, 05:58:56 PM
Thanks, Chuck. It's also in the News Box.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: gwyllion on January 20, 2010, 06:54:17 PM
We are only 7 votes out of the lead!  Come on people!  Jack and Ennis would want you to vote! 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: retropian on January 20, 2010, 06:55:38 PM
Speaking of awards, here's one that I think Forum members could just about guarantee that BBM can win.  It's Awards Daily's poll on the best love stories every filmed. Check it out and vote here:
http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=18150

Will you help spread the word to other BBM fans? We're in second place now with Eternal Sunshine ahead by only 17 votes.

There's no notice of when voting stops, so let's keep asking friends to vote until we've
knocked it out of the park!

I voted! Vote or Die! said Kanye
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: KittyHawk on January 20, 2010, 07:24:31 PM
Yay! Now ask your friends to vote!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 20, 2010, 08:17:22 PM
I just voted.  We're down by 3
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 20, 2010, 08:39:44 PM
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj282/SanFranciscoJohn/poll1.jpg)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on January 21, 2010, 06:40:03 AM
Speaking of awards, here's one that I think Forum members could just about guarantee that BBM can win.  It's Awards Daily's poll on the best love stories every filmed. Check it out and vote here:
http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=18150

Will you help spread the word to other BBM fans? We're in second place now with Eternal Sunshine ahead by only 17 votes.

There's no notice of when voting stops, so let's keep asking friends to vote until we've
knocked it out of the park!

I just voted!  BBM leads the pack with 33% of the votes, I seem to recall.  (Short term memory loss)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on January 21, 2010, 07:18:42 AM
I just voted. BBM is a head now.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 21, 2010, 11:22:27 AM
Barry Norman talks classic film

Barry Norman was the doyen of film critics for a quarter of a century. Arts Editor Andrew Clarke spoke to him about classic movies and the art of good film criticism.

For more than 25 years Barry Norman was the face of British cinema-going. His instantly recognisable delivery, and his catchphrase “and why not?” which he still maintains was a Rory Bremner invention, made him the nation's favourite film critic.

Although Barry has been off our screens for eight years now, he likes to keep abreast of the recent releases -“film is in my blood” and likes to tour the country giving audiences a glimpse of the behind the scenes stories surrounding some of cinema's greatest moments.

Barry Norman recently visited Colchester's Mercury Theatre to reveal the inside story on four classics Gone With The Wind, Casablanca, The Adventures of Robin Hood and Dirty Harry.

“The films are chosen at random. They are not necessarily the best films ever made or even my own favourite films but they are all great movies, absolute classics in their own way, and I chose them because they each have a good story to tell.”


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So are there any movies released in the last ten years that he would be tempted to include, if the book were to be re-issued today?

“There are quite a few actually. I would certainly put Gladiator in there along with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and much more recently I would put Good Night, Good Luck, the George Clooney movie which tackled the McCarthy era witchunts, which I thought was absolutely brilliant. Brokeback Mountain is another film that deserves a place because it is a groundbreaker. It was one of the first Hollywood movies which came out and said that homosexuality is not such an evil thing. And I think that because it said it so outspokenly is why it didn't win the Oscar that year. They gave it to Crash instead which although it had a nice message that racism is rather nasty, it is something that we really ought to know by now.”


http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/features/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=Features&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=IPED21%20Jan%202010%2016%3A30%3A31%3A397 (http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/features/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=Features&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=IPED21%20Jan%202010%2016%3A30%3A31%3A397)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Marge_Innavera on January 21, 2010, 11:31:33 AM
Okay, I voted!  Brokeback is currently #1, by 67 votes.    :)

Since you could vote for up to 3, I would have been tempted to vote for Ghost and Titanic too; but they didn't include either one.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Oregondoggie on January 21, 2010, 03:44:33 PM
Sent my woolies there as well!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 21, 2010, 04:44:09 PM
Update  3:44 PM (Pacific)  1/21/10

Brokeback Mountain (35%, 508 Votes)

Eternal Sunshine (28%, 402 Votes)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: huntinbuddy on January 21, 2010, 05:42:36 PM
I just voted....Brokeback at 35% and 515 votes
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: CellarDweller115 on January 21, 2010, 05:43:59 PM
Yeah, BBM is in the lead!  ;D
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: huntinbuddy on January 21, 2010, 06:00:19 PM
Yeah, BBM is in the lead!  ;D

As it should be.  I've seen nearly all those other films, and while many are very good, they don't measure up to BBM.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on January 21, 2010, 06:57:28 PM
I just voted!!  BBM as #1, of course - as it should be.  Next is GWTW for me.
Bye from Kathy :)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: CellarDweller115 on January 21, 2010, 07:23:33 PM
*waves to Charlie and Kathy*

;D

Glad you both voted!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: fritzkep on January 21, 2010, 07:29:41 PM
Voted yesterday.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on January 22, 2010, 07:11:28 AM
As did I.  BBM in first place, MOONSTRUCK in 2nd and GONE WITH THE WIND in 3rd.  I wanted to vote for CASABLANCA, too but there were only three spots.  Oh well, I'll always have BROKEBACK.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on January 22, 2010, 10:18:52 AM
We are only 7 votes out of the lead!  Come on people!  Jack and Ennis would want you to vote! 

Where are the  current results posted?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: gwyllion on January 22, 2010, 10:22:15 AM
Here, doodler...

http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=18150

Best Movie Love Story

Brokeback Mountain (35%, 557 Votes)
Eternal Sunshine (26%, 414 Votes)
Moulin Rouge (14%, 229 Votes)
Annie Hall (12%, 198 Votes)
Casablanca (12%, 188 Votes)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on January 22, 2010, 11:35:43 AM
Thanks!
Outside of Brokeback, I don't care for the next 5 at all. And Wall-E?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 22, 2010, 06:24:49 PM
1. Brokeback Mountain: 564

2. Eternal Sunshine: 414

--------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like the people from The Ultimate Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Forum have been slacking.



Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: CellarDweller115 on January 22, 2010, 09:39:55 PM
Looks like the people from The Ultimate Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Forum have been slacking.

:D :D :D
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Rob in Puyallup on January 23, 2010, 04:57:28 AM
I voted!

My 2nd fav is Moulin Rouge, of course!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on January 23, 2010, 10:10:57 AM
Think I'll go vote again! I only voted for Broeback the last time... don't want to add to any other film's score!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: KittyHawk on January 23, 2010, 10:20:57 AM
Here are the top ten as of Saturday morning! Ahhh, the power of this Forum!  ;D

If anyone hasn't voted yet, please do so. You never know if/when fans of another movie might get a campaign going and make a run at us. Actually, would any of these other movies have a fan base that devoted? Hard to picture, isn't it?
 

Brokeback Mountain (35%, 579 Votes)

Eternal Sunshine (25%, 418 Votes)

Moulin Rouge (15%, 253 Votes)

Annie Hall (12%, 199 Votes)

Wall-E (12%, 190 Votes)

Casablanca (11%, 189 Votes)

Once (8%, 125 Votes)

Before Sunset (7%, 122 Votes)

Pride & Prejudice (7%, 119 Votes)

Lost in Translation (7%, 116 Votes)

http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=18150
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: CellarDweller115 on January 23, 2010, 11:02:01 AM
160 votes ahead.  nice!   ;D
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dejavu on January 23, 2010, 12:15:11 PM
I voted for only two.  Brokeback Mountain and Moonstruck.

Figured Moonstruck wasn't serious competition, so its vote wouldn't hurt.  That's a movie that I have on DVD and forget just how good it is until the next time I watch it.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on January 23, 2010, 12:31:43 PM
MOONSTRUCK is one of my top ten favorites of all time, Debbie!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on January 23, 2010, 09:55:01 PM
Me too on Moonstruck... the first time I noticed Nick Cage.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on January 25, 2010, 08:05:47 PM
Here's a "Top Tens of the Decade" list compiled by Movie City News.  30 critics voted and BBM came in seventh with seven mentions.  The key thing to note is that Crash received 0 votes.  In fact, only three Best Picture winners scored higher than BBM and the other seven didn't even make it into the Top 20.

http://www.moviecitynews.com/awards/2010/top_ten/00_scoreboard_decade.htm
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Rob in Puyallup on January 25, 2010, 08:21:09 PM
Still liking this one, Roland.

http://www.moviecitynews.com/awards/2006/top_tens/00_chart.html
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on January 25, 2010, 10:57:56 PM
Yea, that is a good one.  :)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 26, 2010, 12:00:11 PM
Thanks for posting that Roland.  I wasn't aware that
critics felt so strongly about No Country for Old Men.
Maybe it's because most of them are old men--lol!
I might have to read some of those reviews they wrote
and see why.  I much preferred There Will Be Blood that
year, which is also nicely represented.

Personally, I am also glad to see WALL-E, Zodiac, Milk
and Far From Heaven represented with votes.  It's so
nice to see Brokeback Mountain highlighted again in
the press.  It's interesting on the list Rob mentions
that crash is among the top ten films of the year with
critics, so they must have, at the time, found some value
in it, but I frankly don't recall alot being made or discussed
about that film all through the year it came out after it was
released in May.  I did hear a lot about A History of Violence,
which got ignored by many groups at the end of the year,
including the Globes and oscars.  And I personally would
have preferred that to win if it wouldn't have been Brokeback
Mountain.  At least I could understand that choice.

But these dacade end lists have been a nice tonic.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on January 26, 2010, 12:18:33 PM
Yes, Lyle, but it was a watercoolor film "of the moment"--buzz, and then gone.  No one talks about it anymore, no lines are quoted from it, it's vanished from modern popular culture's mind.  Even some critics who rather liked it back then are now almost apologetic about it. 

Part of it is cultural (in the Obama era, people openly yelling racial epithets at each other so baldly across the boards is even less likely than is was 5 years ago), but the other part is that when the Oscar thing went down, "Crash" immediately took its love-it-or-hate-it following and split even further--well-intentioned liberals think it's an "important" film about racism and praise the acting, overlooking the cliched, heavy handed script; those who disliked it or were lukewarm about it now see it as an example of how really stupid, cowardly, and shallow the Oscars are, and how embarassing it is to stack "Crash" up against the true masterpieces of the decade, which had some titles that will echo throughout cinema history.  (Not just "Lord of the Rings" but also "Far From Heaven" "No Country For Old Men" "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon" "Pan's Labyrinth" "Up" "Wall-E" "There Will Be Blood" "A History of Violence" "The Hurt Locker" "The Lives of Others" etc.)

Sometimes, only the passage of time can illuminate something's true worth.  Lots of films we now regard as seminal masterpieces--among them "Psycho" "Singin' In the Rain" "The Searchers" "Harold and Maude" and "The Wizard of Oz"--were greeted with critical indifference and/or middling box-office when they came out.  The nice thing is that "BBM" seems destined for the long-term pantheon--despite Leonard Maltin and trolls on the IMDB.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 26, 2010, 01:55:07 PM
Oh, that's right, much of ampas didn't see Brokeback Mountain...

Anne Hathaway to Join Academy President
Tom Sherak for Oscar® Nominations


Quote
Beverly Hills, CA (January 26, 2010) — Nominations for the 82nd Academy
Awards® will be announced on Tuesday, February 2, by Academy of Motion
Picture Arts and Sciences President Tom Sherak and Oscar-nominated
actress and Academy member Anne Hathaway.
[...]
Last year Hathaway received her first Oscar nomination for her leading
role in “Rachel Getting Married.”  She first came to national attention in
the 2006 sleeper hit “The Devil Wears Prada”
opposite Meryl Streep.

You think this is true?  The Princess Diaries was a huge hit in 2001
(the sequel was in 2004) and how could Brokeback Mountain not be
considered national attention?  She wasn't on Oprah for Prada.

At least they mentioned it.

Quote
Her other film credits include “Bride Wars,” “Get Smart,”
 “Passengers,” “Becoming Jane,” “Brokeback Mountain” and
“The Princess Diaries.”

http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2010/20100126.html

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on January 26, 2010, 07:37:08 PM
BBM mentioned AFTER BRIDE WARS?!?

That's almost as bad as BBM losing the Best Picture Oscar!!!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on January 28, 2010, 09:52:29 AM
They also didn't list "Ella Enchanted," which was one of the first films she headlined.   Hey, sometimes folks are just LCD (lowest common denominator).

Looking again at that Movie City news chart, it's surprising "Crash" was as high as it was, considering how low it came in on the critics' averages in EW and Premiere.  It didn't even make the Top 100 films for Rotten Tomatoes for that year.  ("Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" had better overall ratings/reviews, for one example.)  It's exhausting trying to explain all this data to people who don't "get it," though, and don't see why people are still upset/angry.  (Even hardcore Oscar followers are more likely to mention the "Ordinary People/"Raging Bull" face-off, or the "Shakespeare in Love" upset over "Saving Private Ryan."  Again, I wonder how much of this comes back to homophobia; lots of male film critics probably don't want to expend too much of their time and masculinity defending "Brokeback."
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 28, 2010, 11:43:21 AM
Looking again at that Movie City news chart, it's surprising
"Crash" was as high as it was, considering how low it came
in on the critics' averages in EW and Premiere.  It didn't even
make the Top 100 films for Rotten Tomatoes for that year.

Thanks for reminding me about that.  MCN must have used
a different amount of critics to base that list on.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on January 28, 2010, 04:03:50 PM
Does it ever occur to anybody that Crash is mentioned more often here than on any other website in the world? (That, obviously, is a bit of sarcasm since who knows how often it pops up on other websites.)

The point is... it won, Brokeback lost. But it's NOT Crash's fault. And truthfully, I've seen a lot worse movies.

Yeah, yeah, it gets a shout out here to point out how ridiculous it was that it got the Oscar. BUT if it hadn't been Crash, it would have been some other film. Brokeback was never going to get it.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: chapeaugris on January 29, 2010, 03:40:44 AM
Does it ever occur to anybody that Crash is mentioned more often here than on any other website in the world? (That, obviously, is a bit of sarcasm since who knows how often it pops up on other websites.)

The point is... it won, Brokeback lost. But it's NOT Crash's fault. And truthfully, I've seen a lot worse movies.

Yeah, yeah, it gets a shout out here to point out how ridiculous it was that it got the Oscar. BUT if it hadn't been Crash, it would have been some other film. Brokeback was never going to get it.
I'm not sure about that. We don't know exactly how many votes Brokeback lost because of homophobia. Being set in LA gave Crash an advantage with this set of voters and probably made the difference. I'm sure there were a few voters who voted for Ang Lee for best director but then for Crash for best picture for sentimental reasons.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on January 29, 2010, 10:51:12 AM
I am sure about it. If Crash hadn't been in the mix, Good Night Good Luck, Munich, Capote or Dukes of Hazzard Part 3 would have won.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 29, 2010, 10:54:40 AM
I am sure about it. If Crash hadn't been in the mix, Good Night Good Luck, Munich, Capote or Dukes of Hazzard Part 3 would have won.

 ::)
no way.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on January 29, 2010, 11:00:00 AM
Come on, the fix was in. We were all just too blinded by love to see it. Check some of the entertainment/movie watcher websites from just before the Oscars... there were cautions galore about an upset. We all "hate"  Crash because it was the name on the card, but we'd have hated any of the others as well.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 29, 2010, 11:12:42 AM
Yes the fix was in. I was watching the news back then and I saw it coming. From the Crash campaign.

None of those other films had a chance over Brokeback Mountain, and 3 of them were better than Crash anyway.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on January 29, 2010, 11:23:42 AM
If that makes you happier.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 29, 2010, 11:24:18 AM
It makes me deliriously happy.

I'm so happy - I could do The Madison.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 29, 2010, 12:18:07 PM
We all "hate"  Crash because it was the name on the card,
but we'd have hated any of the others as well.

Disappointment and anger/hate are two different beasts.  If
you follow the awards season the way it plays out cannot be
discounted in how you feel about what the results are.  And this
particular awards season played out like no other has in history.

The reason this has been justifiably kept alive over the years
is that it was the first time in ampas history that every single
factor used to prognosticate what would win best picture was
broken by the academy.  And that year happens to be a gay film?
And you have academy members who, at the time, said they and
their friends even refused to see the film, Tony Curtis and Ernest
Borgnine and those interviewed by Nikki Finke among them, and
even now have said they still have not seen it--Robert Duvall, Gene
Hackman and Mark Wahlberg among others.

It's not only us that write about it, either.  A Chicago Sun Times piece
was written this month entitled something like "Is Crash the Worst
Film of the Decade?"  I, myself, do not hate the film, but I do hate that
it won because of the reasons behind it.  The fact that Lionsgate seized
upon the discomfort of many in ampas who even refused to see it and
promoted crash as the movie you could feel good about voting for instead.
So it's become a symbol of hate, when oddly enough, it was preaching
tolerance and acceptance.  Odd ain't it?

It was actively promoted as the film you could vote for instead of
the gay film and this promotion played upon homophobia and it
worked.  That's why it's considered one of the biggest upsets ever.
And that's why it's not a simple case of preference.  If you look at
academy history, they always do what's expected of them.  If they
don't there's a reason and in this case, the reason was homophobia.
And crash now represents that homophobia.  And is why people say
they hate it, but what most are really saying is that they hate what it
now stands for.

And we mention all these lists that are coming out for the best films
of the decade that include Brokeback Mountain and not crash, not to
bash that film itself, but as more evidence of the homophobia at work
in its elevation to a place that no one expected and few feel is deserved
on more and more hindsight, as these lists are reflecting.

I've been disappointed in many a film to win Best Picture, but
to say we were "blinded by love" to see it, flies in the face of all
the evidence, factual and anecdotal, leading up to the ampas
vote, that says we were right to feel it was a shoo-in for the top
prize that year.

The statement that ANY other film would have won besides
Brokeback Mountain is neither here nor there and I'd need
more than your opinion to take that as a fact.

The "cautions galore" about an upset that year were written
by the same people who write those things every year.  There
were cautions about Slumdog being upset last year.  If it happens
they look like warnings.  If it doesn't, they look like the usual babbling.

Is your "blinded by love" or "the fix was in" argument meant for us
to be accepting of the outcome?  We should have known?  To use
an extreme example, Is that ilke telling the Jews they should have
known that the Nazis wouldn't treat them like human beings?  We,
and others, keep writing about this as a form of "never forget".  Ampas
especially has a way of justifying the results of their awards through
silence and because their vote totals cannot be analyzed.  This
particular case has much factual and anecdotal evidence to support
homophobia as a cause for crash's win.  As long as that is known
as the reason, is why I personally keep bringing it up.  So that it
becomes the accepted reason in the history of the oscars.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on January 29, 2010, 01:50:59 PM
It makes me deliriously happy.

I'm so happy - I could do The Madison.

OMG, John--I didn't think anyone but me (I?) could do the Madison!

Remember ROCKY HORROR?

"Does anyone here know how to Madison?"
"ASSHOLE!"
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on January 29, 2010, 02:36:03 PM
My heartfelt reply to doodler's post today @ 10:50:49 a.m.:

[b]NO FREAKING WAY!!![/b]  (Are you actually in sync w/the ASMPAS??   Unbelievable).


p.s.  I'M WITH YOU 100%, baycityjohn.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on January 29, 2010, 04:05:19 PM
Sorry folks, you can kick and scream all you want about Crash but it's the same thing as Bush/Gore...  Brokeback was not ever going to win Best Picture. If the people behind Crash took advantage of the situation, it simply helped the Academy. If they hadn't, it wouldn't have made any difference. At one point it was even reported that Nicholson said if he opened the envelope and Brokeback was on it, he would say the name of some other film... which may be why he was shocked when he announced the winner.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Rob in Puyallup on January 29, 2010, 09:55:28 PM
It makes me deliriously happy.

I'm so happy - I could do The Madison.
ah... is that a dance?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 30, 2010, 02:12:25 AM
The Madison

From Jean Luc Godard's Bande à part

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6pOXjQLh7Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6pOXjQLh7Y)

It's Madison Time

From Hairspray

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MiMrtI3aQ4

Madison Time at the Verdi Mar 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGDDMBXTTXU

Dancin' the Madison on "The Buddy Deane Show"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT_QNC6o24E&feature=related
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 30, 2010, 03:07:32 AM
The Ultimate Crash Forum (http://bbmfoundation.org/crash/index.php)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 30, 2010, 11:08:10 AM
Sorry folks, you can kick and scream all you want about Crash but
it's the same thing as Bush/Gore...  Brokeback was not ever going
to win Best Picture. If the people behind Crash took advantage of
the situation, it simply helped the Academy. If they hadn't, it wouldn't
have made any difference. At one point it was even reported that
Nicholson said if he opened the envelope and Brokeback was on it,
he would say the name of some other film... which may be why he was
shocked when he announced the winner.

When you take a fact that is true, like Bush gets the Presidency
or crash wins best picture and then make a statement like you
have that Gore or Brokeback Mountain were "never" going to win
is not really an argument.  It's merely stating a fact.  The only
evidence for your statements is that it's a fact they won, so no,
on hindsight the reverse is not going to happen.

Your statements remind me of the fortune-tellers who, after
any cataclysmic event, come out and say, I predicted that!

What I can say is that your statement about Jack Nicholson
is completely false.  He thought Brokeback Mountain was
going to win and voted for it as well.  And, if anyone reads
the incorrect winner's name from the cards in the envelope, the
representatives who are present from Price Waterhouse Coopers
are instructed to immediately take the stage, announce there has
been a mistake, that the person who said it was incorrect, and
announce the real winner.

Besides, your idea about Brokeback Mountain was never going
to win best picture, whether true in the abstract or not, is not the point
I was making, so "you can kick and scream all you want about crash"
isn't exactly a helpful analysis of why this chatter about it continues from
year to year on this and other sites.  It's akin to saying "Go sit in the back
of the bus," or more abruptly, "Shut up."  That's what this thread happens
to be about on many levels.  Your posts seem to be saying why keep
talking about this?

I told you above my purpose for doing so.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Rob in Puyallup on January 30, 2010, 11:40:08 AM
The Ultimate Crash Forum (http://bbmfoundation.org/crash/index.php)

LOL!

Is this a real forum?   ::)


(Love the Madison!)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: CellarDweller115 on January 30, 2010, 11:48:51 AM
The Ultimate Crash Forum (http://bbmfoundation.org/crash/index.php)


:D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on January 30, 2010, 03:27:48 PM
When you take a fact that is true, like Bush gets the Presidency
or crash wins best picture and then make a statement like you
have that Gore or Brokeback Mountain were "never" going to win
is not really an argument.  It's merely stating a fact.  The only
evidence for your statements is that it's a fact they won, so no,
on hindsight the reverse is not going to happen.

Darn, Lyle, to quote Billy Jack: I try, I really try...."
But this, I could NOT resist.

It's not a scare tactic, it's just facts.  I guess you didn't
read the post or just don't believe facts.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: CellarDweller115 on January 30, 2010, 07:01:20 PM


Please remember that one of the rules of this forum is to respect your fellow posters/forum members.


Thank you!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on January 30, 2010, 08:01:53 PM
My reply to doodler's most recent post:

NO FREAKING WAY!!
I'm with you and your comments 100%, BayCityJohn and Lyle.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on January 31, 2010, 11:31:11 AM
Darn, Lyle, to quote Billy Jack: I try, I really try...."
But this, I could NOT resist.

LOL...I read the posts, I believe the fact, but not
the supposition.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on January 31, 2010, 01:24:50 PM
I understand. I just disagree.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on January 31, 2010, 04:26:47 PM
 ::)  Another reply to doodler's post above:

Disagree all you want - doesn't mean you're right and everyone else is wrong. 

p.s.  Thx, BayCityJohn and Lyle for your supporting posts.   
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on January 31, 2010, 06:19:14 PM
::)  Another reply to doodler's post above:

Disagree all you want - doesn't mean you're right and everyone else is wrong. 

p.s.  Thx, BayCityJohn and Lyle for your supporting posts.   


you're welcome Kathy, and I also support doodler's posts even if I disagree.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: tonydude on January 31, 2010, 06:25:23 PM
I understand. I just disagree.
  And you always, when you do disagree, show respect for other's views, good breeding, and usually a measure of wit.  I love reading your posts, Doodler, even when they wouldn't reflect my own beliefs. Meanwhile, I don't think I've ever seen where you thought BBM shouldn't have won Best Picture; just your views on why it didn't.  But, if am wrong, there....I still admire independent thinking.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: tonydude on January 31, 2010, 06:33:03 PM
Come on, the fix was in. We were all just too blinded by love to see it. Check some of the entertainment/movie watcher websites from just before the Oscars... there were cautions galore about an upset. We all "hate"  Crash because it was the name on the card, but we'd have hated any of the others as well.
   I believe this is Exhibit A, that you have only said BBM was doomed by homophobia.  Couldn't find anything else to the contrary, but if it's there, that would be ok by me.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on February 01, 2010, 04:06:43 PM
Right you are. There aren't words to express my shock and actual grief that night. Getting over it has been a long... and continuing... road. About the only thing worse was Jan. 22, 2008.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on February 02, 2010, 02:05:15 PM
Right you are. There aren't words to express my shock and actual grief that night. Getting over it has been a long... and continuing... road. About the only thing worse was Jan. 22, 2008.


Jan. 22, 2008 was much worst. Still heart broken over that date.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on February 02, 2010, 02:07:03 PM
Right you are. There aren't words to express my shock and actual grief that night. Getting over it has been a long... and continuing... road. About the only thing worse was Jan. 22, 2008.

and Jan. 23, 2008
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: CellarDweller115 on February 02, 2010, 02:15:52 PM
Speaking of awards, here's one that I think Forum members could just about guarantee that BBM can win.  It's Awards Daily's poll on the best love stories every filmed. Check it out and vote here:
http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=18150

Will you help spread the word to other BBM fans? We're in second place now with Eternal Sunshine ahead by only 17 votes.

There's no notice of when voting stops, so let's keep asking friends to vote until we've knocked it out of the park!



I think the voting has stopped, only because people ceased voting.  it's still "open".  However, here are the current tallies.


Brokeback Mountain (36%, 640 Votes)
Eternal Sunshine (24%, 426 Votes)
Moulin Rouge (16%, 273 Votes)
Wall-E (12%, 204 Votes)
Annie Hall (11%, 201 Votes)

BM is 214 votes ahead, and these figures haven't changed since last week.  ;D
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Marge_Innavera on February 03, 2010, 08:26:55 AM
Come on, the fix was in. We were all just too blinded by love to see it. Check some of the entertainment/movie watcher websites from just before the Oscars... there were cautions galore about an upset. We all "hate"  Crash because it was the name on the card, but we'd have hated any of the others as well.

IMO, the pronoun "we" is inappropriate here.

The other 3 Best Picture contenders were Good Night and Good Luck, Munich and Capote.  I would have been disappointed if any of these had been chosen instead of Brokeback, but to have BBM passed over in favor of "social consciousness for the Gated Community" was an insult as well as a disappointment.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on February 03, 2010, 12:54:10 PM
but to have BBM passed over in favor of "social consciousness for the Gated Community" was an insult as well as a disappointment.

This is pretty funny, and sadly, true.

I have no doubt "homophobia' reared it ugly head during the voting process that year but I really
do doubt it was the deciding factor in BBM not receiving Best Pic.

Here's my rationale for what it's worth.

It seems a cliche but it is true.
This is how/why members vote for Oscar recipients.

Vote for your friends
Vote your pocketbook
Vote against your enemies
Vote for that which you consider the “best”.

“Capote”, also an independent film had a popular cast and a very popular screenwriter.  Certainly no one associated with the film voted for BBM and Futterman and PSH are very popular folks around Hollywood.  In this case, people vote for their friends.


“Good Night and Good Luck” was directed by one of the most popular men in Hollywood, had some good performances, and dealt with a topic that has always been near and dear to Hollywood.  No one associated with this film voted for BBM and many who were not associated voted for GNGL just because of Clooney.   In this case, people voted for their friends.

“Munich” was directed by the most powerful director in Hollywood and he was totally pissed, and made his anger public, at Universal (also the marketing arm for BBM) for not marketing his film properly. Not only did no one associated with this film vote for BBM, many others did not either because they felt loyal to Spielberg or had strong financial ties to him and so they voted for “Munich”.
In this case people voted for their friends AND others for their pocketbook.

Haggis had just come off “Million Dollar Baby” and was working with Eastwood/Spielberg on the “Fathers”/ “Letters from…” films.  You can bet Eastwood and Hanks and their friends voted for Haggis. 
Again people voting for friends AND pocketbook.

BBM was a very small film that, in general, everyone liked but about which no one was really “passionate”.  The cast was young and not part of the Hollywood establishment (except for Jake due to his parents). 
The project was filmed outside of Hollywood so none of the trade votes were beholden to it.
BBM did not garner many “friends” votes nor many “pocketbook” votes.  The votes mostly came from those who actually thought it was the “best” film.

“Crash” was populated with a boat load of Hollywood popular actors.  The actors and their friends alone could easily have accounted for 500 to 700 votes. 
Lionsgate felt comfortable spending tons of money on an Oscar campaign especially since they were in negotiations with FX to turn the film into a televison series.   As others here on the forum have said, the storyline, trite as it is, appealed to the “social consciousness of the gated community” and assuaged the “guilt” of the “latte liberals’. 
Again, Haggis’ popularity, especially with actors, was a major factor.  Not only was he popular with film actors but he goes all the way back to “Thirtysomething” for which he won scriptwriting Emmy’s. 

Consequently, “Crash” got the friends vote, the pocketbook vote AND the “thought it was the best vote” from a few.  It was also the safe harbor for the homophobes.

So, with no one film to get overly excited about, and anticipating that BBM was going to “win anyway”, people felt free to vote for their friends and for their own financial interests. 

Remember, also, that in 2005 all it took to win was a plurality.  (Unlike this year when the Best PIc will be chosen by a “preferential voting “ system similar to the way the nomination process works.
Consequently, all things being equal, “Crash” only need around 1145 or so votes to win and that is if all the ballots were returned.  It is not difficult to construct a scenario in which “Crash” could garner that many votes and even many more.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on February 03, 2010, 02:57:14 PM
Garyd, I couldn't agree with you more. Your assessment is right on.
And I agree that any other film would have been preferable to Crash which, while not the worse film of the year, was definitely the least deserving of the five nominees, in my opinion.
My original post was about how often Crash is mentioned on this site as if it were the bogeyman mom's talk about every night to make their kids eat their veggies.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on February 03, 2010, 03:07:03 PM
Crash is also mentioned as the bogeyman on numerous other sites, and it is still mentioned in news articles to this day whenever people write about Brokeback and the Oscars.

So it's not just us.

Have a nice day and be sure to eat your veggies!  ;D

(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj282/SanFranciscoJohn/broccoli02-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: daannzzz on February 03, 2010, 04:11:59 PM
I am unsure if I am dumb or have no taste but I saw "Crash" in May of 09 and loved it. I thought it was one of the best I had seen in a long time. I used to go to movies twice a week when I was younger. Not so much anymore but I had heard it was interesting. Of course I saw BBM in January of 06 and Crash moved back quite a ways on my list. I personally do think that homophobia ended up causing Crash to win though and it has bothered me a lot but I do not think it makes Crash a worse film. I still loved that one so I guess I just am clueless.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on February 03, 2010, 04:28:42 PM
I love to pick on  >:D Crash  >:D , but seriously I don't hate the film. It's an ok movie but not in the same league as Academy Award nominees.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Marge_Innavera on February 04, 2010, 07:17:18 AM
Garyd, I couldn't agree with you more. Your assessment is right on.
And I agree that any other film would have been preferable to Crash which, while not the worse film of the year, was definitely the least deserving of the five nominees, in my opinion.
My original post was about how often Crash is mentioned on this site as if it were the bogeyman mom's talk about every night to make their kids eat their veggies.

LOL, point taken with the pronouns.    8)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on February 04, 2010, 08:30:39 AM
 ::)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on February 04, 2010, 11:03:32 AM
The Need for Love Films

Posted by Suzanne Ball at February 3, 2010 3:30 p.m.

Quote
Since they were invented, films have provided us with love stories. That's probably why they were invented. Who hasn't sat in the safe darkness of a movie theater, bawling at a tragic--or happy--plot? Sure, some are cheesy stories, often thinly-disguised remakes of other cheesy stories. But we watch anyway. Maybe we need to be reminded of the sweetness and unpredictability of love. By gosh, it does happen, we say to each other. We want to believe.

There are dialogues and lines that move us, stay with us. Sometimes things we have said, or wished we had said. Characters that remind us of those we know, or ourselves. Situations that were like ours, only with different endings. Love is part of the human condition, and we need to witness it.

I certainly have my favorites. I already told you about all the love going on in Julie and Julia. Others are about love in other than traditional, romantic situations. In no special order, here are a handful that have touched my heart:

Quote
Brokeback Mountain: It was just a love story, folks. The very saddest kind, when two people can't be together. Society has always had secret relationships: race, religion, class, gender, you name it. The anguish can't be measured. The false fronts, the wish that everything could be different, knowing it can't be. And the story has seldom been told better than here. It should have won the 2005 Best Film Award.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/boomerblix/archives/193079.asp
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on February 04, 2010, 11:15:32 AM
UNT faculty members available to comment on this year’s Academy Award nominations

Quote
As you prepare for coverage of the 82nd Academy Awards, which will be presented on March 7 (Sunday), consider the perspectives of these University of North Texas faculty members, who are available to comment on the nominations, which were announced yesterday (Feb. 2).

Dr. Harry Benshoff is an associate professor of radio, television and film who researches topics in film genres, film history, film theory and multiculturalism. He is the author or co-author of three books, including America on Film: Representing Race, Class, Gender and Sexuality at the Movies. He was also the co-editor of Queer Cinema: The Film Reader.


Quote
Benshoff says the large number of Best Picture nominees could result in Academy members splitting the votes between Avatar and Up in the Air, -- the two films seen as frontrunners for the award -- and leave room for a smaller film such as Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push' by Sapphire to take home the Oscar as the surprise winner. The last surprise winner, he says, was in 2006, when Crash was named Best Picture over frontrunner Brokeback Mountain.



http://web3.unt.edu/news/story.cfm?story=11738
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 04, 2010, 12:15:30 PM
I have no doubt 'homophobia' reared it ugly head during the voting process
that year but I really do doubt it was the deciding factor in BBM not receiving
Best Pic.

Your comments are interesting, but those things you mention are
considered "every" year that films are nominated for best picture.
That is why we know what film is going to win best picture every
year 99% of the time.  You have to know that the academy does
what is expected of them most of the time.  That is why when I was
doing an oscar contest every year for the place I worked, which
involved marking all of the categories to project the winners, you'd
get dozens of people who are in tune with the awards season and
would get 85% of ALL the categories correct.

That is why there was a magazine style booklet published every
year that listed the upsides and downsides of the top 8 categories
for the nominees and people used it to project the winners.  It was
data (facts) and subjectivity in percentage form as well as current
trends.  And it was the Nielsen company.

For people that follow awards seasons every year there are things
used for prognostication that generally point to the outcomes.  Once
in awhile one, maybe even two or more, of these works out to be false
in any given year.  But not all of them.  The year Brokeback Mountain lost
the best picture oscar, ALL of these indicators were broken.  Let me repeat
that.  ALL OF THEM.  All of the measures by which  people have predicted
what would win the best picture award every year since the inception of the
awards in 1927 and all of those measures turned out to be broken.  And it's
a year that happens to have a gay themed film as the presumptive winner?
And you're going to say that in that kind of a year that homophobia was not
involved in that decision?  If there is any doubt about it, then you're not
following the evidence.

Your rationale might have more validity except all those reasons
you state for how/why members vote for oscar recipients are in
absolute opposition to a little movie called Slumdog Milllionaire.
Vote for your friends?
Vote your pocketbook?
Vote against your enemies?
Vote for that which you consider the “best”?

In that case I think Benjamin Button woulda swept the awards.

Quote
BBM was a very small film that, in general, everyone liked but about which
no one was really “passionate”.

Really?  Are you serious?

And if you are, why would they not be passionate about a film
that was garnering nominations and awards like no other film
in history and reviews that were some of the most glowing for a
film I have ever read?

Homophobia, perhaps?

All of what you say as reasons people may or may not have
voted the way they did may or may not be true.  But they cannot
be verified.  But we do have a great deal of evidence from actual
academy members who on record stated their dislike and even
disgust for the film. (Can you imagine a scenario of anyone saying
that about Schindler's List?)  And evidence from Hollywood journalists
like Nikki Finke who documented some member's refusal to even see
the film and a film critic like Kenneth Turan who also spoke to Hollywood
types who were decidedly uncomfortable with the notion of this film being
declared best picture.  And actors who have stated they still have not seen
the film, whom I mentioned in a previous post.

What you list as reasons, I think are more like excuses. 

I mean, think about it...Hollywood loves to pat itself on the
back as to how liberal and caring they are for all sorts of
reasons, so why, even if they only liked BBM instead of being
passionate about it, why wouldn't they go ahead and feel good
about themselves and embrace the film that would show just
how great they are, instead of pissing off the one segment of
their audience that really love and follow their awards season
and whom, it is always supposed, make up a great deal of their
employees as well?  Why would they instead turn to a mediocre
film that had all but dropped out of the public and of the critics
consciousness and that was not even being talked of as a
contender in December of that year, much less a winner, and
wasn't even nominated by the HFPA, something that has never
without reason happened before or since in an oscar race--a
non-nominated HFPA film winning the oscar.  Lion's Gate has
even admitted they began a campaign to oscar voters, appealing
on the homophobia they detected to put forth their film as the
alternative to the movie you don't really want to win.  (Or even
see in many cases!)

I have listed some facts and some evidence above for the
reasons Brokeback Mountain did not win ampas's best picture
award.  And these two threads have listed many more since 2005.
They point to a lot of homophobia.  You have listed a theory.
I'll go with the evidence.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 04, 2010, 12:35:30 PM
Quote
Benshoff says the large number of Best Picture nominees could result in
Academy members splitting the votes between Avatar and Up in the Air, -- the
two films seen as frontrunners for the award -- and leave room for a smaller
film such as Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push' by Sapphire to take home
the Oscar as the surprise winner. The last surprise winner, he says, was in
2006, when Crash was named Best Picture over frontrunner Brokeback
Mountain.

Benshoff is really not credible if he knows anything at all about
these things.  First of all, his premise isn't correct because they
are not using a plurality of votes with the ten nominee system.  They
are using a weighted voting system where you put down your selections
for best picture in order of preference instead of choosing one film.  (The
details of this voting system are posted in various award chat sites like
Gold Derby, The Envelope, Awards Daily or Movie City News.)

Second, Up in the Air is not any more a serious contender.  Remember
all the writing about BBM didn't win because it didn't get a film editing nom?
Neither did Up in the Air.  And no guild has awarded Up in the Air much
of anything.  It wasn't even nominated for the SAG ensemble award.

Another rule of thumb--the film with the most nominations usually wins.
Avatar and The Hurt Locker both have 9 nominations.  By the way, two
rules of thumb to prognosticate a best picture winner:

A film with no acting nominations rarely wins.
The last time a film won best picture with no screenplay OR
acting nominations was GRAND HOTEL in 1932.
(Avatar fits this bill.)

Films with the lowest box office totals NEVER win.
(The Hurt Locker fits that bill.)

A film that has won the Producer's Guild, Director's Guild
and Writer's Guild and the Golden Globe for Best Picture
has ALWAYS gone on to win the oscar for Best Picture.
(Except Brokeback Mountain.)

Producer's and Director's have picked Hurt Locker.
Writer's haven't picked yet, but Avatar isn't nominated.
Globes picked Avatar and Hurt Locker didn't receive
any HFPA awards.

Up in the Air hasn't received much attention at all.
It would be a true upset if that won Best Picture.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 04, 2010, 12:41:36 PM
My original post was about how often Crash is mentioned
on this site as if it were the bogeyman mom's talk about every
night to make their kids eat their veggies.

That is what this thread is for!

It's the awards aftermath and over the last 4 years we bring up
posts and articles written by others that corroborate the premise
that all of us believe--that Brokeback Mountain should have won
the oscar for best picture and the premise that most of us believe,
the reason it did not was due to homophobia.  We keep finding the
articles and evidence, so we keep posting!

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on February 04, 2010, 12:56:20 PM
And as the Oscars approach this year we'll be finding a lot of new articles mentioning 2005/2006 as the year that the Academy got it wrong.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 04, 2010, 03:49:50 PM
And I love reading them!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on February 04, 2010, 04:26:16 PM

I have listed some facts and some evidence above for the
reasons Brokeback Mountain did not win ampas's best picture
award.  And these two threads have listed many more since 2005.
They point to a lot of homophobia.  You have listed a theory.
I'll go with the evidence.


True, I have put forth a "theory" and
with scant "evidence" other than that which rightfully might be considered
anecdotal.
It is also true that there have been reports in the media regarding
homophobic motivations for some eligible members to not cast a vote for BBM.
I have no reason to question the validity of these reports.
(I also, by the way, have absolutely no reason or motivation to "make excuses" for
voting members of AMPAS).

Your contention is that the primary reason for BBM not receiving the Best Pic award
was homophobia.  
Though I agree that it, undoubtedly, played a role in the loss, I am not convinced
it was the deciding factor.
Should the exact vote counts ever become public and it is discovered that BBM lost by
only a few votes, I would be forced to agree with your contention.
If final voting for Oscar nominees was done by committee or "blue ribbon panel', which is how the Tony's and
Emmy's were once decided,(actually kudos to ANYONE who can explain the Emmy process),  then I could also subscribe to a homophobic conspiracy theory.
However, I simply feel that it strains credulity to it's very limits to believe that the majority of over
5000 individual voters conspired, for homophobic reasons, to torpedo BBM.  

It is, I admit, simply a "hunch" on my part (though, to be honest, I probably consider it to be "an educated guess").
Quite frankly, in this case, I hope I am right.


Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: tonydude on February 04, 2010, 05:33:05 PM
  I think Lyle's detailed listing of Oscar history holds up fairly strongly, that something went wrong, and the obvious would be homophobia.  But whose homophobia?  Hollywood is fairly liberal (with some glaring exceptions), but the industry out there is sensitive to criticism from conservatives who claim they are undermining the moral fabric of the nation.  And they did go through the "Red Scare" of the 1950's.
  It doesn't seem possible to get around Lyle's research.  But I kind of feel the homophobia that killed Best Picture was national, and perceived by the Academy, and therefore their biggest offense would have been that they were gutless wonders.
  So, it was a double hit, probably: one of the best movies in decades was knocked to the side by an inferior, now-forgotten, contender; but also, the industry's moral cowardice meant that millions, sitting on the fence, could look away from the issues to be found in BBM, which would not have been so easy had it won.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on February 04, 2010, 06:55:29 PM
  I think Lyle's detailed listing of Oscar history holds up fairly strongly, that something went wrong, and the obvious would be homophobia.  But whose homophobia?  Hollywood is fairly liberal (with some glaring exceptions), but the industry out there is sensitive to criticism from conservatives who claim they are undermining the moral fabric of the nation.  And they did go through the "Red Scare" of the 1950's.
  It doesn't seem possible to get around Lyle's research.  But I kind of feel the homophobia that killed Best Picture was national, and perceived by the Academy, and therefore their biggest offense would have been that they were gutless wonders.
  So, it was a double hit, probably: one of the best movies in decades was knocked to the side by an inferior, now-forgotten, contender; but also, the industry's moral cowardice meant that millions, sitting on the fence, could look away from the issues to be found in BBM, which would not have been so easy had it won.

Well Tony, I am going to post this and then let it go because I am certainly not a fan of the film Crash and I think it an absolute travesty that BBM did not receive the recognition it deserved as Best picture.
However, Lyle's "detailed listing" does hold up fairly well though Crash did receive strong critical praise from major markets around the country when it was released. It received 9 BAFTA nominations and won two including best original screenplay.
If any group is to be ridiculed it certainly can be HFPA.  The majority of these people are certainly not foreign and have little to do with the "press".  There have also been films not nominated by HFPA which have gone on to win the Oscar. (HFPA also nominated it for best screenplay) .
That being said, it is certainly true that the Crash win was a major upset especially in light of the pre-Oscar awards and critical praise. 

The other problem I have is your, and others, remarks regarding "the industry" and the "Academy" as though both were monolithic entities voting in lockstep.  Really, nothing could be further from the truth.  Eligible voters number well over 5000 very independent people.  Long past are the days when "studio" bosses controlled Oscar voting.  Eligible voters,(were any of the lead actors in BBM even eligible to vote for themselves or their own film?) are actors, make up artists, lighting designers, directors, screenwriters, "friends of the Academy", costume designers, musicians etc.  Are we to believe they are all raging homophobes or that they sit back and wait  for Ernest Borgnine and Tony Curtis to weigh in on the subject?  Is it possible that Goldie Hawn, Annette Benning, Warren Beatty, Carrie Fisher, Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie, Meryl Streep, Diane Keaton, Whoopie Goldberg, Matt Damon, Susan Sarandon, Jeff Bridges, Clint Eastwood, Tom Hanks,  et al, really give a hoot what John Wayne might be thinking from the grave?  Does Woodie Allen tremble in fear that it might be discovered he voted for a "gay cowboy" movie? Do Martin Sheen and Steve Martin lie awake at night fretting over what sort of message a BBM Best Pic award might send home to the folk in Peoria?
As for the Oscar perhaps convincing more people to see the film, I find that a bit difficult to embrace.  The audience that was going to see BBM saw BBM.  For those "sitting on the fence" or determined not to watch it, the Oscar to them, would just have been another example of liberal "Hollywood" attempting to shove a "gay agenda" down their throats. 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: fritzkep on February 04, 2010, 07:00:09 PM
I'd love to know who and what Rev. Mother Dolores Hart voted for.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on February 04, 2010, 07:06:00 PM
I'd love to know who and what Rev. Mother Dolores Hart voted for.


Whomever and whatever Elvis suggested I suppose.  ;)

Hmmm. I DO wonder if she voted for "Doubt".
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: tonydude on February 04, 2010, 07:25:06 PM
The other problem I have is your, and others, remarks regarding "the industry" and the "Academy" as though both were monolithic entities voting in lockstep.  Really, nothing could be further from the truth. 
 
    As written, Gary, I think the above sentence is correct.  But, on the other hand, there is, I suspect, some sense of an almost ethnic identity, however weak in "the industry".  They talk to each other. They check out the latest trends in their world.  So do truck drivers. And CPA's.
  So, lockstep and monolithic?  No, you are right, Gary, and am glad you pointed out the absurdity there, whether or not I actually fell prey to it. But I still kinda sorta think birds of a feather notice what the other birds of their genus are doing, and tend to adapt accordingly. Did that play any role in the choice made? Maybe.  Some part, at least, of the pre-Oscar campaigns is to persuade the group mentality, as well as the individual vote.
  I did also appreciate your explanations and theories, as well as Lyle's, by the way. My own reaction was just that, a reaction, and I hope not over-stated. Probably, a lot was going on, leading to the unexpected result.  We've all done, I think, an honest exploration. And should continue, as it's a question that still bothers people, even those who have never heard of this forum.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on February 04, 2010, 08:48:50 PM
    As written, Gary, I think the above sentence is correct.  But, on the other hand, there is, I suspect, some sense of an almost ethnic identity, however weak in "the industry".  They talk to each other. They check out the latest trends in their world.  So do truck drivers. And CPA's.
  So, lockstep and monolithic?  No, you are right, Gary, and am glad you pointed out the absurdity there, whether or not I actually fell prey to it. But I still kinda sorta think birds of a feather notice what the other birds of their genus are doing, and tend to adapt accordingly. Did that play any role in the choice made? Maybe.  Some part, at least, of the pre-Oscar campaigns is to persuade the group mentality, as well as the individual vote.
  I did also appreciate your explanations and theories, as well as Lyle's, by the way. My own reaction was just that, a reaction, and I hope not over-stated. Probably, a lot was going on, leading to the unexpected result.  We've all done, I think, an honest exploration. And should continue, as it's a question that still bothers people, even those who have never heard of this forum.

Yes, good points Tony.
Lord  knows I really don't know what happened and I must
 admit that I actually would like to believe it had more to do with
cronyism and greed than homophobic prejudice.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 05, 2010, 02:13:23 PM
Hey, guys, I wrote a long long post about this yesterday and this morning, so
I’ll post it in parts.  I do so because it’s (obviously) one of my favorite topics
and is what initially brought me to the forum 4 years ago!  (Damn, 4 years!)

So take it…for what it’s worth…or whatever!

...then I could also subscribe to a homophobic conspiracy theory.
However, I simply feel that it strains credulity to it's very limits to
believe that the majority of over 5000 individual voters conspired, for
homophobic reasons, to torpedo BBM. 

It is, I admit, simply a "hunch" on my part (though, to be honest, I
probably consider it to be "an educated guess"). Quite frankly, in
this case, I hope I am right.

I do not use the word conspiracy as that implies willful organization,
but consider this:

During the course of the "award season" in December of 2005,
Brokeback Mountain had been getting brilliant reviews and had
already won the Best Picture award at Venice and great notices
at two film festivals.  When it opened and it was apparent that the
general public liked the film the Hollywood trade papers started
writing that it was a likely contender for best picture and posed
what could stop it?  And movie after movie after that opened to less
than stellar reviews, or decidedly mixed reviews.  Memoirs of a Geisha,
The New World, Munich etc., all the while BBM started getting award
after award from critics groups like the New York film critics and L.A.
film critics and was the one film story on the most best film lists of
the year.  This is when these articles about ampas members being
uncomfortable with the film started up.  This is when Lions Gate
recognized this uncomfortableness with the film and started it's
massive dvd campaign.  They have admitted this outright.

And note:  uncomfortableness equals homophobia.  Can you imagine
anyone saying they were uncomfortable with the notion of a Jewish
themed film getting nominated or winning, or a drama about a black
family or Memoirs of a Geisha because it's Asian?  Not to mention
saying they didn't care to even see it.  Or refuse to see it.  No.  These
people were distinctly uncomfortable because it was a gay themed
love story.  This is also when the humor surrounding the film became
incessant.  Stephen King wrote in EW, that it was incessant because
"America" was distinctively uncomfortable with it.

So, in January, when there didn't seem to be any stopping
Brokeback Mountain on its oscar roll--it won a huge amount
of Best Picture prizes from critics, second place wasn't even
close, and it won the Broadcast film critics followed by the
Golden Globe award for best film.  And Crash was not even
nominated for a Globe!  Then crash was nominated for a
SAG award for ensemble (which isn't a surprise since ampas
members and guild members received 1-3 dvd's of this film each,
as it had already been on dvd for weeks, and also since there is
a slew of actors in it).   Most people thought it would win that
award.  It did.  But the press, to make something interesting
to write about as BBM was the foregone winner; they began
writing about this one win as though it was serious competition.
This started to give cover to those who really wanted permission
somehow not to vote for BBM, even though they didn't really like
any of the other nominees, either.

In the meantime, BBM started winning all the other Guild
Awards--Producer, Director, Writer's.  BAFTA awarded it
Best Picture.  Some press detractor's seized upon anything
that would shed a negative light on BBM's high position in the
award stakes.  Example:  When Brokeback Mountain won the
Bafta for Best Picture, David Poland wrote a whole article
about how that signified it didn't have wide support because
it "only" won 4 baftas.  (cont'd)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 05, 2010, 02:14:47 PM
The reason that Brokeback Mountain NOT winning the Oscar
was a shock is that there wasn't anything to stop it, unless
you count homophobia as the primary factor.  As I said, those
indicators used to determine what will win are indicators for a
reason.  Name another film that was a shoo-in that did not win?
I can't.  Even the two most recent ones people cite as "upsets"
were not the foregone conclusions some think--Saving Private
Ryan losing to Shakespeare in Love or Chariots of Fire winning
over Reds.

There was a lot of talk and several articles written "before"
the oscars for 1981 about academy members who liked and
even admired Reds, but did not want to give the top prize to
a film they felt was supporting communism.  Sound familiar?
Plus, that year there were 2-3 films in contention that nearly
all voters liked.  Chariots, On Golden Pond and Raiders of the
Lost Ark.  There were viable alternatives.

Shakespeare in Love had the most nominations it's year.
It had won one of the two Best Picture awards from the
Golden Globes.  It was on a lot of ten best lists and won
some critics awards for Best Picture.  All of those are
oscar indicators.  There was some uncertainty.

If you look at Brokeback Mountain in contrast, there was
pretty much unanimity in the winning column.  There was
not a serious contender.  Even the shoo-in Titanic had a
serious contender--L.A. Confidential.  You know who "was"
the group who was uncertain about Brokeback Mountain
winning?  A lot of gay people.  Many just didn't think the
academy would go for it.  Two gay people, members of the
academy, wrote about it--Ian McKellan and screenwriter Barry
Sandler.  Ian said, albeit afterwards, that he never thought
Brokeback Mountain would win because those old uptight
people in the valley would never vote for it.  (He was referring
to the ampas members in much of the technical side of the
business--film editors, sound technicians and the like.)
Barry Sandler was on record before the results.  He said
that "If Brokeback Mountain doesn't win this year, it will
be because of something else.  Because there isn't any
other competition this year."  By the way, he also voted
for PSH.  Even gay ampas members usually follow the
indicators, eh?  Although I wish he had been specific and
said homophobia, instead of "something else", the article
was about that subject in terms of the films that year.

Your contention is that the primary reason for BBM not receiving the Best Pic award
was homophobia.  Though I agree that it, undoubtedly, played a role in the loss, I am not convinced it was the deciding factor.

In other years I might also agree with you.  But the way
it all worked out for the nominated films of 2005, we get
to see that it was homophobia.  There was not a viable
alternative as is normally thought of.  Every year has
a film or two with strong pockets of support, 1967 is
a great example with 4 of them, but this year the OTHER
films were all pretty mixed in their reviews.  They weren't
attracting huge pockets of support across the board.  Or
acclaim.  Or awards.  Only Brokeback Mountain was.  If it
had been another year where a film like L.A. Confidential
was up against it, or even The Departed, or The Pianist;
films that people liked, admired, thought were good, had
other reasons to vote for them, like being Scorcese's year,
or a Jewish theme which is always popular with ampas,
there'd probably be no argument with the choice.  There
would be disappointment, but no argument.

(In case I need to clarify:  Yes, Munich dealt with a Jewish
theme as did The Pianist which I noted, but The Pianist got
a lot of really good reviews.  Munich was not acclaimed by
most.)  (cont'd)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 05, 2010, 02:17:35 PM
However, Lyle's "detailed listing" does hold up fairly well
though Crash did receive strong critical praise from
major markets around the country when it was released.

Whatever praise the film got was not overwhelming and
certainly was countered by just as many refuting it.  The
box office was minimal, about 45 million, the film had been
sitting on the shelf for a year before it was even released (it
premiered at a film festival in 2004) and was on dvd with no
serious award consideration by the time award season hit.
Another award indicator--movies already on dvd almost never
win best picture.

If any group is to be ridiculed it certainly can be HFPA.
The majority of these people are certainly not foreign and
have little to do with the "press".  There have also been films
not nominated by HFPA which have gone on to win the Oscar.

No film without reason that has not been nominated for Best Picture
by HFPA has "ever" gone on to win the oscar for best picture.  (Except
Crash.)

The other problem I have is your, and others, remarks regarding
"the industry" and the "Academy" as though both were monolithic
entities voting in lockstep.  Really, nothing could be further from
the truth.  Eligible voters number well over 5000 very independent
people.  Long past are the days when "studio" bosses controlled
Oscar voting.  Eligible voters,(were any of the lead actors in BBM
even eligible to vote for themselves or their own film?) are actors,
make up artists, lighting designers, directors, screenwriters, "friends
of the Academy", costume designers, musicians etc.  Are we to believe
they are all raging homophobes or that they sit back and wait  for Ernest
Borgnine and Tony Curtis to weigh in on the subject?  Is it possible that
Goldie Hawn, Annette Benning, Warren Beatty, Carrie Fisher, Dustin
Hoffman, Angelina Jolie, Meryl Streep, Diane Keaton, Whoopie Goldberg,
Matt Damon, Susan Sarandon, Jeff Bridges, Clint Eastwood, Tom Hanks,
et al, really give a hoot what John Wayne might be thinking?  Does Woodie
Allen tremble in fear that it might be discovered he voted for a "gay cowboy"
movie? Do Martin Sheen and Steve Martin lie awake at night fretting over what
sort of message a BBM Best Pic award might send home to the folk in Peoria?

First, here is the current membership:

Ampas Breakdown
Actors-1,205
Producers-462
Executives-436
Sound-405
Writers-382
Art Directors-373
Directors-375
Public Relations-370
Members at Large-254
Shorts/Feature Ani-335
Visual Effects-272
Music-233
Editors-227
Cinematographers-201
Original Score-234
Documentary-145
Makeup-115
Total Voting Members -approx 5,777

I know when people write about this it might sound like what
you wrote above, but I have never suggested that.  But as
circumstantial evidence I offer you the fact that according to the last
"I don't know how many years" of EW's listings of what would win best
picture each year and the percentage of votes needed to do so, you can
win best picture with anywhere from 21%-40% of the votes.  For Brokeback
Mountain they projected it would get 35% if I am remembering correctly.  So
you don't need a huge number of people voting with homophobic attitudes
to change the outcome.  And we have evidence of homophobia on record
(as I previously posted).  We have it suspected on record by two gay members
of ampas, McKellan and Sandler.  It doesn't take much of a stretch to think
that if ancient academy members like Ernest Borgnine and a supposedly
liberal personage like Tony Curtis don't even want to "see" the film, that a
goodly number of behind the scenes ampas members in the more
conservative areas of the industry would not vote for it, either.

(By the way, people like the above declaring they don't want
to even see it, gives permission for others not to, either.)

So, yes, a great percentage of ampas might not be homophobic,
but homophobia played the deciding card in Brokeback Mountain
not winning best picture and I have not seen any other evidence to
the contrary.  (If anyone's interested, there's a great article about
this on AfterElton written by Michael Jensen.)  (cont'd)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 05, 2010, 02:19:03 PM
Another example of homophobia--even though a lot in the press
brought this idea up in the days after, not one mainstream news
organization did a story on it.  Researched it.  Had a news segment
about it.  Ampas simply swept that idea under the rug by denying it.
Did Oprah do a story or show about it?  The only article I read at
all delving in to this notion was on After Elton.  Even The Advocate
played Uncle Tom on the issue--oh, thank you ampas for the 3
awards you did dole out to us...

A forum member, don't know if he wants his name mentioned, knows
two girls whose father is an academy member.  They told him their
father said there was no way he was voting for the gay movie.  In an
EW article over a year later Diana Ossana herself said that it didn't win
because of homophobia.

If homophobia were not an issue there would be more out
celebrities.  There'd be more gay mainstream films made.
Gay people in the industry like Todd Holland would not tell
gay actors, as he did last year, to stay in the closet.  Los Angeles
County, after all, voted in favor of Prop 8.
 
As for the Oscar perhaps convincing more people to see the film,
I find that a bit difficult to embrace.

Brokeback Mountain had it's biggest increase in attendance the
day after it won the Golden Globe for Best Picture.  After it lost
from ampas, it rapidly declined.  Many people do see a film if
it's getting a lot of award attention.  That Neilsen guide I had
mentioned had charts of some box office for nominees one year.
If a film is nominated alone it gets a jump in box office.  Winning
gives it another jump.  I remember growing up, a girl who told me
the only film her parents go out to see every year is the one that
wins Best Picture from ampas.  People really do take these things
into account when they are choosing a film to see.

The audience that was going to see BBM saw BBM. For those
"sitting on the fence" or determined not to watch it, the Oscar to
them, would just have been another example of liberal "Hollywood"
attempting to shove a "gay agenda" down their throats.

For some, perhaps, but others do take these things seriously.
I remember a girl who posted on a blog that the day after the
oscars she went to her office (in NYC) disappointed that BBM
hadn't won and one of her colleagues who all knew she was
a fan of the film said to her, "You really didn't think that fag
movie would win, did you?"  She felt the academy, in its decision,
had given him permission to utter such a thing.

In conclusion (applause!), because of the nature of the ampas
voting, there's no exit polling after all, it is usually unclear to
decipher how or why they may vote in any given category, but
it's also clear we DO know what will win in most cases.

When something is a shock or surprise, people go looking
for answers.  Because of the way it happened for 2005, nothing
seems to tip the scales for Brokeback Mountain's best picture
loss than homophobia as the main reason.  Especially when there's
evidence of it, both factual and anecdotal.  And especially when
you consider the lackluster competition it had.  I also want to point
out that one thing I've learned from this particular discussion over
the months, is that homophobia does not necessarily mean hate.
It can, of course, but it may just also mean an aversion or even an
unfounded fear.

If I am not correct in my premise--please tell me where I am wrong.

***

Ta da!

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on February 05, 2010, 02:23:00 PM
Whomever and whatever Elvis suggested I suppose.  ;)

Hmmm. I DO wonder if she voted for "Doubt".

Now, now, don't be mean!  I LOVE Dolores Hart!  My gosh, I just realized that it'll be 50 years this year since WHERE THE BOYS ARE was released.

I doubt she'd have listened to Elvis--from what I've read, she had an affair with him (pre-nunnery!) and he pretty much broke her heart (Hart?).  So she may not have wholly (as opposed to holy) fond memories of "The King."  He evidently was a stud.  Mary Tyler Moore has said that she's the only leading lady of his that he didn't sleep with, even though he had had a huge crush on her since the days of THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW.  
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on February 05, 2010, 02:50:30 PM
Now, now, don't be mean!  I LOVE Dolores Hart!  My gosh, I just realized that it'll be 50 years this year since WHERE THE BOYS ARE was released.

Was not my intent to mean at all.  Just having some fun with the whole Elvis is alive and working at a Burger King
in the Chicago suburbs thing.
Ms. Hart was a fine actress even garnering a Tony nomination back in the late fifties or early sixties for her role in "The Pleasure of His Company". 
It is my understanding she has done some rather amazing work in her new vocation.

I DO wonder what she thought of "Doubt".
Of course neither the play nor the film really had anything, thematically, to do with her religion but still, it would make an
interesting conversation I think. 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: tonydude on February 05, 2010, 02:52:09 PM
  Lyle, that was an impressive, well-reasoned, series of posts, above, and I admire the passion shown, as the subject in question deserves a champion who never gives up. Am with you, on this one: some variation of homophobia was in play.  I still see some likelihood that where it wasn't, moral cowardice (fear of other's homophobia) was.
 I've also found Gary's posts of value. Sometimes, when he writes something, it's unusually important to re-read his posts as he's often musing out loud.  And, of course, the back-and-forth creates a climate for productive research and discusssion.
  Just saying BBM got trashed is ok, I guess, but, IMO, the civil and reasoned back-and-forth we've seen here, needed to be done. Great posts, you guys!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on February 05, 2010, 06:20:25 PM
Wow Lyle, it seems as though you should at least acknowledge my contribution as that of a Varro type Muse. 
While I may be only “striking at air”, what exquisite sound it has elicited!  8)

Your rebuttal is excellent, and I admire your passion and certainly your tenacity.

With all due respect, however, the evidence you cite might still be considered circumstantial, hearsay, and anecdotal. 
The fact that it comes from such fine people as Kenneth Tynan, Michael Jensen, Mckellan, Sandler, Diana Ossana or two girls whose father is an eligible voter, does not raise the “evidence” above the level of opinion.  (with the exception of the girls who I am sure were not lying).

There is little, if any evidence, that BBM ever acquired a corporate champion in it’s bid for an Oscar.
 Quite frankly, neither did the other three nominees.
 
The facts are that Lionsgate purchased Crash for a measly $3.5 million dollars in September of 2004 at the Toronto festival. 
Far from “sitting on the shelf”, the studio made a conscious decision not to release until May just prior to the Summer blockbuster season. 
The marketing strategy was to make the film a must see “event “ film for a niche audience, specifically ethnic minorities.

 Al Sharpton took a DVD of it with him to visit Mexican President Vicente Fox and,
with some prodding from Lionsgate PR folks, Oprah Winfrey
aired a one-hour show devoted specifically to the film.

The initial reviews were surprisingly positive and the film made about $54 million and sold several million DVD’’s returning $35 million to Lionsgate. 
A decision to make a run for the Oscar was not solidified, however,
until August when it was determined, right or wrong, that there might not be a  clear front runner for Best Pic. 
From this point on, all I can say is Joe Ortenberg.

This guy knows how to win an election. 
He is the Karl Rove of movie marketing making Harvey Weinstein look like Winnie the Pooh. 
 
He did exactly as Rove does and targeted a specific audience and voter segment. 
He realized that Crash is an ‘actors” film and he went all out to get their vote. 
As you noted they represent about 21% of eligible voters. 
 AND, like Karl Rove in Ohio, he may even have played to the homophobic prejudices of certain voters
“offering ‘ them a seemingly viable alternative to that “gay cowboy movie”. 

He spent money at key times in January and February to allocate an extra $2 million, bringing the total outlay to $4 million.
He targeted Los Angeles actors, the niche needed to build a voting base.

He simply ignored the growing noise bouncing off BBM.
I'm sorry, but when it comes down to the "business" of running an Oscar campaign,
marketers know that BAFTA and the Globes and especially major market critics and "foo-foo" film festivals
can be overcome.

None of the other nominees received this level of support designed specifically for the Oscar race.
 
Crucial to Ortenberg’s campaign was the decision to mail out 130,000 DVDs, including about 110,000 sent to actors. Not all recipients were Oscar voters.
But "Crash" nonetheless won the best movie ensemble award from the Screen Actors Guild,
an early tip-off that it might also have Oscar legs and that the strategy to target actors was viable.
 
There were other early hints that "Crash" might go the distance.
In the awards issued by Hollywood's directing, producing, art directing and writing guilds, "Crash" roughly held its own with "Brokeback" in nominations and wins.
Crash was nominated by all four guilds and won art direction and original script.
 
BBM  did not receive any kind of recognition from the art directors guild but did receive director, producer, and adapted screenplay wins.
Big wins to be sure but not overwhelmingly influential with actors.

You might insist that the content of the campaign was homophobic but I can find no evidence that was the case. 
The major pitch was that Crash was an ensemble film containing some excellent performances and put forth a message that deserved to be heard.
This is not to say, as I mentioned earlier, that the campaign did not offer a subtle "alternative" to
the homophobic element.
 
From there on out, like any other election, it simply became a numbers game and all Crash needed was 1156 votes. 
(all other things being equal which, of course they were not due to money, cronyism and homophobic prejudice).
I can imagine a scenario where all three of the above played a combined role in putting Crash over the top.
You see homophobic prejudice as being the key contributor.

Either way, I do believe the Lionsgate strategy of building a strong base of votes from the actors AMPAS membership played
a significant role in the final tally.
 
As for Hollywood’s disingenuous, hypocritical sexual double standards, you get no argument from me.
 
To bring a bit of levity into the discussion, I highly recommend you see a play entitled “The Little Dog Laughed”. 
(I am not sure it has played L.A. yet, has it?)
It is devastatingly funny and just plain devastating and perceptive concerning Hollywood’s contempt
for wordsmiths and its sexual double standards. 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 06, 2010, 02:36:52 PM
Wow Lyle, it seems as though you should at least acknowledge my contribution as that of a Varro type Muse.  
While I may be only “striking at air”, what exquisite sound it has elicited!  8)

Your rebuttal is excellent, and I admire your passion and certainly your tenacity.

With all due respect, however, the evidence you cite might still be considered circumstantial, hearsay, and anecdotal.  
The fact that it comes from such fine people as Kenneth Tynan, Michael Jensen, Mckellan, Sandler, Diana Ossana or two girls whose father is an eligible voter, does not raise the “evidence” above the level of opinion.  (with the exception of the girls who I am sure were not lying).

Gary,

I do acknowledge your contributions!  They make me want to write a great
deal!  But of course, you know I disagree with some of your points!  (Are you
surprised?)

In this day of the CSI shows, judges have written articles about how juries
are less and less inclined to bring guilty verdicts based on circumstantial
evidence or reasonable doubt.

Evidence might be circumstantial in trials, but you used to get convicted
on it more often than not.  Nowadays people want the smoking gun.  Well,
actors going on tv badmouthing a film they haven't seen and stating they
don't want to see it is one smoking gun in my opinion.  The fact that
journalists wrote about it beforehand is another.  The Watergate articles
could have been considered hearsay without the sources being published.
In this day of internet blogs I think you have to consider the sources more
than ever.  Those people who come from the sources (the academy) are
people's opinions I wouldn't dismiss so easily.  When people often say
one person's opinion is as valid as anothers, that is laughable.  If you're
asking someone about how to put out a fire, would you trust a fireman or
a doctor's opinion as the most valid?

As for Lionsgate's Oscar campaign, this is a smokescreen.  All films get
Oscar campaigns, even Brokeback Mountain had one.  The reason I say it is
a smokescreen is this:  If there wasn't a chance for it to win, and you have to
ask why they thought there was based on its performance and reception.
Any other film that even the director called a "mediocre first effort" wouldn't
have been thought worthy of spending more than the film cost to make on an
oscar campaign.

Quote
A decision to make a run for the Oscar was not solidified, however,
until August when it was determined, right or wrong, that there might not be a
clear front runner for Best Pic.

I don't know where you got this information, but it doesn't make any
sense.  Who would make a decision in August to run an oscar campaign
for a film with reviews that at least indicated it wouldn't garner an across the
board support to win, and especially when no one had seen many of the other
films that were highly touted for the end of the year.

In Hollywood, everyone thinks about making a run for the oscar, but
setting a plan in motion in August doesn't make sense to me.  Even if
they did do this, by the beginning of December, Cinderella Man had more
oscar buzz than Crash did.

And something you cannot dispute.  Brokeback Mountain was THE film to
beat.  An unprecedented amount of support from critics, the public, guilds and actual awards.  You cite Oprah and Al Sharpton as promoting the film.  Isn't
that a bit obvious?  Wouldn't you expect them to?  They are black?  Don't forget
Tavis Smiley's two part crash-a-thon on PBS.  There's no denying that black
people have an interest in promoting black themed films and talking about
racism, but how many shows do you see anyone doing about homophobia?
Any other film that was as talked about as Brokeback Mountain would have
had shows done about their themes during or after awards season.  Last
year, for example, I saw news reports dealing with Indian music, fashion, the
aspect of Indians living in poverty, all because of Slumdog Millionaire.

But where were the shows dealing with being in the closet or homophobia
or any of the other aspects that Brokeback Mountain brought up.  Besides the
actors promoting the film, I saw exactly one--and it was an episode of Tyra
Banks, of all shows (and good for her).

You cannot just say that a good Karl Rove type marketed crash to its best
picture win without also at least wondering why a company would market
a film like that, a film with the least good reviews of all five nominees,
according to critics compilation lists published in places like Premiere and
EW (fact), a film that had already played out its theatrical run and was on
dvd and had disappeared from public consciousness (fact), a film that
wasn't on anyone's radar as even a possible nominee for best film in
December--see MCN's charts (fact), a film that after the awards was
listed in at least two separate articles (Premiere and L.A. Times) as one
of the ten worst best picture winners ever (fact), when Haggis himself was
quoted as saying Brokeback Mountain should be the winner (fact), when
before the SAG nominations were even out Brokeback Mountain had won
more Best Picture Awards by at least triple than any other film that year (fact).
Even Munich and A History of Violence had more than crash (fact).

I am beginning to wonder if people even think there is such a thing as
homophobia as a premise to start off with in the first place.  I mean, when
crash won the NAACP image award for best film the headline in the L.A. Times
film section was:  'Crash' Wins Image Award for Best Film.  When Brokeback
Mountain won the film award from GLAAD, the headline was:  "Brokeback
Wins Gay Film Award.  Duh."  The same sentiment was echoed in some
places when San Francisco film critics named it Best Picture.  As though
San Francisco=Gay so there wasn't even a consideration of it actually being
the best film.  Not that dozens of cities and groups from Iowa to Vancouver
did the same thing.

But with all of this I just wrote, don't you wonder why Lionsgate would
spend all this money on a film with so little, especially even in Jan., chance
of winning?  Could the notion of homophobia even be a slight answer?  To
me that is a "duh."  If my computer had not crashed one time, I could give you
the article I had where a Lionsgate executive admitted that they pounced on
the idea to go full steam ahead on their campaign when they detected alot
of uncomfortableness around the notion of Brokeback Mountain for best
picture.  As I worte before, uncomfortableness why?  What is uncomfortable
about it, except anything to do with being gay themed?

At the time I looked upon the incessant humor about Brokeback Mountain
as because it was a film people really liked and therefore, the humor flowed
from that place.  Some of that was true, but it was also true, especially on
hindsight, I discovered that a lot of the humor came from people who hadn't
even seen the film.  They were using the very fact of the film as a vehicle to
display there distinct discomfort with anything gay related.  Usually these
jokes were sexual in nature.  A very low point for me came when the show
ELLEN decided to do a week long series of sketches for each of the best film
nominees and of course they found plenty to laugh about with Brokeback
Mountain, and two more--Capote--sure, make fun of Capote.  Good Night and
Good Luck was also lampooned (remember the Liberace segment in that
one), but the 4th day Ellen came out and said that Crash and Munich had
too serious a theme to be made fun of, so they weren't going to do those.
They'd just do some generic oscar skits instead.  WHAT THE FUCK?
And Ellen is gay!  Who told her they shouldn't do jokes about Crash or Munich?
Don't want to offend black or Jewish people.  Gay people?  Go right ahead.

Quote
The facts are that Lionsgate purchased Crash for a measly $3.5 million
dollars in September of 2004 at the Toronto festival.  Far from “sitting on the
shelf”, the studio made a conscious decision not to release until May just
prior to the Summer blockbuster season.

They purchased it for a measly sum because no one wanted it.  If they
thought it had any prospects for a nomination for Best Picture, they
certainly would have had it out in 2004, during the time of year that
most best picture films are released (fact).  Just like Warners did with
Million Dollar Baby which was originally to have opened in the spring of
'05.  Crash would've been up against that film, The Aviator, Ray, Sideways
and Finding Neverland.  They wouldn't have known the next year to be
any less competitive.  (Interesting to speculate if it had been released in
the fall of 2004, would it have been a nominee instead of one of those
others?  What would have replaced it in 2005?  Cinderella Man, The
Constant Gardner, Walk the Line,  King Kong or a History of Violence?)

Quibbles:
Quote
The initial reviews were surprisingly positive

I see them as mixed.

Quote
and the film made about $54 million and sold several million
DVD’’s returning $35 million to Lionsgate.

I thought it was 45, I guess I had a dyslexic moment.
  
Quote
AND, like Karl Rove in Ohio, he may even have played to the
homophobic prejudices of certain voters “offering ‘ them a seemingly viable
alternative to that “gay cowboy movie”.

This was the impetus in the first place--I wish I had that link.  

Quote
He targeted Los Angeles actors, the niche needed to build a voting base.

Does make you wonder why Brokeback Mountain got more SAG nominations
than crash did then.  Even crash only got one acting oscar nomination and
Brokeback Mountain had three, if the actors indeed liked it so much.  Even
BAFTA gave it two nominations in the acting categories.

Quote
He simply ignored the growing noise bouncing off BBM.

I think he tuned in to the "uncomfortable" noise.
Remember:  Uncomfortable=homophobia.

Quote
I'm sorry, but when it comes down to the "business" of running an
Oscar campaign, marketers know that BAFTA and the Globes and especially
major market critics and "foo-foo" film festivals can be overcome.

Name an instance this has happened.  When has the favorite to win
Best Picture been overcome by an oscar campaign against the frontrunner?

Quote
None of the other nominees received this level of support designed specifically for the Oscar race.

If by support you mean people going on television to publicly
state they wouldn't see Brokeback Mountain and even demean
it in public and make incessant and many homophobic jokes about
it, if you mean people like Quentin Tarantino and Jimmy Kimmel
ridiculing the film and calling it names, if you mean sports announcers
interviewing basketball players on tv each night what there choice for
best picture would be and daring them to say Brokeback Mountain, if
you mean comedy segments on the nightly shows that, for amusement,
would go out and ask straight men if they'd seen Brokeback Mountain,
and even if they had would not say yes because I guess if you see
a film like that you must be gay, if you mean all those homophobic
things that made ampas voters even more uncomfortable about
voting for it, I guess you have a point.

Quote
Crucial to Ortenberg’s campaign was the decision to mail out 130,000
DVDs, including about 110,000 sent to actors. Not all recipients were Oscar
voters.
 

It was written that Lionsgate sent out enough screeners that, with the
overlapping guilds, each member of the audience in the Kodak theatre
could have had 3.5 copies.    (Currently SAG has 90,000 members)

 
Quote
But "Crash" nonetheless won the best movie ensemble award from the Screen Actors Guild, an early tip-off that it might also have Oscar legs and that the strategy to target actors was viable.

No one ever regarded what SAG chose for the ensemble award as a
precursor or tip-off to what might win the best pic oscar UNTIL this year of
2005.  Why this year?  Over the years they picked Little Miss Sunshine,
Gosford Park, Sideways, Traffic and The Birdcage for ensemble wins and
no one thought those were contenders.  In fact most people thought crash
"would" win this one, including me.  Specifically because there is a huge
ethnic component to SAG that is not as prevalent in ampas.  This was not
news.  It was MADE to be news.  Why?  Some excitement to stir up for
journalists who thought it was a Slumdog Millionaire type slam dunk.
Why did a lot want to buy into it and keep it up though?  They didn't want
Brokeback Mountain to win.  (Homophobia?)

Quote
There were other early hints that "Crash" might go the distance.
In the awards issued by Hollywood's directing, producing, art directing and
writing guilds, "Crash" roughly held its own with "Brokeback" in nominations
and wins.

Not wins for Best Picture and many other of the nominees were in
those nominations as well, Capote and The Constant Gardener.

Quote
Crash was nominated by all four guilds and won art direction and original script.

And Brokeback won the script, producers, and director (nearly always the
director award goes hand in hand with best picture--in fact with all of BBM's
best picture wins in 2005, ONLY ampas split that...fact)  Also, the art
director's guild has more than one cateogry, unlike the oscars, so a better
chance to win.
 
Quote
BBM  did not receive any kind of recognition from the art directors guild but did receive director, producer, and adapted screenplay wins.
Big wins to be sure but not overwhelmingly influential with actors.

Actors are not the end all and be all of influence.  There was a huge
cast of known actors in crash and capote and good night and good luck.
The actors in Brokeback Mountain were more well known than in Munich.
If anything this idea would split the actor votes for best picture.  You mentioned
the Brokeback actors might not have even been able to vote for themselves
or the picture (ampas), but I doubt 90% of those actors in crash could either.

Quote
You might insist that the content of the campaign was homophobic
but I can find no evidence that was the case.

Throws hands up!
You want smoking guns.
The whole basis of the campaign was based on that
perceived discomfort of Brokeback Mountain winning
right from the start.
  
(By the way.  If this campaign for crash was so successful,
it didn't show in nomination totals (6) or wins (3) -- they
couldn't even get the song win, which was thought to be a lock.)

Quote
I can imagine a scenario where all three of the above played a
combined role in putting Crash over the top. You see homophobic prejudice
as being the key contributor.

Yes, because those other two are in play EVERY year.
Gay themed winning films are not.

Quote
Either way, I do believe the Lionsgate strategy of building a
strong base of votes from the actors AMPAS membership played
a significant role in the final tally.

Then why didn't that work for films that tried the same thing
the following year with Little Miss Sunshine and Babel?  Both
flooding with screeners and awards nominations.

The following year was back to normal.  I predicted that
The Departed would win all 4 awards it got.  The previous
award indicators have worked ever since.  No upsets.
The expected wins.  Milk wasn't expected to.  It didn't.

Homophobia doesn't have to be gay bashingly obvious.
It can be subtle, just as racism can be or anti-semitism.
But no one would argue with a black person who recognizes
it or a Jewish person who experiences it, so why does
something that doesn't pass the smell test, as Jess Jackson
would say, with at least some evidence, whether you consider
it factual, circumstantial or hearsay, by people who are IN the
business and live in the city of the scene of the crime and who
Annie Proulx herslef recognized in one night here; why is that
not deemed, at the very least, plausible.  Why is it excused?
I have to ask what would you need to believe it as I see it?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on February 06, 2010, 03:53:12 PM
Homophobia doesn't have to be gay bashingly obvious.
It can be subtle, just as racism can be or anti-semitism.
But no one would argue with a black person who recognizes
it or a Jewish person who experiences it, so why does
something that doesn't pass the smell test, as Jess Jackson
would say, with at least some evidence, whether you consider
it factual, circumstantial or hearsay, by people who are IN the
business and live in the city of the scene of the crime and who
Annie Proulx herslef recognized in one night here; why is that
not deemed, at the very least, plausible.  Why is it excused?
I have to ask what would you need to believe it as I see it?


I think I would need to see the actual vote count and be privy to information which does not exist, eg.extensive exit poll information.
Please remember, also, that I do not argue that homophobic prejudice did not play a role
only that it may not have been the decisive factor.
(BTW, at least in my opinion, your final paragraph sounds hauntingly familiar to what could have been Haggis’ script synopsis pitch for Crash)   

The Oscar season of 2005, in my opinion, was atypical. 
It was a year in which any of the five contenders could have received the Oscar,
four of the five were actually worthy of the honor,
and the recipient was the least worthy of all.

In summary, my argument is as follows:
Brokeback Mountain did not have an aggressive and specific Oscar campaign.
(Universal management was forced to walk a fine line between FOCUS and Spielberg).
Crash did and it was targeted and specific i.e. actors.
 
Brokeback Mountain was admired by voters but it did not have a significant “passionate “ voting block.
In addition, many thought BBM was going to win anyway and so they decided to vote for their favorite “underdog” or their friends.
 
Crash perhaps did have a passionate or, at the very least, a friendly and sentnimental, voting block
and it may have also provided a ‘safe harbor” for those harboring homophobic prejudice.
The three remaining contenders, Capote, GNGL, and Munich were produced, directed,
and performed by extremely popular and
extremely powerful film industry insiders. 
All three films held the potential to garner a significant number of votes. 


Lyle, you and I, informally, agreed to enter into a debate in which the proposition is:

“Did homophobia play a decisive role in the failure of the film Brokeback Mountain to win the Best Picture Oscar in 2005?”

You agreed to argue the Affirmative and I the Negative.
I think we have presented our arguments and rebuttals with factual accuracy
and certainly a degree of emotional appeal
and we have both attempted to provide a plausible framework or context for our arguments.

 I hope that we have not alienated others on the forum who have not actively participated in the discussion
and I hope we have provided some nourishing “food for thought”. 
I have enjoyed the discussion.

I, honestly, do not have anything further to say on the subject.
G
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: ingmarnicebbmt on February 06, 2010, 04:23:10 PM
My 2nd fav is Moulin Rouge, of course!

Mine too.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Rob in Puyallup on February 07, 2010, 01:48:30 AM
Mine too.


(((((((Ing2ndfavMoulinRougeHunkymanhungburgerSir)))))))

Come Valentine's Day weekend a theater in Seattle is doing a "quote" and "sing-a-long" of Moulin Rouge.

I may have to force myself to go it alone, since Nick's not in town. :(
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 07, 2010, 12:56:53 PM
garyd,

That was a good recap of our discussion.  It's not unlike
the discussion that went on for 633 pages in the first
Awards Aftermath thread.  LOL!

I, honestly, do not have anything further to say on the subject.
G

That is quite fair, because, whether you participated in the
first thread originally, many people have brought up the points
you have made as well throughout the years.

I, however, have somehow made an informal pledge, it would
seem, that I would always talk about what I see as the reason
Brokeback Mountain lost the oscar that year until I see it as the
reason most often listed when anyone brings it up in the future.
Which means here I go again.

I don't want it lost to history that it was based on a marketing
campaign or that it was an atypical year or that any of the films
could have won that year.  Because, as I see it, the only reason
it was atypical is that the movie that was essentially guaranteed
to win did not.  No one thought any of the other 3 films were going
to win, so I don't think any of them could have.  Seriously, absolutely
no one thought Capote would win that year.  Marketing strategies
happen every year for pictures and the frontrunners still win.  But
marketing strategies based on playing on the homophobia of ampas
members is something else again.  (I know you don't agree here.)  No
one derailed any of the winners of the last decade that were marked
as best picture winners weeks in advance.  Traffic didn't beat Gladiator.
The pIanist didn't overtake Chicago.  There WIll Be Blood couldn't topple
the Coen's and as much as people tried to make Little Miss Sunshine
and Babel out to have a chance at winning, no one toppled the "It's
Scorcese's year with The Departed.  And what toppled Slumdog Millionaire,
which went into oscar night as much a shoo-in as Brokeback Mountain
was?  With a bevy less precursor wins than BBM?  Even decades back,
the shoo in that was The Godfather pulled out the best picture win, even
though Cabaret managed to out oscar it by 5!

You said "Brokeback Mountain was admired by voters but it did
not have a significant “passionate “ voting block."  Not sure I agree
with that.  From this forum alone we know that women and gay men
are quite passionate about it.  And from what I read before and after
the 1996 awards, neither did The English Patient have a passionate
voting block.  Robert Osborne said, "It was not a very popular winner."
I could argue that most best picture winners are the least of the nominees
with passionate support.  You need across the board support more than
a passionate group.

"Please remember, also, that I do not argue that homophobic prejudice
did not play a role only that it may not have been the decisive factor."
If it was one factor among voters reasons, it was the one that did it.
I believe that, if only based on the fact that no one thought any of the others
were going to even have a shot at it.

Thanks for participating garyd and some others, I am
the energizer bunny on this subject.  I keep going and going and
going and going and going and going and going and going
and
going...
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on February 09, 2010, 01:14:41 PM
Who Votes on the Oscars? A Closer Look at the Members of the Academy

Quote
When Oscar winners thank "the members of the Academy," who, exactly, do they mean? Who actually belongs to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, that august body that votes on the Oscars? Well, the membership rolls include past winners George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, and Jack Nicholson ... and Dakota Fanning.

Yep, believe it or not, the never-nominated Fanning received an invite at age 12, proving you don't need to be nominated -- or old enough to vote in an actual election -- to be a voting member of the Academy. While the group has never made its entire roster public, it has, in recent years, begun announcing new members, such as 2009 inductees Viola Davis, Casey Affleck and Anne Hathaway.

In 2006, the year Fanning was invited along with 119 other newbies, the Academy was making a concentrated effort to get some young blood into the organization. "Most people ... think it's probably a bunch of elderly people," AMPAS director Bruce Davis told the Associated Press. "They're not thinking Scarlett Johansson and Maggie Gyllenhaal, they're thinking really old guys. That's a hard perception to overcome."

Hence the public announcements of such hot young talent as that year's list of under-30 nominees Heath Ledger, Keira Knightley, and Jake Gyllenhaal and last year's non-nominated but well-respected additions Emily Blunt, James Franco and Emile Hirsch.

Who else is in the club? Major movie stars like Will Smith (a two-time nominee) as well as Hugh Jackman and Jennifer Aniston, whose Oscars activity so far has been as host and presenter.

On the other hand, getting nominated doesn't automatically get you in. 'Brokeback Mountain's Michelle Williams was up for her first Oscar in 2006, but didn't receive an invitation to join until 2009, after she'd picked up a few more indie awards for the little-seen 'Wendy and Lucy.' Part of the delay may have been attributed to the fact that the Academy likes to keep its member count at around 6,000, which means only 100 to 150 new members are allowed each year. New slots open up as members pass away.

So how do you get on the invite list? According to the Oscars website, you've got to be among the "most exceptionally qualified names" of those who have "achieved distinction in the arts and sciences of motion pictures." The Academy extends membership to every aspect of the industry, not just the "talent:" Writers, directors, cinematographers, costume designers, composers and even studio executives and publicists receive membership in their own branch.
Quote
As with any moviegoer, not every film is one a member even wants to see. Like, say, Ernest Borgnine, who caused a stir when he gave his thoughts about 'Brokeback Mountain' to EW: "I didn't see it and I don't care to see it ... If John Wayne were alive, he'd be rolling over in his grave.'' With that statement, Borgnine, who won his Best Actor Oscar back in 1955, cemented the idea that the Academy was a bunch of fuddy-duddies who were behind the times. Does the recent injection of hip, young members mean that the Oscars are now more adventurous?

http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2010/02/09/who-votes-on-the-oscars-members-of-the-academy/ (http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2010/02/09/who-votes-on-the-oscars-members-of-the-academy/)

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on February 09, 2010, 03:07:25 PM
Hi - Reply to garyd (#593) post on 2/5/10:
    DITTO, DITTO, DITTO!!  Bravo too.

And - reply to baycityjohn's latest post:
    DITTO, DITTO, DITTO!!  Bravo too.

That damned AMPAS, ortenberg, lionsgate, etc. BBM definitely should have won all awards; everyone knows it.  AMPAS deliberately denied it best picture, (and Heath best actor, Jake best supp. actor, etc.), purposely giving it to "TRASH"[/b] (no matter how bad and unworthy it is), just  giving it to anything but BBM.  No matter that BBM won every best picture, director, etc. all over the place.  When is anyone going to recognize how stupid they are - am I the only one??  Cave-in cowards
over the hill "actors", know-nothing "critics" and all their kind did anything/everything so it would NOT win.  Makes my blood boil.  That night in Feb. '06 is not forgotten.  >:(   

Homophobia is absolultely at the top of the list of their denying BBM the awards it deserved! 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on February 11, 2010, 12:21:50 PM
This Weeks News

A CLR EXCLUSIVE Interview… with CLR Film Critic Julia Rhodes!

Looking back, if you had to pick the worst film to win the Best Picture Academy Award, what gets the biggest thumbs down? Who are your runners up?

Crash. That movie was awful. Good Night, and Good Luck or Brokeback Mountain should have had that made, but the Academy once more pandered to subject matter instead of good filmmaking. Runners up? I really like Forrest Gump, but The Shawshank Redemption is a much, much better movie. So is Quiz Show, for that matter.

http://calitreview.com/6360 (http://calitreview.com/6360)




Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on February 11, 2010, 12:23:03 PM
Today's News

Why the Oscars don’t matter

In 2005 the Academy decided that Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Munich and Good Night and Good Luck were all inferior to Crash. Head scratching ensued as to why the Academy pandered to try-hard emotion rather than artistry.

http://www.martlet.ca/article/20954-why-the-oscars-don-t-matter (http://www.martlet.ca/article/20954-why-the-oscars-don-t-matter)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on February 11, 2010, 12:28:55 PM
More News


Raising awareness, denigrating the audience

------------------------------------------------------------

In 2006 Ang Lee won Best Director – although, controversially, not Best Picture - for doomed cowboy romance Brokeback Mountain and Philip Seymour Hoffman Best Actor for his portrayal of the flamboyantly gay writer Truman Capote.

---------------------------------------------------------------

In Boys Don’t Cry and Brokeback Mountain, we saw smalltown hicks being enriched by the sensitivity of same-sex love, only to reject it violently later.

--------------------------------------------------------------

That is not to say that all these ‘gay films’ are devoid of artistic merit. The Hours, Boys Don’t Cry and Brokeback Mountain in particular are complex and powerful works, worthy of repeat viewings. But their recognition by the Oscars, you tend to feel, has less to do with celebrating their artistic qualities or the historic gains made by gay people, and more to do with Hollywood’s cultural elites’ self-obsession: what can The Gays (or, in other cases, The Blacks or the Mentally Ill) say about us? More significantly, it is not really themselves they are seeking to improve (despite the curious absence of gay actors in a city dedicated to the performing arts), but those dreadful ignorant masses, invariably in small and impoverished towns, and their nasty little prejudices. It is not a question here of striving for equality because people’s humanity transcends superficial differences in sexuality or skin colour: rather it’s a case of the noble wisdom of the oppressed offering a quick fix to today’s problems.

As a big fan of Ang Lee I found Brokeback Mountain to be a powerful and deeply affecting film, although I grew tired of defending it against those who simply went to see the film because they expected, not unreasonably, to be treated to a glorious feast of rampant man-on-man action, and instead were left feeling bored – and cheated - by those long, lingering shots of misty mountains and the tense, unspoken angst. It was interesting to discover then that this was also the view of Best Supporting Actor nominee and star Jake Gyllenhaal, who declared that this film ‘means more to me socially than it does artistically’.


http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8100/ (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8100/)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on February 12, 2010, 02:23:03 AM
News from Singapore


OSCAR MISFIRES

By Jason Johnson
February 12, 2010

SUPPOSED BEST PICTURE, 2006
CRASH


Message movies tend to do well at the Oscars. Trouble is, the wrong message movie won at the 78th Academy Awards.

Brokeback Mountain, the 'It's Okay To Be Gay' flick, lost out to Crash, the 'Racism Is Bad' picture.

Ang Lee's Brokeback was heavily favoured. A richly textured story about two cowboys finding splendour in the grass, the film was a landmark.

Crash, though well-crafted, was seen as corny and manipulative

http://www.tnp.sg/guide/story/0,4136,229924,00.html (http://www.tnp.sg/guide/story/0,4136,229924,00.html)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on February 12, 2010, 02:28:52 AM
Oscar's biggest mistakes

By Alexis L. Loinaz, Special to Metromix

The Oscars. That venerable cultural institution known for celebrating the most illustrious cinematic achievements: "Gone With the Wind." "Lawrence of Arabia." "The Godfather." "Crash." Or, as the last film is more popularly known, "The Crapfest That Beat Brokeback Mountain."

http://delaware.metromix.com/movies/essay_photo_gallery/oscars-biggest-mistakes/1758036/content (http://delaware.metromix.com/movies/essay_photo_gallery/oscars-biggest-mistakes/1758036/content)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: CellarDweller115 on February 12, 2010, 03:18:48 AM
A richly textured story about two cowboys finding splendour in the grass, the film was a landmark.


:D :D

Thanks for all the links you post John!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on February 12, 2010, 12:51:45 PM
Thanks for all those articles, John, I enjoyed reading them.  It is my opinion that crash is not a bad film, but it became one when ampas carelessly voted for it.  Or, as Mammy says in Gone with the Wind:  "You're nothin' but a mule in horse harness." 

Reading all five of those articles from diverse sources once again brings to my mind how much many film critics, or film commentators, discount their own personal prejudices when proclaiming what is best.  Although, I don't know how you would filter in a personal prejudice into a review, but I think one should acknowledge it at least.  But then, there were gay people who said to me "You just liked Brokeback Mountain because it's gay."   Sometimes in frustration I would retort, "Well, you're gay and I don't like you."

But that sentiment is actually off the mark, sometimes the intended audience for a film is the most critical of it.  I think historians of the Titanic event were way more critical of films about the event than a general audience.  I was the buyer for films for a chain of stores in gay neighborhoods and the employees and I never really liked to recommend gay films to our customers because it seemed that each individual person had an idea what a "gay themed film" should be.  If it didn't check off their own criteria, it wasn't that good.  For example, in the Spiked article that was linked above, the author writes:

Quote
As a big fan of Ang Lee I found Brokeback Mountain to be a powerful and deeply affecting film, although I grew tired of defending it against those who simply went to see the film because they expected, not unreasonably, to be treated to a glorious feast of rampant man-on-man action, and instead were left feeling bored – and cheated - by those long, lingering shots of misty mountains and the tense, unspoken angst.

Really?  Do I go see other romantic films like Doctor Zhivago or The Notebook or the new Dear John film expecting, not unreasonably, to be treated to a glorious feast of rampant man-on-woman action?  Those kinds of sentiments reek of immaturity to me.  Checklist:  ___Rampant sex.  No.  Dislike film.

You have to know your reviewer, your source, in other words.  Someone in the movie thread linked an article written by a Jewish college faculty member who proclaimed the film An Education, whom most people find quite charming, amusing and beguiling--a tale of lost innocence and coming of age, well, she found it an anti-semitic diatribe!  And I have to say that idea never even entered my head while watching that film.

And we all know the fanboy film crowd, the geek film squads if you will, are always sounding off about their favorites being over-looked for awards.  And the young male misogynistic crowd that thinks every film Martin Scorcese ever did was pure genius.

It is interesting to note of those five really diverse authors linked in articles above, that two of them mention Al Pacino winning for the film he did as an outrage from ampas, but both of those authors think a different person should have won!  LOL!  One thinks Downey playing Chaplin should have and the other thinks Denzel.  (As for Downey that year, people remarked that the academy never awarded Chaplin himself an acting oscar--there was no way they were going to award someone playing Chaplin the oscar.  Which makes one wonder--if Katharine Hepburn had never won one, would Cate Blanchett have, either?)

Yes, diversity of opinions about films and film awards will always be around, but over the years it is interesting to note that among really diverse people, as are the five authors linked in the above articles, there is still a concensus already about Brokeback Mountain's should've won status.  In fact, BBM might be an even better film now because it lost.  Something to ponder.

A quote from one of the above authors:

Don’t glorify those who dish out awards to be the definitive guide to films; they are indicators, as are the critics. Judging a great film is just like anything else: the system is faulty at best.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on February 12, 2010, 09:03:09 PM
Hi baycityjohn:  Just a reply to your post #605 --

The link you posted mistakenly states that BBM lost as best picture of 2004 to that piece of 'TRASH'.  It should of course state BBM lost as best picture of 2005
(Aren't there any fact checkers anymore???)

My blood pressure goes to the sky when I think of that rotten, lame, unworthy "TRASH" winning over a truly beautiful film classic like BBM. >:(   

p.s.  love your posts.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on February 13, 2010, 03:29:37 AM
Yes I noticed that too Kathy.

I see that kind of stuff all the time when I'm searching for news articles for the newsletter.

Here's one:

-----------------------------------------------------------

TV dance show makes peace with U.S. gay community

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Popular reality TV show "So You Think You Can Dance" has made peace with America's gay community by putting a same-sex Latin ballroom couple into a new round of competition and appointing an openly gay judge.

Producer and judge Nigel Lythgoe caused a furor in May when he told another gay couple he thought their samba routine would "probably alienate" a lot of the show's five million viewers.

Lythgoe later wrote a Twitter message saying he was "not a fan of 'Brokeback' Ballroom," alluding to the 2007 gay romance film "Brokeback Mountain." His message prompted a call for action by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), a meeting with Lythgoe and executives at the Fox network, as well as an apology.



http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE58G5NT20090917 (http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE58G5NT20090917)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on February 13, 2010, 03:40:01 AM
And this was a glaring error I found in an article mentioning Heath Ledger a few months ago:


-----------------------------------


Quote
Hollywood stars really are smokin'

LOS ANGELES -- One of the most health conscious cities south of the border has a dirty little secret.

Without exaggeration, the majority of yoga-stretching, wheat-grass drinking, vegan-eating movie stars SMOKE CIGARETTES.

I witnessed first-hand stars smoking like chimneys when I attended the Governor's Ball, the chi-chi party that followed the 2005 Oscars.

A merely opportunistic smoker myself, I started up a conversation with Heath Ledger (who won for Brokeback Mountain), who had a pack of Camel Lights, and the smell of his lighted cigarette mesmerized Terrence Howard (ensemble Oscar for Crash), Jennifer Aniston, Leonardo Di Caprio, George Clooney and Owen Wilson, all of whom crowded around to bum one, too.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/entertainment/celebrities/2009/11/14/11745516-sun.html (http://www.edmontonsun.com/entertainment/celebrities/2009/11/14/11745516-sun.html)

I emailed the newspaper and the author of the article back in November, and it's still online with the error.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on February 13, 2010, 02:32:07 PM
Maybe it was just wishful thinking, John...
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: fritzkep on February 13, 2010, 02:35:52 PM
Wishful and wistful.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on February 13, 2010, 08:08:08 PM
Hi baycityjohn:

Yes, I'm afraid that articles will always have such glaring errors.  Don't these jerks even check facts anymore before opening their stupid mouths??  Lythgoe is such a stupid rotten jerk; going back to putting down BBM in such an insulting way.  I despise this. 
Massarella too. Doesn't even know that Heath definitely SHOULD HAVE won as Best Actor in 2006, but stupidly lost to Hoffman's mimicry. (Just like they delliberately robbed BBM of Best Picture).  Damned AMPAS  >:D  cowards. 

I must say that I believe articles about those we hold so dear will continue to be kept online and NOT be changed.  That's how bad it is.   >:(
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on February 15, 2010, 09:53:53 AM
12 Movies the Oscars Got Wrong

Quote
Every year, we film fans go through the award gauntlet of agony and ecstasy.  We champion our favorites for nominations, rant for weeks if they’re snubbed, or cautiously root for them to be revealed as the prize winner. If they’re shut out, we declare it’s the worst offense to cinema  in the history of moviemaking. That claim will hold until the next year, when the game will begin all over again with a new round of favorites.

But we fail to realize that snubs and shutouts have been endemic since the very first Academy Awards ceremony, and that some of the greatest films of all time lack a glittering trophy.  In fact, one might be tempted to argue that losing an Oscar is more prestigious than winning one.  To remind us of that fact, here’s 12 films the Oscar misguidedly rewarded over the ones you really love, remember, and cherish.

The sad thing? There’s a lot more than 12. You’re free to add to the list (and disagree with the ones I’ve listed) below in the comments.

Quote
1. Crash (2006)

Let’s warm up slowly, and start with a fresh wound.   Brokeback Mountain was the critical darling, and predicted to sweep the Oscars. It was supposed to be the sign of a new and tolerant world.  It turns out, the Academy was still squeamish about two men who can’t quit each other. But in a fit of PC pique, they gave it to Crash because, well, it was kind of like giving it to Brokeback Mountain, wasn’t it? No. Not really.

http://blog.reelloop.com/7646/news/12-movies-oscars-wrong/ (http://blog.reelloop.com/7646/news/12-movies-oscars-wrong/)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on February 23, 2010, 12:17:21 AM
I found this interesting discussion of the 2005 films hosted by Charlie Rose and involving Richard Corliss, Lisa Schwarzbaum, A.O. Scott and David Denby.  The Brokeback Mountain discussion begins at a little after 15 minutes.

They're all pretty complimentary of BBM (though Corliss seems to be holding back a bit in his praise of the film), but the Crash discussion kicks in at around 37 minutes and they are decidedly split on this one.

At the end, they give their choice for 3 best of the year, two of whom list BBM.  Interestingly, AO Scott, who chose BBM as his #3 pick for the 2000s, doesn't include it in his annual list.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/613
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: tonydude on March 01, 2010, 02:49:59 PM
  Am not sure if it's still there today, but yesterday, in the entertainment section of Huffington Post, there was a section about 17 Best Picture Oscar awards that were probably wrong.  They led off with Rocky, and Crash, as examples.  You could vote, and it was easy, for BBM, as it was the third to come up. If it's still there, those who want to vote, should consider doing just that.
  But if not still there maybe the results were posted, and, at least the story was there, so it's still out there as an outrage.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on March 01, 2010, 06:32:37 PM
Hi Tony5:

Yes!  There has always been outrage regarding to the many unworthy Best Picture films that  >:D damned "academy" has given.  I would agree with about 17 - maybe more.

But, there is now, has been, and always will be enormous OUTRAGE because BBM was denied Best Picture of 2005. Heath & Jake were denied.  The beautiful cinematography by Mr. DiPrieto was denied.   The fact that something so bad and unworthy as "TRASH" winning (!?!) is so outlandish that it is now a huge joke.  There have been jokes before, but this one seems to be the mother of all jokes/outrages.  BBM won all sorts of best picture, acting, etc. awards all over the country & abroad, but the "AMPAS" deliberately denied best picture to it.  >:(

Of course, we know why that rotten AMPAS did it.  Homophobia certainly played a large part.  Whispering campaigns against BBM by so-called critics, e.g. Ebert and his kind, other whispering campaigns against it by has beens, and the fact that that so many "members" refused to see it at all!!  Of course, this is against the rules, but that means nothing to them.  In the end, they willingly caved in at almost the last minute.  Nothing but cowards anyway.

This is something that damned "academy"  >:D  will never live down and everyone knows it. 
Such a rotten shame...
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: tonydude on March 01, 2010, 07:20:03 PM
  Not to worry, Kathy...... if  major news websites are still considering that upset a story, and if college courses in film are now focusing on BBM as one of the best movies ever, this is what the academy has to live with.  That they were dum dums. Or worse.
 And if that isn't enough punishment, I tend to think Lyle will be after them for a long, loooong time..... :D .  He doesn't give up.  Nor should he.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on March 01, 2010, 07:50:35 PM
Hi Tony 5:

YES!!   :)

kathy
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: fritzkep on March 01, 2010, 07:56:13 PM
Sic 'em, Lyle!

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 02, 2010, 10:56:28 AM
The Guys Have It for 82nd Oscar® Show

Beverly Hills, CA (March 2, 2010) — Gerard Butler, Bradley Cooper, Tom Ford,
Jake Gyllenhaal
, Chris Pine, Keanu Reeves, Ryan Reynolds and Sam
Worthington will present on the 82nd Academy Awards®, telecast producers
Bill Mechanic and Adam Shankman announced today.  Butler, Cooper, Ford,
Pine, Reynolds and Worthington will each be making their debut appearance
on the Oscar show. This will be Gyllenhaal’s third appearance and Reeves’s
fifth.

http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2010/20100302.html
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on March 02, 2010, 11:27:42 AM
Metro Film Fight Club Oscars Special: Brokeback Mountain v Crash v Good Night, And Good Luck v Munich v Capote

It is the most controversial Best Picture race in Oscar history. And now Ross v Ross is going to sort out the 2005 battle once and for all. With a little help from the folks at Encore Entertainment, Movie Mobsters and Cinema Scream, in our first ever five-way face-off.

Andrew K: Brokeback Mountain

‘Now sit the hell down before I knock your ignorant ass into next week!’

I’m annoyed whenever I think that in 2005, the weakest year of the last decade, the Academy still messed up. Royally. They snubbed a horde of more deserving films for a set of generic nominations – the sole light in the race was Brokeback Mountain, the only film worth the nomination.

It towers above the paltry competition of films like Capote, which is admittedly a good character study of a great man, but lacks any significant emotional punch to make it particularly enduring. And Munich? It exists as a nice look at history I suppose, but Spielberg doesn’t give us anything new and he doesn’t even try to make it that interesting. Then there’s Good Night, And Good Luck – a film I still try to understand the buzz for. The profundity of it all lies in knowledge of the characters, but take it to a man who doesn’t know the history and I doubt he’ll be impressed. Black and white does not a classic make. And what is Crash but a poorly constructed contemporary Greek fable where the characters speak their thoughts aloud and the resolutions are all so ridiculously fabricated despite their pretentious aims at grittiness.

Brokeback boasts an arresting script, taut direction, tour-de-force performances, lush cinematography and a splendid score. It is the only worthy winner of the lot. Make a case against it. I dare you.




more....

http://tinyurl.com/yc4be4f (http://tinyurl.com/yc4be4f)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 03, 2010, 11:09:44 AM
Will ‘The Hurt Locker’ follow ‘Brokeback’ path?
Film could pull off ‘Slumdog’ Oscar sweep, or like ‘Mountain,’ lose big award

There are some striking similarities between "The Hurt Locker's" run up to the Oscars and that of "Brokeback Mountain," which claimed three statuettes, but lost the best picture award.

by Dave Karger
Entertainment Weekly

With wins at the Producers Guild, Directors Guild, Writers Guild, and British Academy Awards, “The “Hurt Locker” ” has clearly been racking up the major pre-Oscar prizes in the last month.

In fact, with the exception of a couple big-ticket losses at the Golden Globes and SAG Awards, Kathryn Bigelow’s film has nearly accomplished the same sweep that “Slumdog Millionaire” pulled off last year. By that yardstick, the film seems like a sure thing to win the Best Picture Oscar on March 7, particularly because those two high-profile losses came at the hands of two different films (“Avatar” at the Globes, “Inglourious Basterds” at SAG) rather than one.

But then I started looking at all ““Brokeback”  Mountain’s” pre-Oscar record from four years ago and I found some striking similarities.  “Brokeback” managed the rare feat of winning Best Picture and Best Director at both the New York and Los Angeles film critics awards; so did ““Hurt Locker.”  “Brokeback” also picked up those two big prizes at the Broadcast Film Critics Awards; so did “Hurt Locker.” “Brokeback” won the trifecta of PGA, DGA, and WGA trophies; so did “Hurt Locker.” “Brokeback” won 4 BAFTAs, including Best Film, Director, and Screenplay; “Hurt Locker” picked up 6 awards, including Best Film, Director, and Screenplay. And of course, “Brokeback” lost the SAG cast award, and so did “Hurt Locker.” (The main difference between the two films’ tallies is that “Brokeback” did win four Globes, including Best Drama and Best Director, while “Hurt Locker”  went 0 for 3.)

All of this is on my mind right now because we’re about to put our Oscar Odds issue to bed (it’ll be on stands this Friday), and it’s really making me think twice about my prediction that The “Hurt Locker”  will emerge victorious on March 7.

There’s still a distinct possibility that “Hurt Locker”  will mirror “Brokeback”  yet again and win three Oscars (let’s say Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Editing) but lose the big one to a more easily-digestible rival, in this case “Avatar.”

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35548289/
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 03, 2010, 11:55:55 AM
Re:  Above article

Dave Karger could also point out some other differences.  No one is going around writing articles about how much the academy is uncomfortable with The Hurt Locker, as the L.A. Weekly and other publications and websites were when Brokeback Mountain was up for the oscar.  No one is going around stating they refuse to see The Hurt Locker, like Ernest Borgnine said to an interviewer or Tony Curtis said when he appeared on Fox News to talk about it, or that it not winning the SAG award is a distinct red flag against its oscar chances, as columnists started writing immediately after crash won its first high profile award--in the middle of January.  No one is making incessant and increasingly strident jokes on television about The Hurt Locker night after night, like Jay Leno, Jimmy Kimmel, David Letterman, Craig Ferguson, Conan O'Brien, Ellen and countless others were.  No one on the news is making fun of our troops or making light of the work they do by going up to people and interviewing them about it, like was done with Brokeback Mountain on our local NBC affiliate by Fred Roggin, for one.  Everyone is honoring the possibility that a woman might be awarded for directing this film, but I didn't see any news honoring the possibility that Ang Lee, the first asian and non-white person to win a directing award, might be so honored.  Everyone is applauding the fact that The Hurt Locker's subject matter is timely and interesting. Brokeback Mountain's subject matter was controversial.  I see no articles about the Olympics postponing the oscars to March being any reason to doubt why The Hurt Locker might win, but there were dozens of articles and commentaries that oscar voters might re-think Brokeback Mountain's front-runner status because of this 'weeks' delay.  In other pre-award indicators, Avatar and The Hurt Locker both have the most nominations while Brokeback Mountain alone had the most nominations.  I could go on, and if you need me to hit you over the head, I am not so subtly stating again that homophobia was at work in the crash decision, but finally let's say that one big indicator is that this year the possibility index exists, however slightly, that Avatar could win best picture, just like it existed for 1998's Shakespeare/Ryan.  For 2005, "no one" thought crash was going to actually win best picture based on any possibility index.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: TomS on March 03, 2010, 03:25:16 PM
Four years ago I was heartbroken at the outcome of the Oscars, with "Brokeback Mountain"s devastating and underserved snub for Best Picture. Seeking support, and solace, I found this Forum on the Internet, and encountered many terrific people whose feelings I shared.  It has been a while since I have been here, and many won't remember me.

On this Forum, I posted comments on a blog for the first time in my life.

Since then I have started one of my own, an eclectic mix of movies, animals, music, current events, and personal topics of interest.

As Oscar season came around again I naturally thought of my experience with this Forum and how it helped me deal with my emotions and find my perspective again.  Last night I posted about my lifelong love-hate relationship with Oscar, and how I felt on March 5, 2006.

http://tom-samp-journal.blogspot.com/2010/03/my-oscar-love-hate-story-personal.html (http://tom-samp-journal.blogspot.com/2010/03/my-oscar-love-hate-story-personal.html)

Of course, I mentioned the Forum in my piece. 

Good to see you all here!  I will continue to visit more often.  I felt for some reason this year's Oscar season reminded me a lot of 2005, which some of your posts have borne out.  Even so, nothing has ever compared with "Brokeback Mountain" since then, and I have read with interest the fascinating posts by all of you on this year's and previous years' contests.

Thank you for letting me visit again...hope you'll do the same.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 03, 2010, 06:05:47 PM
Thanks Tom, I remember chatting with you back then!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 03, 2010, 06:11:07 PM
OSCAR DRAMA QUEENS

Make fun of Brokeback Mountain all you want, but not Avatar!

Cohen’s Avatar Spoof Dashed by Cameron
By Advocate.com Editors
March 3, 2010

http://www.advocate.com/Dashed_by_Cameron/ (http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/03/Cohens_Avatar_Spoof_Dashed_by_Cameron/)

Quote
A planned Oscar spoof starring Sacha Baron Cohen as a female Na’vi from the movie Avatar has been canceled because of fears it might offend the film’s director, James Cameron.

New York Magazine reports that Cohen was scheduled to appear onstage as a blue-skinned female Na’vi, with Ben Stiller translating her speech. A source said at the end of the speech, Cohen planned to open an evening gown to reveal that the Na’vi was pregnant with Cameron’s love child.

“Let’s just say that Cameron isn’t known to be, shall we say, ‘self-deprecating,’” a source told the magazine.

Cohen’s name has been removed from the scheduled list of presenters, and he is no longer expected to appear on the telecast.


Sacha shame, don't ya think?


'Hurt Locker' producer banned from Oscars
The film academy penalizes Nicolas Chartier for his anti-'Avatar' e-mail
by Steven Zeitchik
March 3, 2010

http://www.latimes.com/chartier/story (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-chartier3-2010mar03,0,2490588.story)

Quote
For the first time in its history, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences has banned a nominee from attending the Oscars.

The group said Tuesday that Nicolas Chartier, a producer on best picture candidate "The Hurt Locker," will not be allowed into the Kodak Theatre for Sunday's ceremony. Chartier's tickets have been revoked, and he will not be granted entry as a guest of any other attendee, an academy spokeswoman told The Times.

The decision comes on the heels of Chartier sending an e-mail message to a group of colleagues that included academy members asking them to choose the Summit Entertainment-distributed "The Hurt Locker" for best picture and "not the $500-million film" -- a clear reference to "Avatar."

The message was deemed in violation of the academy's ban against creating a negative impression of a rival nominee.

Chartier subsequently apologized for his actions.

"Chartier had recently disseminated an e-mail to certain academy voters and other film industry figures in which he solicited votes for his own picture and disparaged one of the other contending films," the academy said in a statement. "The executive committee of the academy's Producers Branch, at a special session late Monday, ruled that the ethical lapse merited the revocation of Chartier's invitation to the awards."

Should the film win best picture, Chartier would be given his Oscar at a later date.

The academy stopped short of the more draconian penalty of disallowing the film from competing for Oscars. Still, the move was unprecedented. While studios have previously had their overall allotment of tickets reduced because of campaign violations, no individual nominee had previously been forbidden from attending.

But don't penalize or reprimand Tony Curtis for going on Fox News
to bad mouth and slander Brokeback Mountain during the voting period.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on March 03, 2010, 06:45:20 PM
Bravo and ditto to:
 
BaycityJohn (#622)
Lyle (#'s 623 & 624 & 627)
TomS (#625)

Each of you posted everything I wanted to say.  This may be a short message, but all of my thoughts are there.  Thank you for everything you wrote - so damned TRUE!   ;)

kathy 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on March 04, 2010, 09:20:55 PM
A fun story:

I teach high school English.  Today, when my students were working together in groups, I overheard some of my Advanced Placement 11th graders discussing the Oscars (mostly the current ones).  I couldn't hear everything they said, but the conversation eventually drifted over to Crash.  All three of the boys agreed that it was a terrible choice (now remember these guys were only in the 7th grade when all that was going down).  One of them asked his buddy, "What do you think should have won?  'Brokeback Mountain'?"  He responded, "Yes," while the one who asked the question admitted he had never seen it.  

Two things struck me about this conversation: first, that a bunch of 11th graders would be having such a savvy discussion of an Oscar race that took place when they were still in junior high - showing just what a lasting impact that year's result had - and, second, that they would have such a perceptive opinion of "Crash."

It kind of gave me hope.  

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: tonydude on March 04, 2010, 09:41:33 PM
  Roland, that is a great story.  Strangely enough, the way the younger set went nuts over TDK, that may have brought them back to the subject of what else Heath Ledger had done, and so, to BBM.  At any rate, they do tend to be savvy, and, more and more, accepting of movies like BBM.  Thanks for giving that example.....
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: ingmarnicebbmt on March 05, 2010, 09:12:56 AM
(((((((Ing2ndfavMoulinRougeHunkymanhungburgerSir)))))))

(((Robhunk))) I love it !

 :-*
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Rob in Puyallup on March 05, 2010, 09:14:54 AM
(((Robhunk))) I love it !

 :-*

;D

:-* :-* :-*

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: ingmarnicebbmt on March 05, 2010, 09:16:11 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^

 ;) ;) ;)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: ingmarnicebbmt on March 05, 2010, 09:16:33 AM

Roland, your story made me smile...

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on March 05, 2010, 11:56:54 AM
Here is my annual Oscar prediction article for my local newspaper.  Some of you might like to read it.  Criticisms, praise, comments, etc., are welcome.  Just don't give me any flak for my love of UP IN THE AIR or for not predicting a win for my beloved Colin.  If I had MY way he, Jeff, and George (sorry, all you Clooney-haters, but I love the guy) would end up in a three-way tie and all take home Best Actor Oscars.  Anyway, here is the article: 

WILL AVATAR’S BLUE--AND GREEN--BRING OSCAR GOLD?

By Mark Kirby

Can it really be 12 years ago that the two main candidates for the Best Picture Academy Award were the highest-grossing movie of all time (“Titanic”) and a critically adored film (“L.A. Confidential”) that had taken in about 1/100th of that ship-and-iceberg movie’s box-office coin?

Well as always, history repeats itself, especially in Hollywood.  Even though for the first time since 1944 there are ten best picture nominees, after damning criticism that 2008’s blockbuster THE DARK KNIGHT was gypped out of a best picture nod, this year’s two main Oscar candidates are again the newest highest moneymaker of all time (“Avatar,” coincidentally directed by James Cameron, who helmed “Titanic”) and a critical darling but box-office disappointment (“The Hurt Locker,” directed by, in an amusing turn of events, Kathryn Bigelow, Cameron’s ex-wife).

And so we are faced yet again with the question of, Will Oscar reward the moneymaker or the underdog movie?    “Titanic” swept the boards in 1998, while “L.A.” won only two.  To be fair, “Titanic” had largely favorable reviews, but not the raves of “L.A. Confidential”, and “Avatar” has been praised, though not nearly as much as “The Hurt Locker.”  So who will Oscar pick—the movie with the Marine on the moon Pandora or the movie with the army bomb defusing soldiers in Iraq?   
         
Personally, I wish the two would cancel each other out and enable my favorite film of 2009, the achingly topical and bittersweet UP IN THE AIR, to win top honors. (The only award “Air” is certain to win is best adapted screenplay.) But this article is about what I think will happen, not what I wish will happen.  And away we go, as the great Gleason said…

BEST PICTURE:  “The Hurt Locker.”  Bad box-office aside, it’s being discovered on DVD and many Academy voters see the nominated films on DVD, and many are aware that “Locker” has already won lots of awards.  A “soldiers in Iraq movie” has been overdue for Oscar honors and especially since “Locker” is more suspenseful than political (some see more political content in “Avatar”) it is a safe—but justifiable—choice for best picture.  “Avatar” will win a batch of technical awards, but its’ director’s comments about how it will reinvent screen acting are likely to turn off actors, who make up the majority of Oscar voters.

ACTOR:  Jeff Bridges for “Crazy Heart.”  How appropriate that his country music singer-songwriter character, Bad Blake, is often drinking from a fifth of liquor!  Bridges, quite possibly the finest actor of his generation—certainly the most unsung—will win an Oscar on his fifth nomination, never having won in the past, an injustice that will be rectified on Oscar night.   

ACTRESS:  Meryl Streep for “Julie & Julia.”  Some say that Sandra Bullock will win for “The Blind Side,” and she may but I think the nomination is Bullock’s prize.  Streep portrays the legendary Julia Child with a joy and brilliance equal to that of the French Chef herself.  It’ll be hard for voters not to finally reward her with a third Oscar, 27 years and 12 nominations after her last Oscar.
 
SUPPORTING ACTOR:  Christopher Plummer in “The Last Station.”  Here we go, here’s where the forecasters and I widely diverge.  Christoph Waltz has won practically every supporting award there is for his Nazi colonel in “Inglorious Basterds” and deserves the Oscar.  But then we have another Chris, an 80-year-old Tony- and Emmy-winning actor who has given many fine film performances, such as writer Leo Tolstoy in “The Last Station.”  This is Plummer’s first Oscar nomination and I see the sentiment factor at work here even more so than in Jeff Bridges’ race.  I may be dead wrong but a win for Plummer wouldn’t surprise me one bit.

SUPPORTING ACTRESS:  Mo’Nique in “Precious:  Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire.”  As the uncaring mother from hell and the vilest character in such a role since Shelley Winters in “A Patch of Blue” (1965), the galvanic Mo”Nique will add an Oscar to her many awards for “Precious,” just as Winters won an Oscar for “Blue.”   

DIRECTOR:  Kathryn Bigelow for “The Hurt Locker.”   Whether or not her ex’s film wins top prize Bigelow is a shoo-in for the director Oscar.  Not only will there be the “it’s time a woman won this award” feeling but Bigelow has crafted an unbearably tense and fine film.

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:  Mark Boal, “The Hurt Locker.”
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:  Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner, “Up in the Air”
ANIMATED FILM:  “Up”
FOREIGN-LANGUAGE FILM:  “The Milk of Sorrow”
ART DIRECTION:  “Avatar”
CINEMATOGRAPHY:  “Avatar” (those blue people in it are creepy but it’s a pretty shade of blue)
EDITING:  “The Hurt Locker”
SOUND MIXING:  “The Hurt Locker”
SOUND EDITING:  “Avatar” 
VISUAL EFFECTS:  “Avatar”
MAKEUP:  “The Young Victoria”
ORIGINAL SCORE:  “Up”
ORIGINAL SONG:  “The Weary Kind” from “Crazy Heart”
COSTUME DESIGN:  “Nine”
DOCUMENTARY FEATURE:  “The Most Dangerous Man in America:  Daniel Ellsburg and the Pentagon Papers”
DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT:  “The Last Truck:  Closing of a GM Plant”
ANIMATED SHORT FILM:  “A Matter of Loaf and Death” (just for that title alone)
LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM:  “Kavi”
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on March 05, 2010, 04:15:14 PM
Going Gay for the Gold

From Peter Finch in Sunday Bloody Sunday to Colin Firth in A Single Man, The Advocate takes a look at the 30 men and women nominated for an Oscar for playing LGBT since the Stonewall riots.


Jake Gyllenhaal
Best Actor in a Supporting Role, Brokeback Mountain
2005
Role: Jack Twist, a rodeo cowboy who falls in love and carries on a secret relationship with ranch hand Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger).


Heath Ledger
Best Actor in a Leading Role, Brokeback Mountain
2005
Role: Ennis Del Mar, a ranch hand who falls in love and carries on a secret relationship with a rodeo cowboy (Jake Gyllenhaal).



more..

http://advocate.com/Arts_and_Entertainment/Film/Going_Gay_for_the_Gold/ (http://advocate.com/Arts_and_Entertainment/Film/Going_Gay_for_the_Gold/)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on March 05, 2010, 09:59:12 PM
Oh, Heath and Jake--robbed of Oscars.  As was Bruce Davison for LONGTIME COMPANION.  I was really pissed about that loss.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on March 06, 2010, 02:24:24 PM
Oh, I know I've posted this before, but ...here I go --

BBM deliberately denied Best Picture of 2005.  It didn't lose; it was deliberately denied.  And losing to such beyond bad "TRASH" adds insult to injury.
Heath & Jake's superb acting denied.  Beautiful cinematography snubbed.  You bet homophobia and despicable whispering campaigns in various quarters played a very large part.  >:( 
Well, if that rotten, stupid "academy" thinks this will be forgotten -- it never will.   >:D

(p.s.  I'd kick myself if I didn't mention my boy Peter O'Toole.  Eight nominations - no win ("honorary" award in 2003, sure - after all the snubs).  Immortal performance (1st nomination) as Lawrence of Arabia denied.  Last nomination in 2007 - humiliated again.  See how mean-spirited they are even in different circumstances)?   >:(
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on March 06, 2010, 02:26:48 PM
I've been researching news articles about Brokeback this week, as I do every week, and it seems like 80 % of the articles I'm finding are talking about  >:D Crash  >:D stealing the 2005 Best Picture Oscar.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on March 06, 2010, 02:34:33 PM
 :)  BaycityJohn:

YES!!

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 06, 2010, 02:57:15 PM
Last nomination in 2007 - humiliated again.  See how mean-spirited they are even in different circumstances)?   >:(

Kathy, there's one thing to be disappointed over certain outcomes
and another to actually be angry over them.  We've all been disappointed
and disagree with decisions over the years, but to think the academy, and
I can't believe I'm going to defend them a bit, but to think they, as a group,
sit there and deliberately are mean-spirited, for example, by not giving
Peter O'Toole the award for that performance in 2007, which he probably
shouldn't have been nominated for anyway--so you could say they were
being generous!, is a bit far fetched in my opinion.  They did not award Jake
or Heath, but no one expected them to.  Lead actors under thirty almost never,
Brody excepted, win that award.  In 1962 Peter was just 30.  Brando was thirty
and probably should have won for his seminal Streetcar performance, but
no one really disagrees that Bogart's African Queen nor Peck's Mockingbird
performances were unworthy.  As for Jake, he was up against Clooney, who
was also up for director and whether or not we'd have enjoyed a different
outcome, the outcome was not at all unexpected.

I keep writing about BBM's loss, because we have sufficient evidence
in the way things played out that year, that homophobia was a big factor
in it's outcome.  If there had been any evidence suggesting "distinct (or any)
possibility" of another outcome I would have been terrifically disappointed
and disagreeable, but had a modicum of acceptance based on previous
behavior's.  (Oscar precursor's and prognostications.)  It is evident or
acceptable in most of the cases one disagrees or dislikes an outcome, so I
can still disagree and let it go, but only in the case of BBM, I see no other
options than the disagreeable one.  And that is why I do not let it go, especially
if something to the contrary surfaces.

Make sense?

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on March 06, 2010, 04:20:29 PM
 :)  Hi Lyle
Yes, you certainly do make sense.  The seminal topic is [u]BBM[/u] being deliberately denied Best Picture of 2005, as I stated above, and there definitely are several legitimate answers as to "why".  Homophobia being a very large part indeed.   >:(   >:D  I hope you successfully pursue it, perhaps better than I can.

You remember a while back when we first communicated, I did state that young men under the age of 30   ::)  are very rarely rewarded, even for great performances.  That's why I mentioned Peter again, and why I mentioned Heath & Jake.  His performance in "Venus" (2006) was very good, (not my favorite, but very good, like those in - definitely The Lion in Winter, Stunt Man, Ruling Class and others) - and after eight nominations  -- :(   I read that K. Hepburn stated David Lean told her it's as if "the men have to earn their spurs"  ::)  or something to that effect.   

Sure, M. Brando should have won for that Streetcar performance as Stanley; all the other principals won, but he was only 26 at the time.  And I sure like H. Bogart; he was just as great in Treasure of the Sierra Madre and Caine Mutiny. (Got to mention another one: W. Holden should have won for Sunset Blvd. - G. Swanson too, of course, but she was up against B. Davis, etc., noone could agree so they gave it to someone who didn't deserve it - J. Holliday)!  Wm. was 32 at the time, and they gave it to him later for Stalag 17.  Oh, well, we could go on and on...but pls. keep pursuing that all-time BBM denial and the reasons for it. 

Sincerely,
kathy



 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 07, 2010, 11:37:06 AM
I read that K. Hepburn stated David Lean told her it's as if "the men have to earn their spurs"  ::)  or something to that effect. 

Thanks Kathy, lol, I don't think I ever heard that quote above...Ms. Hepburn
did have a way with words.

Did you ever get to see Mr. O'Toole in person?  I don't think I have.
My favorite performance of his is in My Favorite Year, but that's more
because that film mostly takes place on the night I was born.  Otheerwise,
I just love The Lion in Winter!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on March 07, 2010, 08:47:31 PM
 :) Hi Lyle --
1.  No, I never met Peter.  Tried to once in NY, but missed him.  I wish I had; and definitely wish he knew of my long, unrequited love. 
I loved The Lion in Winter too (his 2nd turn as Henry II; the first was in Becket).  I liked My Favorite Year; really liked his acting like E. Flynn.  But his iconic performance as Lawrence is always going to be #1 for me.  ;)  (It was voted in 2006 by Parade Magazine as #1 of all time).  And he was beautifully handsome; imagine what this did to a girl!  And the restoration of LOA in 1998-99 is a marvel.  Peter said years ago: "I was obsessed; two years; I wanted to become him; it hampered my acting later on".  (I don't think so, but ...)  Yet he also said, in one of his interviews a few yrs. ago w/Charlie Rose, when Rose stated "You know what's going to be on your tombstone... "Yes".  "What do you think?"..."Proud of it". 
(Maybe I should have put this in a PM to you - I don't want the forum members to be angry). 

2.  Anyway, there sure is something we do agree on.  It's great that you continue on pursuing the awful truth of BBM's being denied Best Picture of 2005  >:( , and the very legitimate reasons for it.  It was deliberately denied; that is never going to go away.  Blatant homophobia is the large part of it.  All of the deliberate whispering campaigns against what is already recognized as a classic.  How those rotten cowardly ampas "members"  >:D  could do what they did is downright mean.     
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on March 07, 2010, 11:04:02 PM
I am never watching the Oscars again!!

This is 5 years in a row and Brokeback Mountain still didn't win. :(
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on March 07, 2010, 11:47:48 PM
Well, now that “The Hurt Locker” has won the Oscar for Best Picture, BBM still stands alone as the only film in recent times to have earned the majority of pre-Oscar BP awards only to be denied AMPAS’ highest honor (and THL didn‘t even win the Golden Globes).   The outrage continues.   >:D
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: retropian on March 07, 2010, 11:51:15 PM
I am never watching the Oscars again!!

This is 5 years in a row and Brokeback Mountain still didn't win. :(

LOL! Love that! I too did not watch the Oscars tonight. I did watch Neil Patrick Harris's opening number as it is posted on youtube already. I think he is phenomenally talented and seems like a genuinely nice guy. He's doing alot for Gay rights simply by doing what he does, on the other hand it kind of reminds me a little of 'minstrelsy'. He's entertaining and non-threatening and so acceptable, much like how male African American performers were acceptable and popular so long as they projected a non-sexual and non-threatening image. Maybe I'm being a little paranoid.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 08, 2010, 02:06:34 AM
This is 5 years in a row and Brokeback Mountain still didn't win. :(

I said that to someone afterwards on the phone!

But it was nice to see Jake there.  And Heath was
in clips from The Dark Knight demonstrating what
sound mixing and editing is.

And the best part of the evening was the commercial
for Modern Family, shown at least three times where
the families are doing charades to guess movie titles and
one husband is trying to get his wife to say "UP" and cannot,
and then the gay couple does one gesture and comes up
with several titles immediately, one of which is Brokeback Mountain.
So the film that dare not speak its name was spoken several times
during the evening!
 
Well, now that “The Hurt Locker” has won the Oscar for Best Picture, BBM still stands alone as the only film in recent times to have earned the majority of pre-Oscar BP awards only to be denied AMPAS’ highest honor (and THL didn‘t even win the Golden Globes). 

Also no director/picture splitting since then.

Retropian, you do have a point, NPH also plays a "womanizer" on
his sitcom.  But at least he is out and talks about it on many occasions,
and makes no apologies for it!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: ingmarnicebbmt on March 08, 2010, 02:25:53 AM
Oh, Heath and Jake--robbed of Oscars.  As was Bruce Davison for LONGTIME COMPANION.  I was really pissed about that loss.

Longtime  companion was one of the best movies ever!! Ever!

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on March 08, 2010, 02:20:08 PM
Meet the "No Gay Films in Florida" Act

(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj282/SanFranciscoJohn/brokeback_mountain_004.jpg)


New bill would exclude tax credits for productions with homosexual characters


In the spirit of the Academy Awards, we would like to present the front runner for the most homophobic state in the union award: Florida.

A new bill being considered in the Florida house would make movie and TV productions with gay characters ineligible for a tax credit that is usually used to lure Tinsel Town to the state. Current state law gives tax credits on productions that are "family friendly," i.e. no smoking, sex, nudity, or profane language.

In its newest form, the tax credit would increase, but the field of disqualified productions would expand, including any production that included gay characters.

It's pretty much impossible to find a movie or TV show without at least one gay character or drug abuser or drunk, all of which would be classified as "nontraditional" under the bill.

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/politics/Meet-the-No-Gay-Films-in-Florida-Act-86925947.html (http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/politics/Meet-the-No-Gay-Films-in-Florida-Act-86925947.html)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: doodler on March 08, 2010, 03:23:35 PM
But murder, incest, adultery, stealing, etc ARE family friendly? Even a lot of Disney films would be on the hit list.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on March 08, 2010, 03:28:18 PM
"In Memoriam": Oscar mourns the dead

The Academy's annual four-minute lesson in film history -- and mortality -- is the reason I keep watching

By Will Di Novi

Quote
But enough! Basta! Even the most ardent, Bazin-quoting, Buñuel-loving film snob has to admit there's one undeniable, if slightly morbid, reason to stop worrying and love the Oscars: "In Memoriam," the annual tribute to the movie giants who have passed away over the previous year. "In Memoriam" is the mother of all greatest-hits montages, a four-minute lesson in film history. As golden moments from our collective movie memory fill the screen of the Kodak Theatre, it's like stepping into the final scene of Giuseppe Tornatore's "Cinema Paradiso," where the censored clips from classic movie romances wash across the hero's eyes in a tidal wave of nostalgia. Unrepentant sentimentality suddenly feels appropriate. Exuberant expressions of gratitude cut any lingering traces of sarcasm or snark like a machete. "Wasn't Alec Guinness an actor of uncommon grace and versatility?" you might reflect. "Was Richard Widmark not the most badass villain who ever graced the silver screen?" Film nerd-dom reigns.

Quote
Or maybe "In Memoriam" is just an elegant way to give whoever's hosting the Oscars a bathroom break before throwing to a Doritos commercial. Whatever the reason for its inclusion in the Academy Awards, it's a welcome reassurance that, warts and all, they remain a wonderful celebration of the movies. As the segment's last image fades to black, we may find our critical synapses reigniting: "Why did they devote 30 seconds to George Harrison but only three to Akira Kurosawa? Did they really leave out Brad Renfro and Robert Goulet?" But even then, caught in the most dyspeptic throes of Oscar angst, we are as inextricably tied to this annual ritual as Jack Twist and Ennis del Mar were to their yearly trips to Brokeback Mountain. "You are too much for me, Oscar," we yell at the TV every year. "I wish I knew how to quit you." "In Memoriam" reminds us why we never do.

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/film_salon/2010/03/07/in_memoriam (http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/film_salon/2010/03/07/in_memoriam)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on March 08, 2010, 10:32:14 PM
I am never watching the Oscars again!!

This is 5 years in a row and Brokeback Mountain still didn't win. :(


Ditto!   :(
from kathy 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Guardian on March 09, 2010, 05:43:06 PM
I haven't been able to post on this site for some time because of various personal commitments.  But where the Academy Awards are concerned, there is always time to point out their idiocies.

I'll probably post again about their award decisions in future posts, but I did want to comment on the exclusion of Farah Fawcett from their Memorium segment.  A Bruce Davis of the Academy admits that she was a tough call.  Well, if she was a tough call, wouldn't it have been the logical, to say nothing of the humane thing, to err on the side of inclusion?  What would it have cost them?  Another ten or fifteen seconds to the already bloated, lumbering three and a half hour running time of the awards?  Instead they erred on the side of exclusion thus hurting the feelings of family members, friends and fans.  The same was done (I understand) to Bea Arthur and Gene Barry.  The logic being that all three actors excelled more in television than in movies.  Apparently in the eyes of the Academy you can't be honored by more than one awards show.

And yet Michael Jackson was included.  A titan in music, yes.  But movies?  The only I can think of in which he gave a performance was "The Wiz."  And yet Mr. Davis is more than willing to admit that the Academy was pandering with his inclusion by suggesting there would have been a huge uproar if he were left out.  And, oh yes, he had a recent release.  A documentary comprised of rehearsal footage for a concert he never gave. That does not make him a movie star.  That doesn't even make him a movie actor.

Farrah Fawcett, Bea Arthur and Gene Barry all gave performances in numerous films.  Their exclusion was arbitrary and arrogant.  And typical of the Academy.  Is it no wonder that for people in the know, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and its awards are considered so out of touch.  Dinosaurs that just won't die.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on March 09, 2010, 06:09:05 PM
Yeah, there were too many people left out of the in memory tribute...
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on March 09, 2010, 06:16:15 PM

Farrah Fawcett, Bea Arthur and Gene Barry all gave performances in numerous films.  Their exclusion was arbitrary and arrogant.  And typical of the Academy.  Is it no wonder that for people in the know, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and its awards are considered so out of touch.  Dinosaurs that just won't die.

Leaving out Farrah may have been a mistake.  She did make several movies and was nominated for
a Golden Globe for "Extremities" and an Indie for "The Apostle'.  She was also quite effective in "Dr. T and His Women".
However, she did some excellent TV work and that plus her genuine "celebrity-hood" represents the crux of her professional career.

I don't see how Bea Arthur's exclusion can be considered a "snub" however.
She recreated her legendary Broadway role of Vera in "Mame".  She had a cameo in
a Mel Brooks film and she was in one other....what the hell.... oh yeah,
"Lovers and Other Strangers".
She is a legitimate and deserving icon in both television and the theatre;
including her in the Oscar memoriam would almost have been insulting.

On the other hand, as I have often posted,
it is beyond me why anyone gets so upset with, of all the things,
the "Oscars".  To do so is to admit that one is duped by all the hype and
manufactured "seriousness" of the whole goofy thing.
It's like getting pissed off at an infomercial or mad at the tooth
fairy for undervaluing your incisor.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on March 10, 2010, 02:14:01 AM
Bea Arthur was also in these films:

That Kind of Woman (1959)

For Better or Worse (1995)

and

Enemies of Laughter (2000)

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 10, 2010, 12:20:04 PM
This year ampas was presumably reaching out to the general public to come back to their broadcast.  And they did.  So what did they then do?  Instead of showing just a few seconds of Farrah Fawcett and Bea Arthur, beloved to much of the viewing audience, they show Army Archerd, who, yes, is someone academy members are familiar with as he used to announce the oscar arrivals each year, but the rest of America has no idea who he is.  They always have reasons they've left someone out, like Brad Renfro awhile ago.  SAG awards (and the Golden Globes for that matter) have a much broader spectrum to their awards and their montages always seem a bit better and they're probably longer because they encompass tv as well.  But no one minds or complains about them.  What is perplexing about the academy is that they would seem to rather spend minutes, hours, days, and/or weeks to defend their omissions, than take a generous few seconds and include some people of note.  After all, I didn't see them rejecting actual appearances by Bea Arthur and Farrah Fawcett on their oscar ceremonies in the past.

I still remember when they left out my favorite character actor Ray Walston.  Someone in films from the 50's through the 90's.  Not only was he known by younger academy members from his role in Fast Times at Ridgemont High and his brilliant turn in the Of Mice and Men remake, but older academy members might even recall him in the box office blockbuster of its time, South Pacific.   

Oh yeah, he was also in two films that won Best Picture, The Sting and The Apartment.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 10, 2010, 12:24:38 PM
I was reading something from someone who knows their stuff that said they had mixed up pictures in the montage of Jean Simmons and Kathryn Grayson as well.  That's a pretty unforgivable mistake, as though a researcher or someone can't be bothered to get a tribute correct.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on March 10, 2010, 03:14:43 PM
I was reading something from someone who knows their stuff that said they had mixed up pictures in the montage of Jean Simmons and Kathryn Grayson as well.  That's a pretty unforgivable mistake, as though a researcher or someone can't be bothered to get a tribute correct.

Well, here it is. Where is the mistake?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NNe-dM6GA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NNe-dM6GA)

Unforgivable?
Wow, I would like to get you and Chuck Workman in the same room.  :)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 11, 2010, 12:00:01 PM
Well, Gary, I did make a mistake in my post you quoted above.
I meant to write Jennifer Jones instead of Kathryn Grayson.
The point of the post is still correct.  Were you a nun in a catholic
school at any time?  I'm beginning to think you're always ready to
slap everyone on the knuckles with a metal ruler.  And, yes, it is
unforgivable to mess up something like this, maybe not on MTV
or the Nickelodeon Teen Choice Awards, but this is AMPAS where
this segment is supposed to be honoring those contributors to the
arts and science of movie making that have made a difference,
supposedly, to ampas.  To mix them up is not an honor I would think.

Oscar In Memoriam Tribute: Jean Simmons-Jennifer Jones Mix-Up
by Andre Soares
Mar 9, 2010

Jean Simmons was remembered in this year’s tribute segment at the 2010 Oscar ceremony. Well, great. Simmons was a fantastic actress. As far as I’m concerned, she stole Hamlet from Laurence Olivier, Elmer Gantry from Burt Lancaster, and Spartacus from Kirk Douglas.

But why an image of Jennifer Jones in The Song of Bernadette above Simmons’ name? Oops!


http://www.altfg.com/blog/simmons-239/ (http://www.altfg.com/blog/actors/janet-gaynor-jean-simmons-jennifer-jones-239/)


Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on March 11, 2010, 12:31:33 PM
  Were you a nun in a catholic
school at any time?  I'm beginning to think you're always ready to
slap everyone on the knuckles with a metal ruler. 
Ha! :D :D :D :D
No, Presbyterian. "Everything in moderation".
And anyway, it ain't me who shifts in uber "whac a mole" mode
everytime AMPAS attempts to stick it's pointy little head out from
it's dismal Hollywood hole.

Good eye, though. I didn't notice the Jennifer Jones/Jean Simmons
image tragedy.
And NOW, that damn, conspiratorial, bigoted, insensitive, homophobic,
AMPAS has deleted the clip from Youtube. 
There is simply no depth to their monolithic evil.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 11, 2010, 04:14:32 PM
And NOW, that damn, conspiratorial, bigoted, insensitive, homophobic,
AMPAS has deleted the clip from Youtube.  There is simply no depth to their monolithic evil.

That's moderation?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on March 11, 2010, 04:26:18 PM
That's moderation?
Alas, I was a poor disciple.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on March 11, 2010, 07:37:40 PM
Yes, I never fail to be amazed at that rotten "academy's" continuing stupidity. And - we'll never forget what they deliberately did to BBM.  If I may, I'd like to quote from garyd:  "There is simply no depth to their monolithic evil".   >:D   What a ridiculous bunch of jerks. 

They are no better than the AFI (Am. Film Institute), with their unending "lists".  Great legends are left off the top actors' and actresses' lists.  And they lower true classics to place inferior films above them.  What a bunch of jerks too.   >:D 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on March 11, 2010, 11:14:29 PM
Brokeback Mountain won an Oscar this year. kinda.   ;D


Bulga boy recognised at Academy Awards for movie technology

THE red carpet has been mothballed for another year, the flashes faded and the gold statues packed away, but Bulga is still celebrating its first Academy Award winner.

Martin Tlaskal and his company FilmLight were recognised at the Academy's Scientific and Technical Awards for pioneering post-production technology used in films from Brokeback Mountain to The Hangover.


http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/bulga-boy-recognised-at-academy-awards-for-movie-technology/1774214.aspx (http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/bulga-boy-recognised-at-academy-awards-for-movie-technology/1774214.aspx)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 12, 2010, 09:29:01 AM
Still winning awards after all these years!

He even lives there.  (Sort of.)

Quote
Mr Tlaskal, who grew up living at Broke, collected his Academy Award on February 20.  Mr Tlaskal’s father George, who lives at the family home at Broke, said it was a fitting reward for a country boy who loved computers.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on March 19, 2010, 09:48:33 AM
Brokeback Mountain Stars Lead Early 2011 Oscars Race

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN stars JAKE GYLLENHAAL, MICHELLE WILLIAMS and ANNE HATHAWAY are the frontrunners to score big at the Oscars in 2011, according to the leading Academy Awards race website.

The three stars are all tipped to claim leading actor and actress Oscars nominations for the films Blue Valentine and Love & Other Drugs.

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/brokeback-mountain-stars-lead-early-2011-oscars-race_1136019 (http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/brokeback-mountain-stars-lead-early-2011-oscars-race_1136019)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on March 19, 2010, 02:16:01 PM
Has LOVE AND OTHER DRUGS even started filming yet?????
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on March 19, 2010, 02:32:06 PM
Has LOVE AND OTHER DRUGS even started filming yet?????

I don't know, but it's never too early for a buzz  ;D
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 19, 2010, 02:50:17 PM
Yes, they were filming it last fall.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on March 19, 2010, 09:01:35 PM
Brokeback Mountain Stars Lead Early 2011 Oscars Race

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN stars JAKE GYLLENHAAL, MICHELLE WILLIAMS and ANNE HATHAWAY are the frontrunners to score big at the Oscars in 2011, according to the leading Academy Awards race website.

The three stars are all tipped to claim leading actor and actress Oscars nominations for the films Blue Valentine and Love & Other Drugs.

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/brokeback-mountain-stars-lead-early-2011-oscars-race_1136019 (http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/brokeback-mountain-stars-lead-early-2011-oscars-race_1136019)

Heath would be included.  So sad, so unfair and sad.   :'(
kathy
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on March 20, 2010, 05:59:13 PM
Lest we forget, if we've learned anything about the Academy Awards it's to not count our chickens before they are hatched.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: CellarDweller115 on March 21, 2010, 11:51:15 AM
Lest we forget, if we've learned anything about the Academy Awards it's to not count our chickens before they are hatched.

True point!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: dback on March 22, 2010, 11:43:58 AM
More about the In Mememorium, since people were still mad about it days later: even Sheri Shepard on "The View," one of the world's biggest Michael Jackson fans, pointed out that it was odd that he was included but Farrah Fawcett was not.  For those who only remember Fawcett for her TV work (lengthy) and her dud films "Saturn 3" and "Somebody Killed Her Husband," she was also in "Logan's Run," and gave fine performances in "Dr. T and the Women" "See You In The Morning" and "The Apostle," and a flat-out terrific one in "Extremities."  I'd agree with excluding Arthur, who really made her mark on stage and in TV, but Whoopi Goldberg pointed out that the Academy also excluded Ricardo Montalban, who made over 30 films. 

Furthermore, when Peggy Lee died, the Academy neglected to included her in their In Memorium montage that year--and Lee had been a Supporting Actress nominee for "Pete Kelly's Blues."  (She also wrote a number of memorable movie songs, including the score for "Lady and the Tramp.")  When the family contacted the Academy about it, they got a really condescending and snotty reply, according to wikipedia, saying that Lee was a recording star, not a movie star.

Just more proof that the Academy is a bunch of snobs and assholes.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on March 22, 2010, 04:47:47 PM
Just more proof that the Academy is a bunch of snobs and assholes.

EXACTLY!!   
WHAT THEY DID TO BBM IS SOMETHING THEY'LL NEVER LIVE DOWN - I'M CERTAIN OF IT.   >:D
k.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on March 24, 2010, 12:49:22 AM
Dear Academy

Why I Won't Be Watching the OSCARS Next Year


By
Shane Steinberg
Scene Writer


Published: Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Oh how you disappoint me … No, I’m not another Avatar-obsessed junkie feeling jilted by the fact that you didn’t give this year’s grand prize to the “Pocahontas” rip-off, or some pretentious film buff trashing mainstream Hollywood and proclaiming Sundance as my life-blood.
I understand that this is a business. I don’t need reminding that money and not integrity drive your decisions, or that your voting system is inherently flawed, or that politics — no, I’m not Monique writing under an alias — lie at the heart of every golden statuette you give out. And I don’t need you chiming in with a “please calm down, sir” which I’m sure, if you were actually reading this, you’d be already doing as you ready yourself to turn the page and yet again turn your back on the problem that you’ve gotten oh so good at ignoring. Let’s think of that four-hour blip you call an awards show as your preemptive hack of an answer to this letter (rant? Ode to your terribleness?), and this letter as my answer to you. So on March 7 you put on the 82nd annual Oscars. Please allow me to retort.

   Dear Academy, does it strike you as odd that of the last 10 films you’ve deemed to be the “Best Picture,” only three of them have been in the top five best reviewed films in their respective year? Or that, if you want to look at your process as a democratic one “for the people” (come on, who are we kidding here?), only one of those pictures was the highest rated by viewers in its respective year? Doesn’t it seem weird to you that while many of your esteemed members cast votes in various other awards shows/film critic circles/festivals, your results are often far different than those of the same awards shows/film critics circles/festivals that your members vote for? Perhaps they all have a change of heart sometime after they cast their previous votes, or maybe they’re conspiring (against what?), or maybe it’s your system … just maybe. Maybe it’s that up until this year’s Oscars you’ve gone with an instant run-off system that more often than not awards films that, let’s face it, even without the statistical data to back it up (because you refuse to release that data), don’t receive the most favorable votes. In your system (the same system that’s probably older than Larry King), a film with 20 first place votes cast by Brutus and the crew but with 80 last place votes beats out a film with 19 first place votes and 81 second place votes. Dear Academy, I ask you: Is that really the best picture? Or to be more precise, let me ask this with a more direct example: Was “Crash” really better than “Capote” or “Brokeback Mountain?”



more...

http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/scene/dear-academy-1.1277577 (http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/scene/dear-academy-1.1277577)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on March 24, 2010, 08:24:41 AM

Just more proof that the Academy is a bunch of snobs and assholes.


No argument from me on this one.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 24, 2010, 01:39:21 PM
Dear Academy
Why I Won't Be Watching the OSCARS Next Year

by Shane Steinberg
Scene Writer
Published: Wednesday, March 24, 2010
http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/scene/dear-academy-1.1277577 (http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/scene/dear-academy-1.1277577)

Whereas Shane does have some good points, he does write:
"Why does Sean Penn (a dear friend and favorite of the Academy) win for “Milk” when Mickey Rourke’s iconic, mesmerizing performance in “The Wrestler” got shut out after winning at almost every other awards show?"

I say:  "When someone just 'supposes' something instead of checking the facts, I always discount what they have to say by some degree.  Truth is, Penn & Rourke were about tied in the amount of awards they won prior to the oscars.  You can't use this particular argument against ampas."

SEAN PENN:
Academy Award
Boston Film Critics
Alliance of Women Film Critics
Southeastern Film Critics
San Francisco Film Critics
Los Angeles Film Critics
New York Film Critics
New York Online Film Critics
Phoenix Film Critics
St. Louis Film Critics
Austin Film Critics
Houston Film Critics
Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics
National Society of FIlm Critcs
Broadcast Film Critics Association
Vancouver Film Critics
Screen Actors Guild
(17 total)

MICKEY ROURKE:
Boston Film Critics
Central Ohio Film Critics
Chicago Film Critics
Detroit Film Critics
Florida Film Critics
Hollywood Foreign Press
Intertnational Cinephile
Iowa Film Critics
Kansas City Film Critics
British Academy (BAFTA)
London Film Critics
Oklahoma Film Critics
Online Film Critics
San Diego Film Critics
San Francisco Film Critics
Indepedent Spirit Awards
Toronto Film Critics
Washingon, D.C. Area Film Critics
Utah Film Critics
(19 total)

(Boston and San Francisco awarded it to both.)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on March 27, 2010, 03:30:33 PM
A best of the decade list I had not seen before:

A critic's Top 20 of the decade
by Rene Rodriguez
01-03-10
Miami Herald

This was my first decade reviewing movies
full time, which means I saw a lot of them.

Here are my favorites:


#8. Brokeback Mountain (2005): I was interviewing Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger at the Toronto Film Festival when director Ang Lee burst in, clutching the Golden Lion statuette the movie had won a day before at the Venice Film Festival. The three traded hugs, congratulations and somewhat smiles: They had a hunch, but until that moment, they still didn't know they had made a masterpiece.

Also, Heath film:
#12. The Dark Knight (2008)

http://www.miamiherald.com/1404975.html (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/01/03/1404975/a-critics-top-20-of-the-decade.html)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on March 27, 2010, 03:59:10 PM
 :) Hi Lyle --

What good news to see BBM and TDK on that list (top 20 of decade)!   ;D  Makes me happy. 
Happy/sad for Heath too.  :)   :(
kathy   
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on March 29, 2010, 11:07:24 AM
Mick LaSalle posted on the SF Chronicle website today:

"Brokeback" Revisited


Quote
I didn't know I'd saved this -- just found it on an old disc. This is what I had two-thirds into Oscar night, four years ago:

"Brokeback Mountain" was the big winner at the 78th Academy Awards on Monday, winning a total of ----- Oscars, including best picture, best director, and -----. The rest of the major awards were spread out among other nominated films, with best actor going to Philip Seymour Hoffman for "Capote," and best actress honors going to Reese Witherspoon for "Walk the Line."

After "Brokeback," the second biggest winner of the evening was ---- , which picked up ---- Oscars, including ---- and -----.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/mlasalle/detail?entry_id=60114#ixzz0jaPQ8tiP (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/mlasalle/detail?entry_id=60114#ixzz0jaPQ8tiP)

Some good comments posted as well.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on March 29, 2010, 07:29:39 PM
 :)  Hi John --
Yes, this is what it should have definitely been.  Those damned so-called "academy" cowards.   >:D

Mick LaSalle is so good.  His books "Dangerous Women" and "Dangerous Men" are so good and accurate. 
(Good judgment columnist too)!

kathy 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: brokebacktom on March 30, 2010, 06:58:46 AM
Still NOT 1 Crash in any of the decades' top lists. GOOD!!! Not Surprised.
 >:D >:D
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on March 30, 2010, 01:35:51 PM
Still NOT 1 Crash in any of the decades' top lists. GOOD!!! Not Surprised.
 >:D >:D

YES!!  AND THAT "TRASH" WILL NEVER BE ON ANY ONE OF THEM!!    >:D    >:D
kathy
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on March 30, 2010, 02:29:40 PM
I did an animated film called 'Trash' a couple of years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBn2oYW6kJE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBn2oYW6kJE)  >:D  ;D
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on March 30, 2010, 02:52:38 PM
I did an animated film called 'Trash' a couple of years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBn2oYW6kJE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBn2oYW6kJE)  >:D  ;D

HA!!  You sure got that right, John.  And THAT'S what those bastards gave "best picture (??) to - what a
revolting joke.
 >:D    >:D
 
kathy   
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on April 22, 2010, 01:15:44 PM
I came across a two year old post on a baseball site called
Chatterbalks.  (In baseball, balks is pronounced like "box.") 
Anyway, this poster was having some amusement with the
Mets and Crash:

The 2008 New York Mets: A Film By Paul Haggis
by Doug ? June 12, 2008 ?

Recently ChatterBalks got a hold of this script by Paul Haggis about this year’s New York Mets. We were so excited to read it that we felt we needed to share it with the world.

Ramon Castro: It’s the sense of touch. On any real team, you just score, you know? You run into home, sometimes you slide into home. On the Mets, everybody touches you. I think we miss that touch so much, that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something.

John Maine: Maybe it’s because you’re a catcher and sometimes when runners are trying to score and there’s a play at the plate, they try to dislodge the ball from your glove by hitting you.

Ramon Castro: Maybe you’re a racist.


More here:
http://www.chatterbalks.com/?p=163
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on April 28, 2010, 01:13:42 PM
IOC strips 2000 Games bronze medal from China

China was stripped of a bronze medal from the 2000 Sydney Olympics on Wednesday for fielding an underage gymnast. The medal was given to the United States instead.

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?slug=txgymunderagegymnast (http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?slug=txgymunderagegymnast)

I'm forwarding this to AMPAS. See if they get the hint  ;D
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on April 28, 2010, 02:36:45 PM
Forgive me if I've posted this before.

A comment on The Worst Movie of the Decade Relay

Quote
By Martin Pal on January 3, 2010 11:13 AM | Reply
@ Sean Stangland:

I disagree that Brokeback Mountain has "dissipated from the public conversation."

There are current and active websites devoted to it, the Dave Cullen Forums, Bettermost and Finding Brokeback among them.


Quote
It may in your world "now...only seem to come up in bad jokes, sadly," but it still is having an enormous impact on those it affected, both personally and cinematically. And lastly, there would be no "Crash" without "Brokeback Mountain."


more...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/12/the_worst_movie_of_the_decade.html#comment-843858 (http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/12/the_worst_movie_of_the_decade.html#comment-843858)

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on April 28, 2010, 03:32:18 PM
IOC strips 2000 Games bronze medal from China

China was stripped of a bronze medal from the 2000 Sydney Olympics on Wednesday for fielding an underage gymnast. The medal was given to the United States instead.

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?slug=txgymunderagegymnast (http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?slug=txgymunderagegymnast)

I'm forwarding this to AMPAS. See if they get the hint  ;D

 :)  Oh, John, I'm completely with you on rescinding that so-called (best picture ???) "award" to TRASH.  >:D
I truly feel those mean-spirited, bigoted bastards will NEVER get the hint.  And of course I believe that everyone in filmdom land knows what those cowards deliberately, blatantly did to deny BBM what it deserved - Best Picture of 2005, as well as the other important ones it denied.   
If it were up to me, and I had the power, I'd make sure noone will ever forget it.  They'll never live that one down!!

Still, I've heard that it is commonly known to most people what they did...but those bigoted cowards will never own up to it.    Sure, they've made bad mistakes before, but this one must be right up there on the very top!  Deliberate villiany from those homophobic despicable cowards.   >:D

kathy
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on April 28, 2010, 04:22:18 PM
Forgive me if I've posted this before.

A comment on The Worst Movie of the Decade Relay



more...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/12/the_worst_movie_of_the_decade.html#comment-843858 (http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/12/the_worst_movie_of_the_decade.html#comment-843858)


quote]

John!  I've never seen this post before!!  When I read it, I could not believe the part about TRASH being sooo good. .. ???  ???
That is definitely one of the worst pictures ever made.  We know why that trash won - and why BBM was denied what it deserved - Best Picture of 2005 - by bigoted no good cowards, and other reasons... >:D
Do those people who post anti-BBM posts really believe it - unbelievable!  Or are they, like ampas, just bringing their own bigoted, anti-BBM thoughts into the postings??

BBM is one of the greatest films ever made; it is already a classic.  It certainly deserved Best Picture, as well as  all other awards. To see TRASH described as "better" is like seeing a majestic artist compared to a hack.  (Understatement).  BBM was robbed of best picture - and everyone knows it!!  And it will never "dissipate from the public conversation", "come up only as a joke" or be belittled/denigrated in any way.  This is pure bunk.    Such people like that will never understand the lasting, postive, and tremendous effect BBM had on so many, many people. 

People like those who post bad things about BBM are just deniers, no better than those ampas "people" who give "awards" to one of the worst films ever made, while blatantly & deliberately denying the award to a masterpiece.     

kathy 
p.s.  Haggis is such a rotten filmmaker, his "film" was not even nominated for a golden globe, etc., while BBM won every award in the world - but not here, oh no - not in CA.    It makes me sick to my stomach to see Haggis get something for such baaad filmmaking.  No wonder those "academy" awards are looked on by so many as nothing but a continuing joke.  Well, Haggis played the "race" card, and of course ampas played it safe...
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on April 28, 2010, 07:11:00 PM
You can make them read, but you can't make them think.

Found on the internet today:


Final Day of Class Blog
5 Things I Learned About Film


1. How character Positions in a shot, affect the mood or actual meaning of a scene.
2. I learned the differances of camera views in a scene
3. The genre of Docudrama (didnt know those actually exist)
4. How lighting and positioning directs your eyes to a certain person or object
5. Learned what a bookend is and its purpose

5 Things I learned about Politics
1. I learned that democrats have a firm grip on todays media
2. I learned that Micheal Moore is worse than I thought he was
3. I learned that the academy awards are also very liberal by picking "Brokeback Mountain" as a best picture

http://politicsandreellife.blogspot.com/2010/04/final-day-of-class-blog.html (http://politicsandreellife.blogspot.com/2010/04/final-day-of-class-blog.html)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on April 28, 2010, 07:38:46 PM
 :)  Hi john --

Wow!  Each time I think I've just read the most stupid thing on the net, along comes another one to top it!
He sure wasn't listening in that film class (or was the film class as stupid as he is?  Ridiculous pompous jerk.   >:(    >:(

kathy
p.s.  Yup, you can make them read, but you can't make them think.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on April 29, 2010, 01:16:59 PM
I'm forwarding this to AMPAS. See if they get the hint  ;D

lol!

You can make them read, but you can't make them think.

2010/04/   final-day-of-class    -blog.html

Maybe they could think a bit more if the last day of school wasn't in April!
When I was going to school we were there from 8am-4pm and we went
to school until the last week of June!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on April 30, 2010, 12:38:40 PM
Random person found on the internet:


Andrew Scott

Andy is the news editor for both Moviefone and AOL TV. His favorite movie is 'Annie Hall' and considers Paul Newman to be the greatest actor who ever lived. Four years later, he still has nightmares of when 'Crash' beat 'Brokeback Mountain' at the Oscars.

http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/bloggers/andrew-scott/ (http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/bloggers/andrew-scott/)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: CellarDweller115 on May 01, 2010, 10:03:18 AM
Ya know, I'm sure that Paul Haggis has had to have seen at least some of these comments.  Not on this forum, but out there on the 'net.

I wonder what he really thinks about it.
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on May 01, 2010, 11:29:39 AM
Ya know, I'm sure that Paul Haggis has had to have seen at least some of these comments.  Not on this forum, but out there on the 'net.

I wonder what he really thinks about it.

Speech:

http://bbmfoundation.org/music/Wave1.mp3 (http://bbmfoundation.org/music/Wave1.mp3)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Rob in Puyallup on May 01, 2010, 07:03:45 PM
Speech:

http://bbmfoundation.org/music/Wave1.mp3 (http://bbmfoundation.org/music/Wave1.mp3)

LOL! Couldn't have done it without all that luck!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on May 01, 2010, 08:07:29 PM
Speech:

http://bbmfoundation.org/music/Wave1.mp3 (http://bbmfoundation.org/music/Wave1.mp3)

I hope & pray that Haggis (such a rotten filmmaker anyway) has heard/read anything and everything of how BBM was deliberately robbed of Best Picture 4 yrs.ago by that stupid "ampas" who caved in to whispering campaigns, homophobia, last minute pressure, played it safe with the "race card", and just threw that lousy award away to his rotten "TRASH".     DAMN!   >:D  (This one's never going to be forgotten in "ampas" history). 

P.S.  Was that him (I couldn't watch it; I was so disgusted) saying he was "the luckiest man on the face of the earth" ???  What a total jerk - taking the classic line of Lou Gehrig's speech, spoken so memorably by the great Gary Cooper in "Pride of the Yankees" (1941)!  And there isn't a dry eye in the place to this day when anyone sees that excellent film on TV...

Well, what do you expect from a dope who could make something sooo baaad as that piece of film "TRASH"? 

kathy   >:(
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on May 01, 2010, 08:41:18 PM
No Kathy, that was an audio clip of Lou Gehrig.  It was a joke.

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on May 01, 2010, 09:02:01 PM
No Kathy, that was an audio clip of Lou Gehrig.  It was a joke.



 :)  Hi john --
Guess I just can't get jokes today for some reason! 
But, you can't really blame me for thinking Haggis would do such a thing, can you?  He's such a total jerk; I wouldn't put anything past him...

But at least I did know it wasn't Gary.  Whenever I see "Pride of the Yankees", I go into tears at that speech.   
Course my beloved daddy would know it was Lou's voice.  He was/is the greatest lifelong fan the NYY ever had. 
kathy
p.s.  Sorry for going sentimental; love/miss my daddy so damn much.   
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on May 01, 2010, 09:09:32 PM
I really don't dislike Paul Haggis.

In fact I thought his Scientology letter was awesome.


Quote
As you know, for ten months now I have been writing to ask you to make a public statement denouncing the actions of the Church of Scientology of San Diego. […] I called and wrote and implored you, as the official spokesman of the church, to condemn their actions. I told you I could not, in good conscience, be a member of an organization where gay-bashing was tolerated.

In that first conversation, back at the end of October of last year, you told me you were horrified, that you would get to the bottom of it and “heads would roll.” You promised action. Ten months passed. No action was forthcoming. The best you offered was a weak and carefully worded press release, which praised the church’s human rights record and took no responsibility. Even that, you decided not to publish.

The church’s refusal to denounce the actions of these bigots, hypocrites and homophobes is cowardly. I can think of no other word. Silence is consent


more...

http://www.movieline.com/2009/10/paul-haggis-renounces-scientology.php
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on May 01, 2010, 09:28:19 PM
Hi john --
Well, Haggis was a real good and loyal member for 35 years.  With the likes of Tom Cruise, Kirstie Alley and all the others like that, they are so WIERD!!   ::)
You know, they classify it as a "religion" and it is not.  I've always wondered how they get away with that.  L. Ron Hubbard really came up with a snow job.
kathy 
p.s.  And Haggis didn't "renounce" it 'til 2009.  
p.s. p.s.  Doesn't that picture w/those "oscars" in Haggis' hands make you sick?  I still have nightmares after four years too.   >:(
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on May 04, 2010, 03:16:01 AM
Brokeback Mountain still winning awards


Winners of Gold Derby Film Decade Awards announced

BEST MOTION PICTURE
1. "The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King"
2. "Brokeback Mountain"
3. "Moulin Rouge"

OTHER NOMINEES
"Chicago"
"The Dark Knight"
"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"
"The Hours"
"Mulholland Drive"
"Pan’s Labyrinth"
"There Will Be Blood"

BEST LEAD ACTOR
1. Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview in "There Will Be Blood"
2. Heath Ledger as Ennis Del Mar in "Brokeback Mountain"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
1. Heath Ledger as the Joker in "The Dark Knight"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
1. Larry McMurtry & Diana Ossana for "Brokeback Mountain"



http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2010/05/winners-announced-gold-derby-film-decade-awards.html (http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2010/05/winners-announced-gold-derby-film-decade-awards.html)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on May 04, 2010, 12:25:22 PM
No Kathy, that was an audio clip of Lou Gehrig.  It was a joke.





Speaking of, can you believe that Lou Gehrig died of Lou Gehrig's disease?  I mean what are the ODDS?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on May 05, 2010, 01:33:23 PM

So did my father.

(He didn't even know Lou Gehrig.
He was a Yankee fan, though.)

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on May 05, 2010, 06:16:52 PM
Brokeback Mountain still winning awards


Winners of Gold Derby Film Decade Awards announced

BEST MOTION PICTURE
1. "The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King"
2. "Brokeback Mountain"
3. "Moulin Rouge"

OTHER NOMINEES
"Chicago"
"The Dark Knight"
"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"
"The Hours"
"Mulholland Drive"
"Pan’s Labyrinth"
"There Will Be Blood"

BEST LEAD ACTOR
1. Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview in "There Will Be Blood"
2. Heath Ledger as Ennis Del Mar in "Brokeback Mountain"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
1. Heath Ledger as the Joker in "The Dark Knight"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
1. Larry McMurtry & Diana Ossana for "Brokeback Mountain"



http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2010/05/winners-announced-gold-derby-film-decade-awards.html (http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2010/05/winners-announced-gold-derby-film-decade-awards.html)

 :)  Hi John --
I posted the following response to the above in "BBM-General Discussion" yesterday but I want to post it in this forum too.  Here it is  --

   Oh, I 'm so glad!! 

Got to say though - #1 in Best Picture should be Brokeback Mountain.   
                            #1 in Best Actor should Heath as Ennis Del Mar in BBM.
And they certainly got Larry & Diana correct for best adapted screenplay for BBM.

It makes my heart smile to see things like this.  Every time I think of those cursed "ampas" members and what was deliberately done in Feb. 2006 to BBM, my blood boils.   
HA!!  Those "heffalumps" are l NEVER going to live this one down.

p.s.  Heath, again, should be #1 Best Supporting Actor in The Dark Knight. 
And of course Jake should be there too for Best Supp. actor in BBM. 
How about co-wins for #1 - the two of them certainly deserve it. 

Wonderful, deserved praise and recognition for such a truly great film! Everything about it is unforgettable.   
Our beloved Heath -- if only you were here, sweetheart... :-*    :'(

kathy 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on May 07, 2010, 01:27:59 PM
Dept. of Interior to BP: You're doin' a heckuva job!

As long as awards have been given out to individuals and groups in recognition of their perceived accomplishments, there have been controversial selections. From Time Magazine's much maligned, and oft-misinterpreted, 1938 selection of Hitler as "Man of the Year" to the unforgivable travesty of "Crash" beating out "Brokeback Mountain" for Best Picture...it has been proven time and time again that you simply cannot please everyone.

It is with that thought that we turn our attention to the Department of the Interior and their recent decision to honor oil giant British Petroleum (BP) as a finalist for their prestigious Safety Award for Excellence. Yes BP, the company whose oil rig "Deepwater Horizon" recently exploded in the Gulf of Mexico resulting in 11 deaths and the worst American oil spill in two decades, is being recognized for "outstanding safety and pollution prevention performance." And you thought irony was dead.

http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/archive/2010/05/07/dept-of-interior-to-bp-you-re-doin-a-heckuva-job.aspx (http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/archive/2010/05/07/dept-of-interior-to-bp-you-re-doin-a-heckuva-job.aspx)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on May 07, 2010, 08:52:14 PM
john --
Even the Department of the Interior knows and prints it!! 
I love to see this. 

kathy   :)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on May 11, 2010, 06:01:20 PM
BOTTOM OF THE MOUNTAIN
Quote
It's been nearly five years since Brokeback Mountain lost the Oscar for Best Picture.  Yet it feels like only yesterday that my life was controlled by the film, and my hopes summarily executed when it failed to take home a statue.


When I first heard the news that Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger would be going gay for a new cowboy movie, I was combusting with excitement.  Though I had long crushed on both men--Gyllenhaal in Donnie Darko and The Day After Tomorrow (yes, I know I missed October Sky) and Ledger from First Knight and 10 Things I Hate About You (yes, I know I missed Monster’s Ball)--my enthusiasm was, at that time, 50% because hot guys were going to make out and 50% because a gay love story was being given serious film treatment.  All right, it might have been more like 70%-30%, but who’s counting.


So I stopped by UCLA's library and picked up the Annie Proulx tale the film would be based on, contained in the author's book of short stories, Close Range.  Not an avid reader of such minimalist midwestern fiction, it was new to me, but the familiar themes of longing, helplessness, and tragedy were as potent there as anywhere.  I was, as I'd hoped, in love.


I counted the days until the movie’s premiere, and naturally, I was there at the initial midnight screening in (where else but) Manhattan’s Chelsea Clearview Cinemas with a friend.  Seeing a story on screen which I had been rolling around in my mind for nearly six months was at first jarring, but I found myself not caring about the details of the filmmaking, and like a drooling fangirl, loving the motion picture version of a story I so loved.

Quote
I saw Brokeback Mountain five times in the theatres.  Three times with friends, once with my mother and family, once with my then boyfriend.  I bought the film and it remains the only DVD I’ve ever purchased for myself.  But I’ve now realized that I wasn’t seeing a movie, or buying a product.  I was supporting a cause.  


You may wonder where I was during all the monumental Gay Marriage rallies last year, because I was not in attendance at any.  Yet—and I anticipate the fallout from what I’m about to say—I feel my passion over that silly, sentimental 2005 film is actually just as important.

Politics are cold.  Despite the passion that surrounds them, they freeze you, and require you to stop and decide what is right and what is wrong, what is fair, and what is unjust.  Politics are, by definition, black and white. 


But art is hot
.  It melts non-belief and bends inflexible values with emotion.  It breaks all the laws and is by definition, a mix of so many factors it is impossible to be black or white.







much more.....

http://www.crazytownblog.com/crazytown/2010/04/bottom-of-the-mountain.html (http://www.crazytownblog.com/crazytown/2010/04/bottom-of-the-mountain.html)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on June 06, 2010, 11:27:49 AM
A little disappointed.  Entertainment Weekly recently ran a 100 Best Characters of the past 20 years issue.  Ennis and Jack were only listed as an also-ran couple behind the youngsters in "The Notebook."  Heck, Thelma and Louise even got their own spot on the list.  Ennis, just by himself, is one of the most memorable characters of any era.   ??? :( >:(
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on June 06, 2010, 04:40:34 PM
A little disappointed.  Entertainment Weekly recently ran a 100 Best Characters of the past 20 years issue.  Ennis and Jack were only listed as an also-ran couple behind the youngsters in "The Notebook."  Heck, Thelma and Louise even got their own spot on the list.  Ennis, just by himself, is one of the most memorable characters of any era.   ??? :( >:(

Well, this is another example of why I don't like certain "lists".  This is beyond crazy!!   
It's unbelievable that EW is so dumb and stupid to put kids "The Notebook"(!) here, and the beautiful, unforgettable couple of Ennis and Jack is omitted??  Jackasses.  >:D   Reminds me of the jackass ampas.  >:D
Rotten, truly rotten.

kathy   >:(     >:(
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Roland on June 06, 2010, 04:55:46 PM
Well, technically and to be fair to the magazine, they weren't exactly "omitted."  They were stuck in the sub-category, "Couples we also loved," alongside Rose and Jack from "Titanic."  But, seriously, BEHIND a conventional teenybopper coupling like "The Notebook."?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on June 06, 2010, 05:06:50 PM
When they should have been at or near the top of the heap, they are relegated to a "sub-category".   
What idiots were in charge of this lousy "list" anyway?  Rotten, just rotten.   >:D
 
kathy
 >:(     >:(

Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on June 07, 2010, 11:17:49 AM

Let's not start bashing "The Notebook."
It's a very good film. 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on June 07, 2010, 12:57:54 PM
I love "The Notebook" !!
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Ennis Del Mark on June 07, 2010, 01:02:16 PM
I never saw it but if you and Lyle liked it it must be good.  I'll have to see it one of these days.  Maybe in December when everyone else is in L.A. watching BBM.    :'(
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: BayCityJohn on June 15, 2010, 12:33:33 PM
Random blog post from the internet today:



Quote
TUESDAY TOP 10: Most Overrated Films...

Before you grab your pitchforks and light your torches, I want to clarify that some of these selections are not, in my opinion, bad films. To be overrated is not to be terrible by any means. Sometimes an overrated film might get awards over more deserving ones, sometimes they gain cultural or critical momentum and praise so much that they become attached to a stigma of greatness. Then again, sometimes they might just be crap that people overrate. Some of these are good films that are overrated, some of them are frustratingly bad.

And the winner is...

Quote
1) Crash – I blame the rise of Paul Haggis on the Bush Administration. As a nation we were dumber; we had to have things spoon-fed to us. Enter Paul Haggis, the king of everything non-subtle. Crash is such a heavy-handed, in-your-face study on race relations. The action takes place in some alternate universe where, apparently, everyone who exists speaks about other races in the most obvious, overbearing language imaginable. Nothing about Haggis’ film is internal, or thematic, or creative. It is all just laid out for the dumbest of filmgoers to absorb without having to really think about the actions or consequences. It is a shame that this piece of crap won Best Picture, and over Brokeback Mountain nonetheless.


http://www.themoviesnob.net/2010/06/tuesday-top-10-most-overrated-films.html (http://www.themoviesnob.net/2010/06/tuesday-top-10-most-overrated-films.html)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on June 15, 2010, 04:34:28 PM
While it is always a delight to see Crash trashed, the film is not over rated.
Everybody hates it so how can it be over rated?

The balance of his choices simply reflect his personal taste.
None of those films are over rated. 
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: kathy on June 15, 2010, 08:02:11 PM
While it is always a delight to see Crash trashed, the film is not over rated.
Everybody hates it so how can it be over rated?

The balance of his choices simply reflect his personal taste.
None of those films are over rated. 

To garyd --  I couldn't have said it better.  Completely agree with every word you say!
kathy   :)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: garyd on June 15, 2010, 09:45:08 PM
Completely agree with every word you say!
kathy   :)
Thank you.
All 43?
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on June 16, 2010, 12:25:26 PM
To garyd --  I couldn't have said it better.  Completely agree
with every word you say!
kathy   :)

You agree because the author put "Lawrence of Arabia"
on his over-rated list!  LOL!  (Did you write that anonymous
comment about it on that article?)   :)
Title: Re: Awards Aftermath - Part 2
Post by: Lyle (Mooska) on June 16, 2010, 12:27:24 PM
While it is always a delight to see Crash trashed,
the film is not over rated.  Everybody hates it so how
can it be over rated?

The balance of his choices simply reflect his personal taste.
None of those films are over rated.

Any film that gets what "the public" thinks of as the most
recognizable film award in the U.S., a film that will always
be mentioned as the oscar winner for Best Picture, will
be shown in screenings because of that moniker and
gets equal or more stars in movie rating books than
Brokeback Mountain in every book or magazine or tv
movie channels guides that I have seen, does indeed
mean something.  So you can fairly say that it is indeed
over-rated.  The reason that you write "everyone hates
it so how can it be over rated" is simply "because" it was
over-rated in the first place