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.
