I wanted to write something about how the Oscars came out, about the backlash by the supporters of Brokeback Mountain when it didn’t win the Best Picture award, about the finger-pointing and finger-wagging and ‘homophobe’ being tossed around like so many grenades, but Roger Ebert has summed up my feelings precisely:
What is intriguing about (several writers critical of Crash’s win) is that they never mention the other three best picture nominees: “Capote,” “Good Night, and Good Luck” and “Munich.” Their silence on these films reveals their agenda: They wanted “Brokeback Mountain” to win, saw “Crash” as the spoiler, and attacked “Crash.” If “Munich” had been the spoiler, they might not have focused on “Crash.” When they said those who voted for “Crash” were homophobes who were using a liberal movie to mask their hatred of homosexuals, they might have said the same thing about “Munich.”
This seems simply wrong. Consider (LA Weekly writer Nikki) Finke’s “anecdotal evidence” that puts Hollywood’s homophobia on a par with Pat Robertson’s. Pat Robertson? This is certainly the most extreme statement she could make on the subject, but can it be true? How many anecdotes add up to evidence? Did anyone actually tell her they didn’t want to see the movie because it was about two gay men?
My impression, also based on anecdotal evidence, is that the usual number of academy voters saw the usual number of academy nominees, and voted for the ones they admired the most. In a year without “Brokeback Mountain,” Finke, Turan and many others might have admired “Crash.” Or maybe not. But it’s a matter of opinion, not sexual politics.
…I chose “Crash” as the best film of the year not because it promoted one agenda and not another, but because it was a better film.
Read his entire article here.
