the queers are really pissed off today

[firsty]

i've read on more than 2 blogs today about the injustice of "crash" giving "brokeback mountain" the reaming at the oscars last nite for best picture. not enough that "brokeback" won adapted screenplay and best director, i guess.

apparently it's a big and wrong thing that crash won best picture.

i havent seen either movie. altho i will say that i'm a big fan of discussing race relations openly. also sexual stuff, sure. but with race, it's kind of like i feel like we're nowhere near as far along with race relations, considering the early 20th century bullshit, voting rights and the upheaval of the 1960s, whereas gay rights are more sublime. homosexuals can vote, for instance, there was never a problem there, s'far as a i know. homosexuals can use the same restrooms as heterosexuals, and while there is the very real problem of right wing idiots and pansy liberals pandering to right wing nutjobs with the whole gay marriage thing, it's still something much more intrusive, i think, that racism is still so prevalent today.

anyway, i've seen neither film. i want to see crash, altho it seems a rental. i enjoy ensemble cast films, and i like matt dillon, so i'd probably end up renting it regardless of reviews. not so sure about brokeback mountain. i read the story years ago. a short story by annie proulx, pretty good. but those 2 actors piss me off in all roles, and i'm doubtful as to my ability to sit and watch a feature film with BOTH of them, particularly when i'm supposed to develop empathy with their characters and pretty much only their characters. maybe if they were playing gay cowboys in an ensemble cast where two other gay cowboys played by matt dillon and phillip seymour hoffman conspired to kill them or something, now that i'd go see.

anyway, i have a question:

has anyone seen both these movies? is the controversy justified? should brokeback have won? will crash eventually line up as the "rocky" that beat "taxi driver" or the "dances with wolves" that beat "goodfellas"?

i usually hate oscar shows but i liked the little that i saw last nite. lily tomlin and streep were great. i love altman (have i mentioned that i like ensemble films?). rap is cool. john stewart was funnier than i thought he'd be, that salma hayek sure can present, and i liked the penguin thing.

[bohonato]

I saw both. Crash was really, really, and one more really good. Shit, all the movies for best picture were amazing. Brokeback Mountain was good, and it got people talking, but it was boring in some parts.

Crash nailed me to the wall.

Racism exists today. Against Arabs, against Mexicans, against the French (?). And while there is prejudices against homosexuality, and I am personally pro-gay, I can understand people disagreeing for religious puposes, etc. I think they are wrong, but I understand where they are coming from.

I don't think there is any excuse for racism. Stereotypes are based in truth, but I think that Crash does an amazing job of showing the effect of racism on all people.

It doesn't hurt that Crash is faster-paced as well.

One out of ten adults in the U.S. is gay. Everyone in the U.S. has a race. I think more people can identify with Crash as a result.

If you know what I mean.

[Doreen Peri]

The only film which was nominated which I saw was "Crash." I was really surprised it was nominated for best picture (even though I didn't see the other ones). It was a pretty lame movie, in my opinion. Though it had some humorous moments (the two black guys were funny), the humor was developed based on stereotypical characters, the kind of stereotypes society should be trying NOT to use, rather than promoting. Sure, I suppose that was what was supposed to be "funny" about it, but I don't laugh at racist humor myself. "Pollock" jokes lost their appeal to me when I was about 10 years old. Though I realize the point of making a film this way was so the audience could see themselves or each other in an enlightening way, I found the stereotypical character portrayals to be insulting to my intelligence and my values. Maybe I need to lighten up? I donno.

"Good Night and Good Luck" got rave reviews and I can't wait to see it. It's on my netflix queue. Not released yet on dvd, tho.

[bohonato]

I loved Good Night and Good Luck.
I love black and white.
And my family is Russian (came over during the revolution). Senator McCarthy is not too popular with us.
*
Regarding Crash:
Like said before, stereotypes are based on truth (to an extent). But I did not think that they were attempting to give humour to the movie through them.
I saw {a fairly accurate depiction of} reality.
Perhaps L.A. and Detroit are different from everywhere else.

[e_dog]

should Brokeback Mtn. have won the Oscar?

what a nonsensical question. its just a popularity contest. there's no 'should.' however the judges pick wins end of story.

there is no objective validity to the vote it is just what a select group of fools likes best. who the fuck is the Academy? their award show is just an attempt to propagate the illusion that contemporary American commercial movies are not crap.

if anything, winning an Academy Award is an indicator that the movie cannot be very good.

[stilltrucking]

I was pretty sure that Joyeux Noel did not have a snow balls chance in hell. In these days who would want to see a movie about The Christmas Truce of 1914.

[firsty]

should Brokeback Mtn. have won the Oscar?

what a nonsensical question. its just a popularity contest. there's no 'should.' however the judges pick wins end of story.

there is no objective validity to the vote it is just what a select group of fools likes best. who the fuck is the Academy? their award show is just an attempt to propagate the illusion that contemporary American commercial movies are not crap.

ah. thanks for the opinion. sounds more like you shouldnt get involved in discussions that are completely invalid according to your philosophy. "should" should never be used in these terms, i apologize for semantic difficulty, you boring little noodlehead. but i appreciate your opinion. maybe you should open a thread called, "why we shouldnt go to see academy award nominations". that might be a better place for your philosophy. do you want to add anything about how capote's novel was actually based on a film?

at any rate, i'm glad for the feedback. it doesnt sound from these responses that "brokeback" was another goodfellas or taxi driver, obviously better movies than those that won.

[Arcadia]

I have seen Crash with some friends some months ago a night when I hadn´t want to talk, I was bored and I hadn´t other things to do. Other friends that had already seen the film talked about it only in moraleja terms, but there was Matt Dillon in it, so I went anyway.
Brokeback and Capote aren´t in Rosario yet. We have always a Hollywood-delay here.

[e_dog]

firsty, i think we should agree to argue and disagree without -- or with a minimum of -- personal insults. ex.:

"you boring little noodlehead."

b/c it just makes you look like youre on the ropes flailing wildly, and i prefer to have more able sparring competitors.

i am truly sorry if my remarks have at times seemed aggressive. in saying that the question of who 'should' win the Oscar is nonsensical i was not trying to insult you. it was good-natured criticism, occasioned by your post but really targeted at the media, one of whose tropes (the authoritativeness or validity of awards) your post replicated. but u don't need to feel so threatened. i respect your opinions even when we disagree.

to clarify, i have not said that 'should' shouldn't be used. its just a word, a useful one too. my point is that we shouldn't care very much about the Academy or its opinions presented under the title of nominations an awards. or rather we should care about their arrogance to declare with seeming authority what or who is 'best'; it is different when an individual makes judgements about art from when an institution with media power proclaims awards which really just forms of advertising and marketing.

[firsty]

no, we shouldnt care. if you're a fan of films, you know what i'm talking about when i talk about taxi driver and goodfellas being outvoted for best picture, and that would give you a better perspective on the point of this thread. i could jump into a thread about "house of leaves" to talk about how much it sucked, but i could do it in response to a question about whether or not the book sucked, which it did, or i could do it in response to a question about danielewski's methods compared to those of another crappy writer, and i could discount both writers and say that the method for choosing good metafiction is flawed, and that would be annoying and offtopic and would seem to make me look like someone who had certain halfbaked ideas about something and wanted everyone to know how well i could construct simple but relatively meaningless philosophies into discussions, albeit in a contrived manner, or i could just start my own thread about how sucky the academy is, which it of course is, it having selected rocky over taxi driver for best picture 20 years ago. i think the fact that that was the case shows that 1. the academy often does stupid things, 2. i realize that, hence my question in the first place and 3. it's possible that crash was good or that brokeback mountain was bad, in the same way that taxi driver was good (nominated but not selected) and that dances with wolves sucked (even tho it won). i wasnt asking if all nominations and selections should be immediately remastered and inserted into everyone's DVD library of great films. i was asking whether or not crash deserved to win. i think i'm presuming that it's possible that all nominations could have sucked, but that wasnt the point of my question, you teeter-headed frog.

[Marksman45]

Offtopic: firsty, I'd be interested to read an elaborated description of how and why you think 'House of Leaves' sucked.

[firsty]

well, i enjoyed it for about half the book. basically i think that danielewski wasnt skilled enough a writer to pull off the complete work, clever and intriguing as it was. even the parts i enjoyed, i thought, were relatively poorly written. i think the last part of the book was a copout, and that it was in general anticlimactic, which isnt in itself a necessarily bad thing, but the tension in the beginning of the last 3rd deserved a better ending. i just think that beyond the mechanical tricks, it wasnt much of a book.

[Marksman45]

Huh... I can't say I understand what you mean about the end. I loved the last part of the book.
Although I have to admit I have an unusual view on this sort of thing: to me, even the merest concept of exposition-risingaction-climax-denouement is a contrivance. The mechanical "tricks" of the book I found to be wonderful and intriguing and sufficient excuse for writing the book; to me, <i>plot</i> is a "trick," and one for which I have no respect.

I will concede that the writing itself is sometimes less-than-prime... although I loved the phrasing and vaulted language of the Zampano character... But then I don't care about craft. I am not impressed by craft. (<i>Form</i> yes, but <i>Craft</i> no.)
I am however impressed by concepts. Which is probably why I like the book so much. The number of concepts with which it deals is astronomical, as is the connections between them that the book draws; the scope of the book is ridiculous and blows me away.

[e_dog]

firsty:

"and i could discount both writers and say that the method for choosing good metafiction is flawed, and that would be annoying and offtopic and would seem to make me look like someone who had certain halfbaked ideas about something and wanted everyone to know how well i could construct simple but relatively meaningless philosophies into discussions, albeit in a contrived manner, or i could just start my own thread about how sucky the academy is, which it of course is, it having selected rocky over taxi driver for best picture 20 years ago. i think the fact that that was the case shows that 1. the academy often does stupid things, 2. i realize that, hence my question in the first place and 3. it's possible that crash was good or that brokeback mountain was bad, in the same way that taxi driver was good (nominated but not selected) and that dances with wolves sucked (even tho it won). i wasnt asking if all nominations and selections should be immediately remastered and inserted into everyone's DVD library of great films. i was asking whether or not crash deserved to win. i think i'm presuming that it's possible that all nominations could have sucked, but that wasnt the point of my question, you teeter-headed frog."

i guess you think that your view of what is THE TOPIC of the thread is the last word? branching threads like old litkicks are best but that don't mean we cannot follow multiple points in one linear thread. you question, does Crash deserve to win, presupposed that we should care about the Academy (yet you acknowledge we should not care). an assessment of the Academy is not irrelevant to a question 'bout the Academy Award show. how could you not think that's got relevance to the topic?

[stilltrucking]

Yeah well the topic here is Pissed OFF qUEERS.