Crashing the Party

For whatever reason, in my real life, people come to me when they want to know about the current state of movies.  Though I've been woefully unqualified for this duty in the past year or so, today's conversations questions were pointed more towards my role as resident liberal rather than resident film buff.  "What is this Crash movie?  I thought Brokeback Mountain was supposed to win."

The conversation, I'm finding, isn't that easy.  Crash, by all accounts (and I haven't seen it, but will soon) is a powerful film.  I was surprised that it took the top award this year simply because I really didn't believe that the Hollywood establishment would feel the need this year to "champion" race as their pet issue.  Two years ago, if you believe the hype, was the year of the black actors.  Denzel got his Supporting trophy, and then Halle Berry self-importantly accepted the first black female Oscar, exclaiming, "This is so much bigger than me."

By the time last year's ceremony rolled around, race was barely mentioned when Jamie Foxx won his Oscar.  Did Academy voters suddenly, en masse, decide that they had already settled the race issue?  Of course not.

Because, despite the talking points, Hollywood really doesn't "try" to be the forward looking voice of tolerance... they simply take credit for it retroactively.  In fact, a decent argument can be made that the Academy rarely champions "issue" films unless they are universally accepted (Schindler's List) or star Tom Hanks.  Mostly, they champion great performances in great films.  Kung Fu Monkey (in a post that simply must be read in its entirety.  It's almost a shame to excerpt it here) wrote this fisking of a conservative making the "Hollywood is only about advancing a leftist agenda" argument:

JASON: This year the Academy is hot for left-leaning, ’social issue’ films: “North Country” (sexual harassment), “The Constant Gardener” (evil pharmaceutical companies), “Good Night, and Good Luck” (evil Republican Senators), --

KFM: -- I'm sorry, I just want to chime in here. Are you trying to play that McCarthy was just a well-meaning Senator who's just now being maligned by revisionist liberals, and that his vicious drunken smear tactics, abuse of his office and treason-mongering are only being made subject of the film because he's Republican?   Seriously, you want to live in that camp? ... oooookay.  Just checking.

JASON: --“Syriana” (’it’s all about oil’), “Brokeback Mountain” (gay cowboys), “Munich” (the ‘cycle of violence’), “Transamerica” (sex change operations), etc. --

KFM: wait ... Transamerica? What the hell category is that -- oh, Best Actress, Felicity Huffman. One nomination in the Big Six. Actually -- the only nomination the movie got. Is the Academy really "hot" for a movie it nominates only one performance for? Well, maybe it's indicative of the problem with all the nominees. Who else is in that category ....

Goddamit, he's right!  Charlize Theron for North Country is in here!  This entire category has been co-opted.  Look, Keira Knightley in the socialist manifesto Pride and Prejudice!  Fiery narco-feminist Judy Dench playing an old English lady who runs a theater in Mrs. Henderson Presents!  Reese Witherspoon in WALK THE GODDAM LINE!  Did you see that? It was about how God and love saved Johhny Cash from drugs!  BASTARDS!

Of course, Ms. Huffman may win. When she does, it will because we are advancing our evil Hollywood agenda, not because her performance, in which she's an actual woman who manages to make you believe she's a man who's not a woman trying to be a woman and failing is in any way a particularly difficult or virtuoso piece of acting.  Please.

It is undeniable, however, that Hollywood is one of the more left-leaning cities in the country, so we get into a bit of a chicken/egg argument.  I'm much more willing to believe that Hollywood's liberal tendencies allow for roles like Felicity Huffman's in Transamerica to be accepted because of a general atmospheric tolerance than I am to believe that Hollywood is hellbent on pushing forward roles like Huffman's to force tolerance on the rest of the God-fearing country.  It may be semantics, but as semantics goes, it is important.

Which makes George Clooney's acceptance speech last night as harmless as it was classy.

I would say that, you know, we are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while. I think it's probably a good thing. We're the ones who talk about AIDS when it was just being whispered, and we talked about civil rights when it wasn't really popular. And we, you know, we bring up subjects. This Academy, this group of people gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I'm proud to be a part of this Academy. Proud to be part of this community, and proud to be out of touch.

The least noticed, but the most important word in that speech is "talked."  Hollywood talks about these things, and conversation is never a bad thing.

As Chuck points out, anyway, the Best Picture Award award this year went to a film who's politics aren't explicitly liberal, and who's caricatures border on the kinds of stereotyping that is the heart of its subject anyway.  The issue films that Hollywood chooses to argue are rarely the epic, Schindler's List type films, anyway.  They are almost always discussions of small portions of the larger issue.

So, the great gay-rights campaign didn't happen, last night, in a way that will suit the activists on either side of the issue.  The Academy did what it normally does: Honored a story they thought was good (Brokeback's Screenplay Award), honored a director they thought shot a beautiful film (Ang Lee's Directing Award), didn't honor Brokeback's acting, choosing instead to honor the man who had did the most important and highest cumulative quality work by giving him a charity award (George Clooney's Supporting Award) and then gave the best picture to the film that was more technically proficient, with a higher degree of storytelling difficulty (Crash's Best Picture Award).  The rest of the major awards went a fairly innocuous route.  Pretty much the same as it ever was.
 

Comments

[Ty]

To me, there were two things that stood out about Crash. The stories in themselves are not unheard of. Car wrecks, murder, crime in general, police, citizens...it's not what the story said, but what it didn't say that made it such a fascinating movie. It didn't answer anything. Movies about race relations usually wrap up stories with moral lessons. Crash virtually ignores this. Yes the story is completed, but it leaves the viewer with so many questions about what YOU would do. What would you do in their position? It doesn't answer that for you. That is why it's a good movie, and from the critic reviews I have read, why it won.

The other thing I found fascinating was the use of underacclaimed actors. They are mostly big stars, yes, but they are not oscar winners, yet they all had stellar performances. Seeing Sandra Bullock play a character like that is refreshing and the same goes for Matt Dillon, who by the way, deserved the Oscar nod.

My final comment is, go rent Hustle and Flow and watch them together. Terrance Howard is phenominal. The two roles could not be more opposed to each other, and his range is evident and addictive. I can guarantee I will be going to see his next film.

[michael]

Regarding statement PROUD-TO-BE-OUT-OF-TOUCH", we need writers and on-line expertise staff to develop / launch / promote the following domains.

1. www.proudtobeoutoftouch.com

2. www.proudtobeintouch.com

Cheers,

michael@proudtobeoutoftouch.com