When Writers Attack!
The bitter pill that was Brokeback's loss at the Academy Awards last week continues to be firmly lodged in many a movie goer's throat. It seems Annie Proulx needs a good Heimlich Maneuver performed on her. The Guardian has published "Blood On The Red Carpet", Annie's personal account of the evening.
She froths:
"The people connected with Brokeback Mountain, including me, hoped that, having been nominated for eight Academy awards, it would get Best Picture as it had at the funny, lively Independent Spirit awards the day before. (If you are looking for smart judging based on merit, skip the Academy Awards next year and pay attention to the Independent Spirit choices.) We should have known conservative heffalump academy voters would have rather different ideas of what was stirring contemporary culture."Much of what Annie says may well be true. Does that amount to "homophobia"? There is a lot of talk about how many of the Academy members refused to see the film. Sure that seems like "homophobia". Given the mountain of awards the film had already garnered it was improbable that it couldn't reach the little golden man. But does the loss justify the outcry that is flooding the net?
It seems the film has become a catalyst for some pretty nasty debate. BrokebackBlokes posts David Poland's response to Annie's rant. He says:
"...this is the kind of blind anger and myopia that has caused hatred of the gay, the black, the religious other, etc. Ms. Proulx has, in this moment, become that which she beheld. And the world is a little uglier for it."While there are a million and one things wrong with his comment (cause, anyone?), there is a point buried deep in there. Brokeback meant a lot to many gay people but let's face it, it spoke more to gay people than it did to the rest of the community; we could relate more to it. But we have to be open to the idea that the film didn't work for everyone in the same way. What I have noticed in my discussions of the Academy's decision (with punters who run the gammit of the Kinsey scale) is that a good deal of people agree with the decision or in the very least agree that Brokeback didn't deserve the nod.
If you believe the "snub" was down to homophobia (and I do believe a case can be made given the awards history) then get angry. But channel this anger towards more consequential protests than having a hissy fit about a movie. Berating Crash and Hollywood at large is not going to change anything and may merely cement what people think is important to the gay community.
Tags: Brokeback, homophobia, Oscars
posted by walypala @ 8:35 pm
11 Comments:
Personally, I didn't think that Proulx's piece was very much of a rant at all, but that's my opinion, and as she says: "play it where it lays". I think she was simply expressing her honest observations about the entire event (not merely centred on Brokeback's loss).
Consequently, I think that David Poland's response is a little extreme, to say the least, and his arguments unpersuasive.
Determining the merit of a work of art is of course, inherently subjective, and all I can say is that I thought every other nominated film was more deserving than "Crash" to win best picture.
Of course I wanted Brokeback to win, but I should acknowledge that it is hard for me to judge Bokeback on its own, separate from the short story I fell in love with long before I heard about the movie. For me, the film created (and re-created) the imagined characters, settings and the drama of the story so elegantly, it seemed akin to alchemy. How I would feel without first having read the story, I will never know.
So that's my approach, and I would stop there...were it were not for the track-record of consensus regarding Brokeback's quality of craft. It was not just a popular favourite, and not simply a darling of the critics. So what explanation for the "snub" (and even Jack Nicholson couldn't act his way out of noticing that it was indeed, a snub) remains?
Who knows? I am inclined to think homophobia, or perhaps even worse: the attitude of people not ordinarily homophobic, who fear being judged - God forbid - as homophilic. It seems to me as if the voters either deliberately, or unconsciously express the sentiment: "We'll tolerate the fags, but there's no way in hell we're going to been seen celebrating them."
Despite its cultural influence, despite its current place in the zeitgeist, despite its becoming a 'positon' to rally behind or against, Brokeback remains, ultimately, just a film. So I think we need to get on with it. We can't fix it, so we've got to stand it. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself)
Besides, there are a million other stories waiting to be told.
As for channelling a positive response, the trade-paper ad placed in the Hollywood Reporter from the UltimateBrokeback forum expressed it nicely, I think. Just saying "thank you" is a wonderful thing.
Look, I agree with everything Proulx says within her commentary. Yet within the framework of a competition, which is essentially what the awards are, "playing it where it lays" and "sour grapes" are pretty much the same thing. I feel she would have done better to express her ideas in some other way. At the very least would have placed her on steadier footing.
There were some interesting statistics I read somwhere (but couldn't find this morning) on how Brokeback was the first film win x, y and z and not O. The article listed about five different "firsts" based awards history.
Yeah I think that homophobia affected the decision on some level. But I also believe that, as you say, the film's cultural importance lives on and other stories will be "greenlit" because of it.
I think complaining about the loss and crying foul makes a section of the gay community look like zealots.
Stu, you should check out Daniel Mendelsohn's article on Brokeback in the New York Review of Books. He argues that the film "must be seen as a specifically gay tragedy". His arguments seem fairly convincing to me, but let us know what you think.
Well, not that I have seen any of the other best picture contenders, but I thought brokeback mountain was dull and wooden. I failed to empathise with any of the characters except in two scenes; felt that there was absolutely no chemistry between Jake & Heath and generally considered the film to be an over-hyped period piece.
There. I understand that most of you loved it, but I didn't. I don't think is is necessary to go looking for an ulterior reason that it didn't win. The recriminations and counter-arguments following the decision are pointless sniping.
Who really looks to the academy anyway for a balanced viewpoint on merit?
This from a man who thought "Date Movie" was "hilarious".
Each to his own, I guess.
:-)
CORRECTION:
Sorry Belial, on reflection I remember that you didn't describe it as "hialrious".
You described it as "brilliant".
My apologies.
FIGHT!!! FIGHT!!! FIGHT!!!
I seem to recall describing the Date Movie as both brilliant and hilarious. No need to correct yourself.
Happily, the Date Movie was nothing less than it promised to be: unadulterated cheese... with a bit of bestial necrophilia thrown in for good measure (go kitty!).
It didn't promise love, emotional anguish, repression and loss ... and then fail to deliver a believable rendition of any of them. It didn't take a powerful story and emasculate it.
I guess my hopes for bareback mountain were just too high. I had none for the Date Movie, and they were not disappointed.
Fair enough.
I want to hear Annie Proux's reaction if Date Movie had have won Best Picture over Broke Back Mountain...
I want to hear the religious right's reaction if Date Movie won over Brokeback!
Everyone meet James, he is our new housemate. James meet everyone... most of them are from Perth too!
Post a Comment
<< Home