Zzzzzzzzzzz. Oh, wait. The Oscars weren’t that boring … but I think if Jon Stewart ever gets invited back to host it will be a miracle. And he should be invited back as his “take no prisoners” style was about the only thing that made the night interesting.
I was really happy to see George Clooney (Sorry Jake, I still love ya) and Rachel Wiez win. Plus, the Lifetime Achievement award for Robert Altman was really great … and long overdue, in my opinion.
I know I am gonna piss people off when I say this, but “Brokeback Mountain” should have won Best Picture. “Crash” was very good but “Brokeback Mountain” is far superior film all the way around.
I loved both but it’s hard for me to say one was actually a better film than the other, since they are opposites in basically every way. [i]Brokeback[/i] is an almost unbearably minimalist, incredibly traditional 2-character period piece about forbidden love and repression. Whereas [i]Crash,[/i] is a stylish, contemporary tapestry of character narratives all exploring hatred, and its myriad flare-ups.
And they’re both nearly perfect at what they are. I would’ve loved a tie (and it [i]was[/i] sort of a split ticket, with Ang Lee–deservedly–getting Best Director), but barring that, I’d say my gut was a little more set on [i]Crash.[/i]
You used the key word as to why I think “Crash” should not have won … contemporary. 10 years from now, “Crash” will be dated whereas “Brokeback Mountain” will age well. Yup.
happily, the oscars are not a very effective measurement of quality. lots of questionable films have won best picture, etc over the years while many great films have gone unappreciated.
i am a huge fan of brokeback, while i didn’t care for crash very much. for me, brokeback had very clear messages and themes that worked on different levels: don’t let your life pass you by, be true to yourself, the negative effects of homophobia on the individual and the people he loves.
i found crash to be both simple-minded and confusing at the same time. i mean, what is director-writer paul haggis trying to say with some of his plot mechanics? i also thought it was was altman lite, and even magnlolia lite. on the plus side, crash contains some terrific performances and it has stimulated conversation about racism, but i’ll take david cronenberg’s flick of the same name over this one any day.
paul haggis is now responsible for two of the most over-the-top, lazy scripts that i’ve had the mis-pleasure of sitting through — the other being million dollar baby. i’m done.
dave–paul haggis has literally hundreds of hours of produced scripts to his credit (including some of the best episodes of thirtysomething and every episode of EZ Streets), so let’s not judge his work based on one lousy script–or even two. (I didn’t see Million Dollar Baby, so I won’t judge it, but obviously I disagree with your characterization of Crash, which, in my opinion, is a virtuoso piece of screenwriting.)
And… What is Haggis “trying to say with some of his plot mechanics?” Seriously? You SAW the movie, right? One word answer: redemption. Elaboration: he is masterfully demonstrating how people are NEVER just one thing, despite what we learn from most movies.
We have the criminal who ultimately creates justice. We have the racist cop who sexually assaults the people he’s supposed to protect but ultimately engages in a stunning act of altruism to protect that self-same black woman. Counterpoint that with the homest, idealistic young cop who becomes a murderer. ALL these stories are turning on the same thematic throughlines.
They contradict themselves? Very well, then (though I’d quibble with the term): they “contradict” themselves. They are large. They contain multitudes. (Walt Whitman.) And THAT is the theme.
As for you, chuck–hey! you’re a peanuts fan, you should LIKE “chuck”–Brokeback is a PERIOD PIECE, so of course it will age well. That’s the point: it already HAS. It’s been PRE-aged by the filmmakers, and so it instantly taps into cultural reservoirs and milestones.
But to say that quality makes Brokeback better than Crash just because the latter is set in 2005 is–and I say this lovingly–a cheap shot. It’s a way to claim that the Haggis film is all artifice, style over substance–cinematic cotton candy–without actually SAYING SO.
My feeling is that Crash will go down as a classic, and will be remembered as an insightful snapshot into the collective psyche of American society circa 2005… but, of course, it will have to come by that accolade the old fashioned way: by ageing.
I love Ang Lee, he’s quite possibly my favorite single filmmaker, but let’s be honest: the guy doesn’t do very well when he sets his films in the present day… He NEEDS the context of history or culture — or both.
Whereas Crash will be remembered for helping to CREATE that context. Again, I don’t think that makes one necessarily better than the other, but it does take more balls to try to capture the zeitgeist, IMO, than it does to make the earth-shattering observation that being gay in middle America in the 60s could be hazardous to your health. Good heavens, say it ain’t so!
Oh, and, with absolutely the most elegance I can muster: nyah nyah, my film wuh-un and yers law-st. 🙂
_ph, you make some interesting points about crash, but personal taste is still personal taste, and i far prefer brokeback. i was emotionally affected by it and i connected with it. i didn’t have the same reaction to crash. maybe it’s not really fair to compare these two films, it’s just the result of the academy’s penchant for catagorizing. my dvd player is big enough for both flicks.