Breaking no ground

Kenneth Turan on why Brokeback was beaten out for best picture by Crash. Turan feels the answer is homophobia:

“Despite all the magazine covers it graced, despite all the red-state theaters it made good money in, despite (or maybe because of) all the jokes late-night talk show hosts made about it, you could not take the pulse of the industry without realizing that this film made a number of people distinctly uncomfortable.

More than any other of the nominated films, Brokeback Mountain was the one people told me they really didn’t feel like seeing, didn’t really get, didn’t understand the fuss over. Did I really like it, they wanted to know. Yes, I really did.

In the privacy of the voting booth, as many political candidates who’ve led in polls only to lose elections have found out, people are free to act out the unspoken fears and unconscious prejudices that they would never breathe to another soul, or, likely, acknowledge to themselves. And at least this year, that acting out doomed Brokeback Mountain.”

He whines about Crash ‘s being positioned to be a spoiler:

“…Crash‘s biggest asset is its ability to give people a carload of those standard Hollywood satisfactions but make them think they are seeing something groundbreaking and daring. It is, in some ways, a feel-good film about racism, a film you could see and feel like a better person, a film that could make you believe that you had done your moral duty and examined your soul when in fact you were just getting your buttons pushed and your preconceptions reconfirmed.” (Los Angeles Times )

I think it is simpler than that. Brokeback Mountain was recognized for its courageousness — that is why Ang Lee got the director’s award — but Crash was, dramaturgically and cinematographically, just a better, more complicated and ultimately more interesting and more satisfying film. Does that make me a homophobe? If you’ve got a pet issue, you are always going to accuse those who don’t share your passion of (a) not getting it; (b) being prejudiced against it; and (c) being pretentious and superficial for championing a competing issue. It is just not that often that issues are pitted against one another competitively (as the Oscars are wont to do; or should I say, as pundits commenting on the Oscars are wont to do?). We don’t get anywhere debating the relative merits of striking blows against homophobia or racism, and let’s not confuse values with artistic merit (as the Oscars, or the critics, are wont to do). Furthermore, isn’t it after all reductionistic to distill either of these films down to their emblematic issue? A given film looks at human complexity, pathos and motivation more or less successfully regardless of which scenario is the occasion.