SubscribeCritics Choice Awards: 'Brokeback' ain't broken
So . . . "Brokeback Mountain" swept the Critics Choice Awards, as expected. What are we to make of it?
That best picture victory tells us its support has now gone beyond just the cynical snobs who comprise the membership of the New York and L.A. film critics' groups, which previously voted it best pic. Those journos are real ink-stained wretches sometimes, and I mean wretches. They tend to be haughty straight male print journalists with perpetual bad attitudes and an irresistible itch to assassinate anyone who disagrees with them. Few dare, so they end up governing pop culture by gang rule. At least for a while, till reality catches up, but by then it's usually too late and mass amnesia rules the day. Sure, right now it's obvious that "Match Point" is a big ho-hum. Even a letdown. Everyone widely agrees. But just a few weeks ago, before the movie opened nationally and the public could see for themselves, every spineless member of the Snooty Film Crowd, who had all seen it at private industry screenings, gushed, "It's genius! Woody has never been better! Brilliant filmmaking! He's destined to sweep the Oscars!"
I don't know why that very nongay journo wolfpack has gotten behind "Brokeback" so fanatically. It's a fine film. I love it, too, but it's not the masterwork they claim it is. Perhaps they're rooting for it so fiercely because they finally have a nonthreatening gay movie they can like without feeling creepy. It doesn't force you to watch John Waters drag queens eating poodle dung. No naked studs acting like sissies and doing things with male body parts they never imagined, and don't want to. "Brokeback" is safe. It's got A List, cool, macho, straight actors in it. No graphic sex, not really. (Come on, that pup tent scene is tame stuff compared to what two smitten cowboys would really do out in the wild, wild west.) Ang Lee wraps the whole package with spellbinding cinematography and musical underscore so romantic that — forget going gay — you could fall for one of these cowboys' sheep.
At the Critics Choice Awards we could've learned that "Brokeback" was really just another "Match Point," another case of mass delusion. But it's not. It's for real. That means this year won't be one of those "Mulholland Drive" years when the print critics' groups all pick one best picture that fails to cross over into the real world. Members of the Broadcast Film Critics Association aren't like their misfit print cousins. Due to the nature of their jobs, TV broadcast critics must be more social, gregarious, polished, normal. They don't demand industry groupthink while they privately live alone in basements watching DVDs of bad foreign films giving them hope that the Bolshevik Revolution might rise again.
Now that the Broadcast Film Critics Association has solidly endorsed "Brokeback," it's safe to say that the Golden Globes will be next. The two groups have a similar journalistic demographic. Heck, members of both intermingle every day on the movie-junket circuit.
But this doesn't mean "Brokeback" will inevitably win the Oscar next. Remember, Academy Awards are nearly two months away. That's a lot of time for Hollywooders to introduce a terrifying new plot complication.
But "Brokeback" did just get some bad award news. As much as the Critics Choice voters loved that pic about gay cowboys, they didn't embrace the cowboys. Both Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal lost. Ah, well, they can handle it. Being a cowboy is a hard, lonely life, they know that and they're used to it. And if the pain of the cruel straight world ever gets too much for them to bear, well, they can always head back to Brokeback Mountain with a pup tent.
Photo: "Brokeback's" lonely cowboys were real award outcasts at the BFCA kudofest.
(Focus Features)
Brokeback was never "broken". I don't understand why it took you so long to figure that out. Didn't the 7 golden globe nods, 8 BFCA nods, 4 SAG nods and record-breaking box office opening tip you off? This film is about as far from Mulholland as you can get. All they have in common are critics' awards and same-sex love scenes. Anyone who's seen the films knows Brokeback is about 20 times more accessible to the average viewer than Mulholland, and much more academy friendly (which does not necessarily mean better). And I'm not saying this cause I want it to win, it's just that the signs are everywhere. Why do you insist on insulting everyone else by saying they have some kind of agenda or are just "stupid fanboys"? I think you have a psychological need to prop yourself up. Why am I writing comments anyway? You won't change your ways. Whatever.
Posted by: Adam Keller | January 12, 2006 at 08:16 PM
Well, at least The Last Picture Show lost to The French Connection.
Actually, there would be a little similarity if Brokeback Mountain, an elegiac and low-key Western, lost to the edgy, in your face, contemporary, crime-focused, kinetic Crash.
Posted by: Todd | January 12, 2006 at 06:53 AM
Tom, nobody here wants to ATTACK you. I bought your book a few years back and often look at Borders for an update (haven't found one). I respect your opinions and if they are NOT personal opinions respect them anyway.
When I was 13 years old I went to a theater and saw "TheLast Picture Show" and was enthralled by it. I went back and saw it again...and then again. I loved its starkness, its acting, and the cinematography. I feel the same way about "BM" but not the same way about "Crash". I think thats the arguement you're meeting here.
Unfortunatly, "Picture Show" lost the Oscar for Best Picture. Hope that does not happen with "BM".
Posted by: Ricky0101 | January 11, 2006 at 05:50 PM
Er, in the second paragraph, that should be "social misfits" and "trouble". Typed too fast.
Posted by: Todd | January 11, 2006 at 07:01 AM
1. As much as I found Tom O'Neil's initial article offensive and arrogant, I have to agree with him -- what's the fun is agreeing? "Why can't we all get along?" Because getting along is boring! And fighting about awards is, let's face it, highly entertaining -- at least to all of us.
2. Print critics are "coail misfits with severe psychological problems"? Seems like a rather sweeping statement. I have truble believing that as a group one faction of critics is psychosocially different from the other. You can always pull the "Well, I've met them and so I know whereof I speak" card, but I don't buy it.
3. I really doubt that Mullholland Drive was voted Best Picture by the NYFC because the men voted with their dicks and thereby hi-jacked the vote. Mulholland Drive was not the first movie with a lesbian sex scene. The fact that after the vote some female critics told you that suggests, perhaps, as much about the women critics whom you spoke to as it does about the vote or the male critics. If Mulholland Drive was voted best pciture for any reason other than artistic merit, then I suspect it was the sheer alternative/cool factor of slapping Hollywood in the face by giving David Lynch the prize. Wasn't MD supposed to be a TV series and then the studio pulled the plug on Lynch when he turned in (surprise surprise) one of his weird films that had no box office potential, so that Lynch had to recut the show and turn it into a movie? Isn't it p[ossible that the NYFC wanted to give Hollywood the big finger for treating Lynch this way?
Personally, I thought Mulholland Drive was a masterpiece -- one of the most unsettling films I have ever seen. Lynch is one of the only directors in the America who is actually trying to do something challenging and different with film rather than produce feel good product and junk. Whether the film was entirely successful or not is irrelevant -- MD deserved recognition for being different. So many awards are given out every year to the conventional and safe -- I have no problem with some prizes occasionally going to films that try to function differently. And since I am a gay man, I am NOT talking with my dick in my hand.
Posted by: Todd | January 11, 2006 at 05:28 AM
Let's put it like this: Oh my God! When I saw Crash! I knew that it was a magnificent film and it both dispelled stereotypes and showed the beliefs in stereotypes as truths. Truly, the Academy Awards should have an award for Best Ensemble Cast. As a college professor, my students saw Crash and then discussed it in my Multiculturalism class this past summer. I thought at that time that nothing could beat it as Best Picture....but like Emerel says, "BAM!"
Along came Brokeback Mountain and the subtle eloquence of the music, scenery, and empathy were interrupted by magnificantly timed moments of Pathos! "Bam!" The heartwrenching cruelty of society so played out by Randy Qauid, the murder and hatred of gays, and the repressed lies that society has caused gays (and their loved ones) to suffer---leading Heath to represent loss , repression, and fear, and Jake, to represent both hope and helpless vulnerability beyond his control. These two heartwrenched lovers juxtaposed to the beauty of the cinematography is artistic nuance at its finest, making Ang Lee my choice for Best Director. And Let's not forget Jake as "Best Supporting Actor" at the Academy Awards. He epitomizes the tender side a gay man often must conceal and reveals the lonliness gays face in a crowd.
Crash is reality at its harshest----but Brokeback Mountain reveals to the American general public the repressed, secret suffering that so many gays have experienced in their real lives.
As I sat mesmerized in the theater, I noticed other men sharing the same silent suffering they and I had experienced in life--represented by Heath--a repressed rage: loss and desperation that has to be endured: "If we can't fix it, we have to stand it." That stoicism stands like Brokeback Mountain itself and Ang Lee gracefully chisels away at America's prejudices, shaping our future culture. This by far, triumphs the reality the we all know exists in Crash---
Posted by: Robert the Idealist | January 11, 2006 at 05:05 AM
I'm new to this site so just want to say hi! Half way through reading the postings and I thought someone should shut "can't we all get along, don't resort to personal attack". But by the time I finished reading the others and the host's responds, I could no longer stay neutral. I think no matter how one disagree with others, one can express his/her disagreement and still show reasonable respect and grace for others. Putting others down does not make one's opinion better or stronger. Yes the Print film critics might have a longer record of choosing "elitist" movies that disagree with other critics or Oscar. But could it be that BBM is really a good touching movie they happened to like this year as well as many others. I for one cried like a baby at the end of the movie :) and it still moisten my eyes every time I recalled the scence when Ennis found and hugged the shirt hidden by Jack. Call me sentimental, but not too many movie has that kind of impact on me.
Posted by: oscarpdx | January 10, 2006 at 11:59 PM
I believe you Tom. I myself like BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. It's in my top ten, but not my favorite film of 2005. The critics awards have lost their credibility to me. I wish we could see more diversity in the award winners. They all seem to go for the same films and the same actors it seems. There were other great films like GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, THE CONSTANT GARDNER, THE HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, and so on (spread the love, please). All these love from all the major critics will eventually be the downfall of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. It will end up like all other critical darlings from the past , such as FARGO, LA CONFIDENTIAL, MULLHOLLAND DRIVE, FAR FROM HEAVEN, and SIDEWAYS (ALL FAILED TO WIN BEST PICTURE). I just have this gut feeling that's It's going to fail to nab that best picture statue come OSCAR. Sadly, it will end up only winning adapted screenplay and a director Oscar for Ang Lee .
Posted by: moby | January 10, 2006 at 09:52 PM
Broadcast TV critics certainly do NOT have more integrity than print critics. No way. In fact, SOME of them are extremely corrupt, accepting freebie junkets and cash daily from studios whose films they review. It's dispicable and so are the junket whore freeloaders for being part of that system. What I'm saying is that the personality types of broadcast TV critics are more mainstream -- normal. They're not social misfits with severe psychological problems like many print critics I know. Having more mainstream personality types, broadcast film critics vote -- when they do so honestly -- more like Oscar and Globe voters. That's all I'm saying. I'm not favoring one group of critics over another, or saying that they're all dispicable.
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | January 10, 2006 at 06:37 PM
Tom -- You really think that the print critics are the only ones who are susceptible to voting with their dicks/vaginas, or their politics, or their prejudices, or whatever else is completely irrelevant to the artistic merit of a film? And you really think that the Broadcast critics have sooooooo much more integrity and would never be susceptible to the same things? If so, you are a lot more naive than I thought. I'm sure the phenomenon you identify of critics groups or other voting blocs not giving an award to a picture or actor because it won so many other awards is common among all of the awards that are given out.
Anyone who thinks ANY of these awards are serious is, in my opinion, a fool. I follow them and watch awards shows for the sheer ridiculous silly fun they provide.
Undoubtedly there are idiots among the print critics, as there are among the broadcast critics, as there are in the Academy membership, as there are in the viewing public. But the VAST majority of print reviews are more detailed and thoughtful than the VAST majority of broadcast reviews. I don't think someone can seriously dispute that the critics for The New York Times, Washington Post, the New Yorker, LA Times, New Republic and other publications have a lot more to offer than the latest botoxed bimbo who spends all of 30 seconds reviewing the latest Hollywood blockbuster on Entertainment Tonight.
Posted by: Todd | January 10, 2006 at 06:29 PM
Oh, come on, personal attacks are so much more fun, you idiot. JUST KIDDIN'!!!!!!!!!!
There are a lot of excellent points here, yes, and I think posters have stated them well. I don't know what I can add to their insights. We've got to consider them all.
The only people I've insulted here are print film critics and, if you knew them like I do, you'd cheer me on. Take, for example, what happened the year "Mulholland Drive" swept the print critics' awards. Those guys didn't really believe that "Mullholland" was the best film of the year. It was a classic case of groupthink that got launched as a result of a slugfest that broke out at the NY film critics circle. The vast majority of critics entered that voting conclave that year planning to vote for other films like Gosford Park, In the Bedroom, etc. The way the voting works at NYFCC encourages the formation of rival camps that battle each other and plot ways to screw over their colleagues. As Georgia Brown of the Village Voice once said, "You spend more time voting against your peers' movies than FOR your own." That year the infighting was especially nasty and when it was over and "Mulholland" came out the winner, most members walked out of that voting session, saying, "HOW THE HELL DID THAT HAPPEN?" That's all I heard all afternoon on the phone as I spoke with various members. More than one female member of the group told me, "I'll tell you how the hell that happened. They voted with their dicks. Duh. Do I have to spell it out for you? Mulholland has a lesbian love scene in it." Soon thereafter, print-critics' groupthink set in and most of the other critic groups followed suit, as I knew they would, suddenly flocking behind a movie that most of the New Yorkers had no intention of voting for when they entered the voting meeting. So how serious can we take the avalanche of awards that Mulholland took right after that from critics desperate to ape the NYers and prove how cool they were? Gimme break. It was obvious what was going on and it was obvious that Mulholland didn't deserve to win in the first place.
We all just witnessed a similar stampede of critics awards for Brokeback. Was it preposterous to wonder if it was just one more of those wacky Mulholland things? Of course not. But you fanboys refuse to open your minds to see what's happening at these awards. They're laughable. If you knew what went on in those critics' conclaves when they vote, you'd be flabbergasted.
You wanna know why Julianne Moore didn't win Best Actress for Far From Heaven at NYFCC a few years ago? Can you handle the REAL reason? Or will you Diane Lane fans suddenly launch nuclear attacks against me because I give it to you straight? Don't you think it's rather suspicious that the NY critics loved FFH so much that they gave it the most awards in circle history, but somehow managed to miss what made Heaven so divine? By the time the best actress category came around for a vote, the critics suddenly realized that they'd already given FFH 5 awards and one of them yelled out right before the best actress vote, "We can't give this to Julianne! What other studios will buy tables at our awards night?" Everyone panicked, realized how many thousands of dollars they'd lose and they threw the vote to Lane, who'd they'd just spent the weekend hobnobbing with because her award strategists were shrewd enough to plan tributes to her all over the NYC the weekend the circle voted -- and they dragged circle members to all of the events.
Every year when you see this kind of crap go on behind those closed doors, it's hard to have any respect at all for those guys. Go ahead and keep believing the delusions you want to, get out of here, and let people hang out at GoldDerby who want the hard, honest truth. I consider it my job to give it to them here and I work hard to do so.
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | January 10, 2006 at 06:15 PM
ironic that o'neil is calling the posters "thin-skinned", no? they are many valid and thoughtful posts here, tom. why not address them instead of resorting to personal attacks?
Posted by: bryanbk14 | January 10, 2006 at 05:41 PM
Why should my goal be to make posters happy, Nick? I'd rather tell the truth. Too bad if thin-skinned, deluded posters rooting for this-or-that star can't take it. Let them go elsewhere on line and read the pointless, uninformed blather of other fans telling them what they want to hear. Real kudos-watchers and I have serious work to do together here -- figuring out who's going to win Globes, Oscars, Grammys, etc. I don't care WHO wins. I just want to make sure we've don our work -- investigated past voting patterns, spied all current tea leaves in the cup. Sometimes that means following possibilities to their extreme scenario -- like "Crash." Sometimes it means asking a tough question like: Sure, "Brokeback" is a pic that's won all top awards from print critics, but is it one of those critics' waste-of-time dead ends like "Mulholland Drive"? If so, we're all looking at the wrong ponies in this derby and we'd better wake up!
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | January 10, 2006 at 05:31 PM
Ever heard of Kristin Veitch over on E! Online? TV diva who manages to keep all her online readers happy....maybe Tom should follow her example.....just a helpful thought.....
Posted by: Nick | January 10, 2006 at 04:58 PM
Wow. Tom O'Neill REALLY hates New York.
First the baseless and stupid Jon Stewart character assassination, and now this, where he somehow tries to make "straight" and "non-gay" into insults... to somehow de-bunk a "gay-cowboy" movie?
Now I'm just checking this site every day to see what insane thing you'll spout off next.
Posted by: Bobby | January 10, 2006 at 03:55 PM
Yes, Tom, 'Brokeback Mountain' is tame compared to the gay porn you apparently are watching (or the gay minstrel films like "Trick" and "Eating Out" -- stuff that makes any self-respecting gay man sigh in disgust).
Seriously, what is tame about a film about two gay ranch hands in love? Is it all the films about this topic that have come before (none) that make you think that the material is so ho-hum? The reality about Brokeback, and what makes it a provocative picture for red, blue and purple state America is that it treats the relationship between the two male leads with the amount of seriousness and respect that it would to any film about a heterosexual love that was separated because of social constructs. America can handle and has become accustomed to seeing its gay roles as little clownish characters who are non-threatening to the present "gay men are sissies' paradigm that envelopes our culture. Hollywood puts audiences into a nice comfort zone by either having a cartoonish gay sidekick in a fiml that does not address gay themes at all, or by making gay-ghetto films that appeal only to small audiences in Chelsea, Boystown, the Castro and West Hollywood, where straight people will never have to worry about being confronted, and where Hollywood can make a quick buck by pandering, (For an example, look at how Hollywood approaches African-American actors and films -- for every Morgan Freeman or Don Cheadle role in predominately white films, there are a half-dozen 'Soul Plane' movies that leave black viewers happy to see themselves on the screen, and white viewers happy to laugh at those crazy funny negroes!
This also gets to why 'Crash', even if we were to take its conceits seriously and afford them the respect the film pompously and irrationally insists they deserve, is a pretty lousy film when it comes to showing off edge. A lot of Americans already think that cities are race-relations powder kegs, just waiting for a match -- witness the way that people in the suburbs act about driving into cities... hell, just witness the growing size of suburbs themselves, or the existence of what are called "ex-urbs" -- cities in the middle of nowhere without downtown centers that popped up in the last 20 years (note also how they are white white white white). 'Crash' panders to the myth that is already believed and offers no new insight. It's a hard film to watch for the suburbanite because it reinforces their fears; it's hard for urbanites to watch because it's a two-hour dogpile that manages to get everything wrong.
On the contrary, 'Brokeback' undermines the social structure and the way that vast majorities of Americans view gay people and thier relationships. It's ability to have a social impact comes from how it destabilizes the norms and rules that Americans have come to expect from both the gay people they know and the gay people they see on screen. That's not a tame task; it's a feat of bravery and deft skill.
Historically, Americans have been wont to grant equaltiy until they see someone as being so substantially similar to the masses that to deny them equality would be unjust. You need to bring yourself in and show you share the common 'America values' to earn social and legal equity. That isn't necessarily fair or right, but that is how it works for minority groups in America. 'Brokeback', like the issue of gay marriage, aims at the core of that concept and shatters preconceived notions about same-sex love. Let's give it the respect that it deserves, even if it is not titilating enough for some viewers.
Posted by: Martin | January 10, 2006 at 12:13 PM
Between a pundit and a journalist. Seriously Tom, what you're doing here is not journalism. I think it's great that you've created a role for yourself as the "go-to" man to talk about awards stuff (hell, I keep coming back) but this is not journalism. Don't feel bad, Tim Russert's and Bill O'Reilly aren't really journalists either. It's more of an OpEd thing without the burden of a fact checker or an editor.
And don't underestimate how closely MANY of us follow this stuff. There are a lot of people out there with "Rain Man" like abilities to spout off past Oscar winners who didn't happen to pick up wins at the South Tacoma Critics Alliance and other interesting trends.
We also can remember your columns for a day or two ago. So when you say something like "If I wanna scream ''Crash' might win best pic!" when what you wrote was "Help me! I want to scream ''Crash' will win best picture!'" we notice. We even remember stuff from the old goldderby.com. So even if we seem like assholes when we comment, you should be somewhat gratified that we're reading.
And does anyone know whatever happened to Alex Fung?
Posted by: I think there's a difference... | January 10, 2006 at 11:50 AM
Ok guys and gals, I'm finding this one hard to beleive.
I don't care what Mr. O'Neil said in this article. I completely understand what he's saying. I also know that he thinks 'Crash' is a better film. I haven't seen it, so I don't know. But, what I do know is this: Brokeback Mountain has been the ONE movie my entire life that I walked out of and actually knew the people I saw on the screen. The first movie where if they laughed, so did I, they cried and so did I. I know countless people who felt this movie deep in the pit of their stomachs and are still upset by it (me being one of them). This film is the kind of thing that you don't see every year. Like Titanic, Brokeback Mountain, shows us the humanity of love, the ups and the downs. It takes a look at a part of society that is generally thought of as indecent or nasty, and it does so with class and dignity. For once, the gay culture is shown to be just as human and real as the heterosexual world. I do think that Brokeback Mountain achieves its goal and does so better than any film I've ever seen before.
Come Oscar time Brokeback Mountain will be standing tall. Sure, it might not win Best Actor or Supporting Actor/Actress, but it will win Best Picture. It will do so with the same class that is shown on the screen.
Posted by: ucograd06 | January 10, 2006 at 10:38 AM
Tom:
Sounds like someone wishes they were one of those grouchy New York journalists himself. And maybe Hollywood will go against they grain this year, and not vote for the most pretentious film, which is "Crash" and not "Brokeback Mountain." Brokeback is not safe, because it doesn't pander, and it is very true to its material of origin. It may not fit into your little box, of what you think a Best Picture should be, Tom, but quit the sour grapes. The real "safe" films this year are "Good Night and Good Luck" which is like watching an archival film for 2 hours - what is so groundbreaking about saying Edward R. Murrow was a hero? That's far more safe than what Brokeback did, which didn't hide behind a veil of polical correctness. And "Crash?" Let's not even go there. How can you and Roger Ebert sleep at night, when you know that was a total bullshit, paint-by-numbers account of what racial strife is all about. I live in Brooklyn, 2 blocks from a project, and people can live in harmony no matter what race or class you are. Meanwhile, Holywood can't go 2 minutes without making a "gay cowboy" joke, and they completely insulted Ang by not giving him the respect of giving a speech for 2 minutes. Meanwhile, "Into The West" had about 4 minutes blathering on about stuff that nobody cared about. Get real, Tom.
Posted by: Andrew | January 10, 2006 at 10:29 AM
Geeeeee, it looks like Tom is attacking "Brokeback Mountain" for being just an OK gay film...essentially, you're saying it's so watered down that even straight people can watch it. How horrible is that...at least the gays in this movie are richly drawn characters. They're not clowns or dying of AIDS...finally, we get a decent movie. How can you say that it's just OK? Look, I know the Oscar race can be boring...it's exciting to think that a "Moulin Rouge" or a "Shakesepeare in Love" might upset...but most years, it's pretty easy to tell. Let's not knock "Brokeback Mountain" in the hopes that this Oscar race will liven up.
Posted by: Kevin | January 10, 2006 at 09:54 AM
I've seen all of the contenders and Brokeback towers above them all. It is without a doubt the best film of the year. It's beautifully filmed, written and acted and it has a lot to say to its potential audience. That's why it is important that it get the attention that winning Best Picture would bring it. A few million people seeing this film and shifting their thinking even slightly is a big deal. A very big deal. I hope that Academy voters will remember that when they cast their votes.
Posted by: TorontoTom | January 10, 2006 at 09:32 AM
I don't know who you are, Tom O'Neil, but I have a question: Who do you think you are? From reading Gold Derby on occasion I suspect you're not the disinterested journo you purport and may even think yourself to be. Just because your agenda isn't conscious doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And for the record, would you mind telling us exactly what it is you think is so great about "Crash?"
Posted by: Eric | January 10, 2006 at 09:31 AM
I don't find it surprising at all that Brokeback Mountain is getting the raves it so richly deserves. What continues to amaze me is that those who are not in support of it being honored are so adamant. This whole article was, frankly, pointless. The concluding point was that it didn't win the acting awards and, oooh, how portentious that is! Hoffman has won the lion's share of Best Actor awards, so who was really surprised by that? Also, I think Gylenhall being nominated for Supporting is a farce anyway. He shares equal screen time with Ledger and certainly gives a leading performance.
It was a good year for movies -- I had no trouble compiling a year end list for myself -- but Brokeback Mountain certainly towers above the rest. I teach actors and screenwriters and I will be using this movie as a tool for many years to come.
Posted by: hepwa | January 10, 2006 at 09:16 AM
Tom O' Neil writes:
"I don't know why that very nongay journo wolfpack has gotten behind "Brokeback" so fanatically. It's a fine film, but not the masterwork they claim it is. Perhaps they're rooting for it so fiercely because they finally have a nonthreatening gay movie they can like without feeling creepy. It doesn't force you to watch John Waters drag queens eating poodle dung. No naked studs acting like sissies and doing things with male body parts they never imagined, and don't want to. "Brokeback" is safe."
Could you be any more offensive Tom in your stereotypical view of how gay life should be portrayed? If "Brokeback" is so safe, why did so many actors not want to touch it? Why did it take so long to make, even though producers loved the script.?
Just say you were disappointed and move on. Some people actually do want Brokeback Mountain or any other fine film to win Best Picture---over the deeply flawed "Crash."
Posted by: David | January 10, 2006 at 07:30 AM
"You people follow awards races like fans, rooting for your favourite films and stars. Fine. I'm an awards journo."
Up till now, I've come to your defence on a number of occasions, but the sheer arrogance of this statement is truly offensive. Why don't you just say "you guys are a bunch of idiots and I'm not" -- it would involve less typing and it would be no more insulting. You wrote an incredibly self-righteous piece about the critics ' awards, basically accusing certain factions of being arrogant, homophobic, dictatorial and pretentious, and then when people here criticize you over the tone and message, you turn on them and attack them for being mere "fans". Who is being pretentious and dictatorial now??? What a jerk.
"I'm an awards journo". What self-respecting adult could say that without being ashamed of himself?
Posted by: Todd | January 10, 2006 at 07:30 AM