SubscribeI am not a 'Brokeback' basher!
Ouch! I'm starting to feel the rope burns! Enough! I'm getting besieged with e-mails from Envelopers informing me that I'm being lynched on message boards across the Internet for being anti-"Brokeback Mountain."
Hold your horses, pardners! It's my job to spin out all possible scenarios that can happen ahead in the awards derby, so that's why I make much of "Crash" and "Good Night, and Good Luck." Both ponies really have a chance of overtaking "Brokeback." That's all I'm warning you about, though perhaps too strongly. But I do that for emphasis. This race isn't over. Surely, however, "Brokeback" is moving further and further out front and is the odds-on-fave to prevail March 5, you betcha. If Internet posters think I've got something against it, they're fools. If I was betting my own coin right now, I'd put most of my moneybags on "Brokeback." But, beware . . .
. . . the derby ain't over. Remember that Oscar morning when the L.A. Times predicted "Apollo 13" would win, it didn't even mention "Braveheart" in its analysis. The paper underestimated a factor that could play a huge role this year too: the studly-star-turned-director. Mel Gibson then, George Clooney now. And "Crash" is the kind of dark horse that can easily throw off the race.
Too many award watchers are tracking this race like fans, rooting for their faves and getting furious when someone like me points out warnings of other possibilities. I'm not rooting for any movie to win. I love most of the ponies this year, and if "Brokeback" goes the distance, I'll be thrilled. Historically speaking, its victory will look great in the Oscars pantheon.
Feel free to e-mail me with more of your gripes and protests or, egads, your agreement at INeverWonAnOscar@earthlink.net
I don't think you're a Brokeback basher. But there is one thing that might actually make a Mountain of difference in making this the outright winner of this years Oscars, it's publicity. When it comes to the actual campaigning for these awards, the cast must do campaigning. As much as I adore the romance of the press shy Ledger-Williams. I must admit I loved watching Williams in Dawson's Creek. I think they might want to do more press in publicizing the importance of this historical classic film. If anything, this might be the leash that lasos these cowboys the Oscars.
Posted by: CA | January 22, 2006 at 04:59 PM
That's YOUR JOB, isn't it?
As a film reporter, YOUR job is to stir the pot once in a while in order for folks like me to be driven to your Web site...It would be a boring Oscar year if everyone agreed on everything, right?
Keep up the great work! Your PR skills should be commended. You do know how to keep up the BUZZ :-)
Timmy
Posted by: Timothy | January 22, 2006 at 10:09 AM
Not since "Titanic" has a movie been on such a full-steam-ahead path toward Best Picture. The most obvious reason "Brokeback Mountain" will win is that it's the *only* lock for a nomination. I wouldn't bet a dime on any other film being nominated, not even "Good Night," "Crash" or "Walk the Line." After "Brokeback," the other four slots could be any mix-and-match combination of about 10 movies. For example, I could see the five contenders being: "Brokeback Mountain," "Capote," "The Constant Gardener," "A History of Violence" and "Munich." Why not?
Beyond that, "Brokeback" has all the makings of a Best Picture winner, and no other film does ... it's relevant, moving, epic and made by a beloved director overdue for an Oscar. It will stand as a truthful and fascinating study of turn-of-the-century America, and in 50 or even 100 years, people will look at it and marvel at what will be viewed as cruelly illogical social climate. Will anyone care about "Crash"? I don't think it's honest enough to stand the test of time. It uses over-simplified, melodramatic exaggerations, and people will see through it. "Brokeback" relies on a specific and solid story, so it will endure both as a work as fiction and as a social document.
But there are still several interesting categories to discuss, such as the four acting arenas. I'm looking forward to nomination day; I think there will be lots of good surprises, especially in the supporting categories.
Posted by: John M. | January 21, 2006 at 12:36 PM
OK, I'll come out and say it - I think Brokeback is over-praised. Watching the first 40 minutes I was utterly spellbound and thought it was guaranteed to be all those things I'd been promised - film of the year, instant classic, whatever. BUT once the guys come down from the mountain I think it loses its way, badly. The episodic nature of the family stuff left me feeling a little uninvolved, and I thought the BIG EMOTIONAL SCENE by the lake was poorly handled in terms of performance and direction and even scoring (the music SUDDENLY SWELLS, replacing the acoustic guitar sound prevalent elsewhere in the picture).
In fact, the more I think about Brokeback the less I like it, in fact my votes (I'm a BAFTA member) have gone to the movie which has grown and grown in my estimation, the movie I insist my friends and family should see, and the film I hope will come good in the city where its thrilling drama unfolds - CRASH.
Posted by: rob | January 21, 2006 at 04:10 AM
Actually, I don't think you're a Brokeback basher at all. I think it is more of hyping up the race because the race is otherwise rather dull if Brokeback is indeed the runaway favorite that will take it all on March 5th. It's more interesting if it actually has some competition.
I think your'e still underestimating Walk the Line. I think that it's Globe win in the last stretches of the Oscar nom process might help to push it over the finish line and put it into the top 5. Like someone said, there's no controversy. And while Brokeback has been largely devoid of controversy (at least by expectation standards) that might change if it racks up double digit nominations.
What I see happening? Walk the Line is the 5th Best Picture nominee, but Spielberg gets a director nod and James Mangold is the odd man out. If Munich gets a pic nod i think it will come at the expense of one of the four "locks", most likely Capote.
I also think that our Oscar philosophies are a little different. While I don't doubt that many in Hollywood loved Crash or Capote, I don't think everyone in Hollywood necessarily votes along those lines. I do believe that other factors come into play and that they take other issues into consideration. As you said, a Brokeback victory would look good in the Oscar pantheon -- and I think voters are conscious of that.
Posted by: rjnick | January 20, 2006 at 06:37 PM
Tom is Brokeback basher, Tom is Brokeback basher, Na na na na na!
Posted by: Harlan | January 20, 2006 at 03:26 PM
Actually, put a big ol' smiley face in the post below... Just want to make sure everyone's aware that it's a mild ribbing and me trying to be snarky :)
Posted by: EDouglas | January 20, 2006 at 01:52 PM
If anything, you're a Good Night basher, Tom. I remember your reaction when I told you that I too had seen Good Night, Good Luck three times. I thought Brokeback was good, but I'd be fine with GNGL beating it...although I don't think it will happen. It's too clinical a movie to really capture the heartstrings the way Brokeback does, and I think the Academy will want to make a point by giving it to Brokeback.
Posted by: EDouglas | January 20, 2006 at 01:51 PM
Well, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . . .
My sense is that you have been promoting "Good Night and Good Luck" for best picture and best director. ("Is Clooney's 'Good Night' the real Globe front runner", which you wrote on December 16; "Forget acting awards. George Clooney, best director?", which you wrote on December 30; and "'Crash' or 'Goodnight' can still beat 'Brokeback' at the Oscars", which you wrote on January 17--Do I detect a pattern here?) If all that you are doing is tryiing to predict what will actually win awards, then you are doing a really lousy job of it--"Goodnight" obviously did not win a singe Globe despite all your efforts.
You are not the only one with an agenda, however, There is another blog over at Movie City News in which David Poland has been flogging Munich for best picture--including a multi-part article analyzing its strengths. It appears, however, that Mr. Poland has finally given up on Munich at this point.
I have no problem with anyone saying that they think that "Crash", "Goodnight and Good Luck" or whatever should win the BP Oscar. I do have a problem when supposedly neutral "journalists" are using their platform to advance their own agenda, particularly when they are quoted in other media as being neutral "experts".
But, as Alfred Hitchcock said to Ingrid Bergman, "It's only a movie, Ingrid". We're obviously not talking about Oscars, not weapons of mass destruction.
Posted by: steve4922 | January 20, 2006 at 09:05 AM
I don't think that you are a Brokeback hater, Tom, I agree with CJ that you're just a horse-race hyper. You constantly refer to "the derby" and repeat yourself about how "it isn't over" and then make up all these highly implausible scenarios in order to support your assertions. And frankly, with all due respect, it comes off as immature and offensive when you repeatedly accuse your dissenting readers of being "just fanatics who don't look at things objectively and only root for their favorites" in order to prop yourself up. Because really, any objective analysis reveals that Brokeback will WIN, period. It's amusing to watch you flail about wildly creating situations in which it could lose, but none of them really make sense. My fear of a GNaGL upset died when Clooney lost the globe for best director. If a surge were to happen, it would've started there. And as for Crash, I just don't see how it could get a nomination tally big enough to look like a challenger to Brokeback. 6 noms tops. 7 if a miracle happens and both Haggis and Howard are nominated, plus the picture, screenplay, Dillon, editing, and song. And I just don't see how it could win even with those nods. Brokeback will get a bare minimum of 8 nods, probably 9 and quite possibly 10. It will be standing tall and look like the automatic winner as soon as nominations are announced (not that it doesn't already). The films it can be compared to, in awards terms, are not Saving Private Ryan and Aviator... more like American Beauty, Schindler's List, Dances with Wolves. It's one of THOSE films. It is winning.
Why don't you focus on a category where there's actual drama? Like the supporting acting categories? Or even best actress where there's still a chance Huffman might possibly upset Witherspoon (not that I'd bet on it). Or original screenplay, which which may not be clear until the envelope is opened?
Posted by: Adam Keller | January 20, 2006 at 07:34 AM
Maybe the problem is you are too self-involved as a writer.
Go back and read your own stuff
and count the times you added a qualifier
when you were clearly snipping at BBM
...looks like 100% pure bashing
if that was unintended then you need to find a way to make yourself clear--
in context
revise what you write with an eye to balance and saying what you mean
Posted by: Bill | January 20, 2006 at 05:24 AM
What you are is a horserace-hyper. As long as you can convince people there is a horserace, you maintain interest in your site. But this thing has been a done deal for some time now, it's Brokeback Mountain for picture.
Posted by: CJ | January 20, 2006 at 01:47 AM
I agree with you on this one, Tom. Many Internet posters have totally missed that rooting for an award candidate is one thing and predicting if it will win that award is another, and the resulting behaviour looks totally immature to me. I mean, it's like reading the letter column of some teen mag with 15-year-old fans of, say, Lindsay Lohan and Hillary Duff trashing each other...
Posted by: Tasos Greece | January 20, 2006 at 01:42 AM
i've always known that you're NOT a Brokeback basher... but i guess, those Brokeback lovers were just too emotional and fanatical to be able to see your true colors...
Posted by: VanHelsing | January 20, 2006 at 01:21 AM