Oscars and politics


Roger Ebert's column sums up the Oscars nicely, and offers insight into American politics
Roger Ebert had some interesting things to say about Brokeback Mountain not winning the Best Film Oscar.

Yes, and more than one critic described "Crash" as "the worst film of the year," which is as extreme as saying John Kerry was a coward in Vietnam. It means you'll say anything to help your campaign.

What is intriguing about these writers is that they never mention the other three best picture nominees: "Capote," "Good Night, and Good Luck" and "Munich." Their silence on these films reveals their agenda: They wanted "Brokeback Mountain" to win, saw "Crash" as the spoiler, and attacked "Crash." If "Munich" had been the spoiler, they might not have focused on "Crash." When they said those who voted for "Crash" were homophobes who were using a liberal movie to mask their hatred of homosexuals, they might have said the same thing about "Munich."

This seems simply wrong. Consider Finke's "anecdotal evidence" that puts Hollywood's homophobia on a par with Pat Robertson's. Pat Robertson? This is certainly the most extreme statement she could make on the subject, but can it be true? How many anecdotes add up to evidence? Did anyone actually tell her they didn't want to see the movie because it was about two gay men?

My impression, also based on anecdotal evidence, is that the usual number of academy voters saw the usual number of academy nominees, and voted for the ones they admired the most. In a year without "Brokeback Mountain," Finke, Turan and many others might have admired "Crash." Or maybe not. But it's a matter of opinion, not sexual politics.

I haven't seen any of the films mentioned yet, none of them made my "see in a theatre" list. And I have doubts about the merits of the Oscars anyway.

But Mr. Ebert does raise some interesting points about the politics of the situation. It seems that many of the supporters of Brokeback Mountain were more interested in the campaign to establish an Oscar-winning film about homosexuality than they were the merits of any particular film. Which is a lousy reason to choose an Oscar winner.

Or a President.

Certainly some of our politics have always been about discrediting the "other guy." But somewhere, that turned into the sole acceptable tactic. Nothing about championing the merits of one side over another. The closest thing we have in politics currently is some Republican claims of morality, which leave a lot to be desired even in lip service.

In our quest for winner take all politics, do we suppress the very things that make democracy worthwhile? To preserve abortion, are we willing to overlook eminent domain abuse? To put the Christian God in the classroom, will we attack the rights of anyone who doesn't follow a version of Christianity? If we don't like what the voters decide in the polls, will we block it in the courts? To fight the war on terror, will we take the freedom of our fellow citizens?

— NeoWayland

Posted: Tue - March 7, 2006 at 02:02 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved