Are the Brokeback Mounties the worst Oscar whiners ever?

Message

Carlson2005 · #1 Post by **Carlson2005** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:08 pm

Okay, you've got a hit movie that wins three Oscars - including Best Director. Not bad going, you might think. Yet since Oscar night, the BM Brigade have done nothing but whine about how they were robbed by a conspiracy of elderly Republican homophobic black Latinos who showed their desire to exterminate every gay from the face of the planet by awarding the film three Oscars - er, sorry, robbing it of the Best Picture Oscar that was their divine right. Now the author of the original short story has added her 'disgust' with Trash beating it in a surprisingly vicious article.

Am I the only one hoping that the Academy takes back their Oscars and gives them to someone a lot less whiney and paranoid? I've never known a bunch of winners turn into such whiners who seem to desperately want to be victims before. It makes Wim Wenders storming out of the hall when he didn't win Best Documentary for The Buena Vista Social Club look like good sportsmanship by comparison.

AndyDursin · #2 Post by **AndyDursin** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:41 pm

I laughed at one report at how "Gracious" Ang Lee was after CRASH won.

Seriously, he apparently threw a tantrum after Best Picture was announced, then openly questioned the Academy about not chosing BROKEBACK in a post-Oscar ceremony.

Maybe the guy who directed THE HULK ought to pipe down, no?

I mean, he had the cast of THE PRINCESS DIARIES and DAWSON'S CREEK starring in it, how good could his chances have been if the whole "gay cowboy" angle wasn't a part of the story? Would we have even heard about it?

Paul MacLean · #3 Post by **Paul MacLean** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 8:18 pm

Here's a link to Prolx's pity-party...

http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/sto ... ml#article

I love how Prolx blasts the decadent, out-of-touch Hollywood nuveau-riche -- yknow, the people who bankrolled Brokeback Mountain.

Obviously the makers of "Trash" (as she calls it) deserve criticism for winning the award which was "rightfully" her's. How dare they!

What spoiled brat.

Brokeback Mountain won THREE Oscars, Annie, and awards or not, the notoriety of this film has made you a star. Isn't that enough?

I'm sure had the evening turned-out more in her favor, her recount would have been a flowery, euphoric celebration of Hollywood, the land where dreams come true. Besides, if the Oscars are so pretentious and vacuous as she makes-out, is it not then a GOOD sign those awful, shallow people fail to recognize her important work?

Obviously she has little faith in her own "talent" if she needs the academy's stamp of approval.

Get over it Annie. Marty and Ridley did.

Paul

Carlson2005 · #4 Post by **Carlson2005** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:11 pm

What gets me is how making $81m at the US box-office, winning dozens of awards, three Oscars and rave reviews is somehow being taken by all the films supporters as proof that everybody hates gays and its all a really big conspiracy. Astonishingly, there are hundreds if not thousands who will claim that Lee, Prolx and the producer all acted with tact, sensitivity and restraint in the face of such a vicious and unprovoked attack by the Academy. These people watch far too much Fox News...

Still, Gene Shalit is probably laughing his ass off now that they're off his back and off on another witchhunt!

Hey, it's only gay cowboys eating porridge after all.

mkaroly · #5 Post by **mkaroly** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:45 pm

While I don't have any desire to see BM, I think that Best Director/Picture go hand-in-hand. I was offended when the Academy gave Spielberg best director for SPR but best film to Shakespeare in Love....huh?? It makes no sense. Isn't it sad that people put so much stock in an award that really doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot? When Julia Roberts' vote counts, how seriously can you take this stuff??

There's too much hype, pomp and circumstance, and importance put on these awards- honestly, who cares? What would have been funny is if BM had won best picture, you would never hear the end of how important it was for the Academy to recognize this film, and what an important film it was, etc. Baloney! Crash appealed to more people on a level that people could relate to more (in general) than BM (imo)- sorry Ang! Be a good winner/loser like all the other people in Oscar history. The award means nothing anyway-

Monterey Jack · #6 Post by **Monterey Jack** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:46 pm

Carlson2005 wrote:Hey, it's only gay cowboys eating porridge after all.

That's "pudding".

Carlson2005 · #7 Post by **Carlson2005** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 1:30 am

My mistake!

For those interested, this is the link to Annie Proulx' sour grapes rant...

http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/sto ... 09,00.html

romanD · #8 Post by **romanD** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:21 am

well... where is it written, that a movie has to win automatically the Best Picture Oscar if the director already won??? where??? I mean if so, then they should combine the 2 categories or say "th oscar for best directors goes to ... and here he gets the Best Picture oscar right away so we can show some more commercials!"

BM was one of the most boring movies I have ever seen, let alone giving Ang Lee an oscar was a joke.. the directing was so hilariously slow, that it felt like a parody... right after 5 minutes!

Ok, I appreciate Ang Lee for making such diverse movies, which probably no one else does, but that doesn't make him a great directior right away...

BM is such a yawner and the Best score award goes down as one of the worst choices ever... of course a small, chamber like score can be perfect for a movie, enhance it and therefor desrve the award, but THAT score???? my oh my... but well, I've given up a long time ago to care for any of those awards.. Im just happy for Rachel Weisz...

Eric W. · #9 Post by **Eric W.** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:47 pm

Amazingly enough...I have to agree with roman again, 100 percent.

The only reason this movie got any nominations at all was purely politics and agendas.

It just isn't that good of a movie, anyway you cut it.

The insult to injury is this trash also winning the best score. Please.

mkaroly · #10 Post by **mkaroly** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:05 pm

To me the best director/best picture go hand-in-hand because if you're saying this person was the best director, it makes sense to me that your film is the best film since it was directed the best! The director, after all, oversees all that stuff (generally speaking), right? However, maybe some other picture was constucted better and overall looks better.....

This is all a confusing waste of time. Both pictures got an award due to politics and agendas- which in essence negates any seriousness to which one can apply to the award if it's not based solely objective criteria. It's all too subjective. What a year in film!!

Carlson2005 · #11 Post by **Carlson2005** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 9:19 pm

Never having bought into the auteur theory - especially where American films are concerned - I always thought it a ridiculous idea that Best Director and Best Picture were one and the same. Many a great picture has worked in spite of its direction (that particularly applies for the 60s and 70s), while many pictures have great direction without necessarily being Best Picture material - for example, I think Spielberg's direction of Saving private Ryan was the best of the nominees that year, but the film wasn't necessarily the best.

In a way, I think assuming the two are the same too often does a disservice to the craft of directing on the one hand, and overlooks the vaguely collaborative nature of filmmaking on the other.

Irrespective of which, I still thought that Brokeback was the worst directed film of this year's bunch!

MarkB · #12 Post by **MarkB** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:16 pm

I have never understood why people get worked up over the Academy Awards. The contents of the films are still the same after the awards are presented. If you thought a movie was great, it's still great even if it didn't win an award. I think too many people are looking to the Oscars to validate their own opinion of a movie. And that's all it is -- an opinion.

And the Oscars themselves are nothing more than a group opinion -- a popularity contest, if you will. They are about as meaningful in the long run as a class president election back in high school. They say more about in-group politics and popularity than actual merit and should be treated as such.

True quality will stand the test of time. Having an Oscar isn't going to change that.

Look, I enjoy watching the show and even participate in an "Oscar pick" contest every year (and usually win). But I view it purely as an entertaining game. My view of a film isn't going to change based on its winning or losing.

Finally, I have yet to see BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, even though I am probably part of its target audience and would probably love it. But I am simply tired of hearing about it and having it shoved in my face as some kind of "social obligation." I don't want to see any movie out of "obligation."

I will see it eventually, but on my own terms.

End of rant.

Mark

AndyDursin · #13 Post by **AndyDursin** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:24 pm

MarkB wrote:I have never understood why people get worked up over the Academy Awards. The contents of the films are still the same after the awards are presented. If you thought a movie was great, it's still great even if it didn't win an award. I think too many people are looking to the Oscars to validate their own opinion of a movie. And that's all it is -- an opinion.

And the Oscars themselves are nothing more than a group opinion -- a popularity contest, if you will. They are about as meaningful in the long run as a class president election back in high school. They say more about in-group politics and popularity than actual merit and should be treated as such.

True quality will stand the test of time. Having an Oscar isn't going to change that.

Look, I enjoy watching the show and even participate in an "Oscar pick" contest every year (and usually win). But I view it purely as an entertaining game. My view of a film isn't going to change based on its winning or losing.

Finally, I have yet to see BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, even though I am probably part of its target audience and would probably love it. But I am simply tired of hearing about it and having it shoved in my face as some kind of "social obligation." I don't want to see any movie out of "obligation."

I will see it eventually, but on my own terms.

End of rant.

Mark

I agree with all of that Mark, and I think most everyone who reads this board feels that way as well. I do find it entertaining to follow, however...and I love hearing about outbursts like Mr. Lee's

MarkB · #14 Post by **MarkB** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:01 pm

AndyDursin wrote:I agree with all of that Mark, and I think most everyone who reads this board feels that way as well. I do find it entertaining to follow, however...and I love hearing about outbursts like Mr. Lee's

I hope it was clear that this was directed at the "whiners" and not the posters here.

Simply put (for a change) I think the "Mounties" are hurting their own cause and should just shut up and let the movie speak for itself.

Mark

Carlson2005 · #15 Post by **Carlson2005** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:14 am

That's eactly the point I was trying to make: but it seems some people are just so determined to pla the victim over this. When it gets to the stage when Ebert's getting hundreds of death threats for rating BM just his no.2 film of the year after Crash (proof he's part of a homophobic hate crime conspiracy, apparently), you know it's got way out of hand.