And the Oscar Should Have Gone to...

[Deleted]

I think it's a perfect example of why Crash ultimately doesn't work as a film. It seems that people think prejudice is only prejudice if it's completely explicit. But the hardest thing about racism in today's society is that it is often implicit. Prejudice isn't just prejudice if someone screams a racial/misogynistic/homophobic slur in your face. But that's the only prejudice society seems to recognize. Otherwise it's just people making things up or being sore losers. When you have report after report from industry insiders coming in that many people in AMPAS refused to see BBM, and you even have one AMPAS declaring so on Fox News there's something fishy there. It truely makes me sad to see that many of the Crash lovers of all people, can't seem to see that prejudice isn't necessarily something explicit. And I now understand why so many people hated Crash when it first came out. I thought they were over reacting a bit, but now I see that there fears about the film's message are true.

[Deleted]

When you have report after report from industry insiders coming in that many people in AMPAS refused to see BBM, and you even have one AMPAS declaring so on Fox News there's something fishy there.

I would hardly call them "insiders." Two film critics, and one awards website owner claimed it, and at least two of them got their information second and third-hand. And at least two of them may have gotten it from that original first person, Nikki Finke.

I follow the major film critics, and I've never heard of that Nikki Finke name before Ebert mentioned her Oscar claim. A quick Google search reveals that she's the "showbiz correspondent" for LA Weekly, LA's free newspaper. The website I came across gives her mixed reviews and considers her a muckraking columnist who aims to write controversial columns. She's also a self-described militant liberal who responded to a journalist's request for an interview with a tirade about the "right-wing takeover" of the media. So...you have an extremely liberal columnist for a free alternative LA paper who likes to drum up controversy, making the original claim that anonymous AMPAS members she knew refused to watch BBM because of "the gays." Call me crazy, but that doesn't exactly sound like rock-solid evidence.

Roger Ebert, OTOH? I'd say he might qualify as an industry "insider" if any critic is, simply because he's been working in the industry for decades and built up relationships with many people. He also attended the Oscars this year, and not for the first time. So if he's going to be skeptical about Finke's claims, then so am I, because I actually believe Ebert's expertise and know that he actually does know AMPAS members.

[memememe76]

Roger Ebert, OTOH? I'd say he might qualify as an industry "insider" if any critic is, simply because he's been working in the industry for decades and built up relationships with many people. He also attended the Oscars this year, and not for the first time. So if he's going to be skeptical about Finke's claims, then so am I, because I actually believe Ebert's expertise and know that he actually does know AMPAS members.

Ebert's extremely biased since he loves Crash. Why he would he say his fave film won because of homophobia?

Tom O' Neil, on the other hand? Didn't much care for Brokeback. But he backs up Finke's claims.

[Deleted]

poorfrances said:

I would hardly call them "insiders." Two film critics, and one awards website owner claimed it, and at least two of them got their information second and third-hand. And at least two of them may have gotten it from that original first person, Nikki Finke.

I think reporters such as Anne Thompson are much more "insider" than a Chicago critic like Ebert. They spend most of their time in LA reporting on the biz, with people in the biz. Furthermore homophobia within AMPAS has also been reported in major publications such as the Hollywood Reporter and the LA Times.. Also, why would you go to critics for information on this? They don't spend nearly as much time reporting on the industry as entertainment journalists(and I'm not talking about the ET variety). Anne Thompson is a deputy film editor for the Hollywood Reporter, one of the major publications in Hollywood. She's been covering the industry closely since the 80's. Between her and Ebert, she's definetely the one who would know more "inside information" or whatever you want to call it.

Roger Ebert, OTOH? I'd say he might qualify as an industry "insider" if any critic is, simply because he's been working in the industry for decades and built up relationships with many people. He also attended the Oscars this year, and not for the first time. So if he's going to be skeptical about Finke's claims, then so am I, because I actually believe Ebert's expertise and know that he actually does know AMPAS members.

Tons of reporters attend the Oscars. Roger Ebert is a major critic(probably the biggest), but he's not an LA entertainment reporter. He's also become increasingly known for pimping his favorite films almost shamelessly. I don't have a problem with it. If he can get attention to small films, great. But let's not pretend he's some sort of completely imparital source just because he's a critic. People like Thompson, Finnke and O'Neil are much more on the inside of the biz than Ebert. Ebert review films, Thompson, Finke and O'Neill focus on reporting on the industry and the people in it. They probably know a lot more about the politics of Hollwyood than a Chicago film critic. And let's not forget that at the end of the day we still have Tony Curtis going on Fox news explaining that he will not see Brokeback and that many of his AMPAS friends feel the same way. Now if that's not directly from the horse's mouth I don't know what is.

[huntergrayson]

nusan, I wrote an essay on that very subject of overt/explicit versus implicit/inferential racism re: Crash on my midterm today. FWIW, the professor (Todd Boyd, who is enough of an "expert" to do a commentary for Superfly!) thinks that the film is problematic because it argues that there's a "level playing field" (i.e. we're all in this together, everyone's a little bit racist), but societal racism functions differently than individual prejudice since it's invisible, ingrained and most importantly, is backed by historical institutions.

As much of an "insider" as Ebert may be, he doesn't live in Los Angeles and probably isn't talking to AMPAS voters in the months leading up to the ceremony. I hate Finke, but she has displayed knowledge of the inner workings of Hollywood in her columns.

Does anyone know the differences between the nominating process and the voting process? Is it the same voting group for both? I've always wondered when people talk about a film not being seen by many voters how that film got nominated in the first place.

With nominations, the individual groups nominate for individual categories (i.e. actors for actors, writers for writers, etc) and then once nominations are announced, the entire committee can vote in that category. The exceptions being, as oxynia brought up, the doc and foreign film categories, I think.

As ridiculous as the Golden Globes and the whole plethora of awards are, I think it's good that they help inspire debate and say that Oscar isn't the be and end all. The Oscars are actually a pretty conservative (aesthetically, at least) group in a lot of ways.

Does anyone have the book "Inside Oscar?" I've been meaning to pick it up - it's sounds intersting because it is a really comprehensive history - looking at what films were successful that year, what got nominated, what's remembered or not, what's snubbed, etc.

Wow, for someone who has admitted to having gay sex, I don't see where Tony Curtis gets being all high and mighty from.

[Deleted]

That's interesting huntergrayson.

huntergrayson said:

As much of an "insider" as Ebert may be, he doesn't live in Los Angeles and probably isn't talking to AMPAS voters in the months leading up to the ceremony. I hate Finke, but she has displayed knowledge of the inner workings of Hollywood in her column.

Yeah, she was the first to start reporting on Harvey Weinstein's tactics in the Shakespeare in Love campaign. Which to my knowledge, turned out to be true.

ETA. Concerning Tony Curtis. I think it's just part of the reality that many gay/bi people can be homophobic (e.g. Ennis) woman can be sexist, blacks can be racist within their own race....etc

[ownlife]

The "he knew members who knew other members who said they wouldn't see it" story is too shaky to be believed. Anyone who is crazy enough to admit he hadn't seen all of the nominated movies but voted anyway should be stripped of his voting privileges.

[memememe76]

Sarah Jessica admitted on Conan to not having seen BBM until her son wanted to see it (she had already casted her vote). But she fastforwarded through the "nasty" bits.

[atpeacewithme]

Wow. And she's not even a part of the very 'influential' LA group. Wait, is she even a member of the Academy? How?

[Deleted]

From Entertainment Weekly

...asked at Hollywood's old-guard "Night of 1000 Stars" party what he thought of Brokeback Mountain, Ernest Borgnine, who won Best Actor 50 years ago for Marty, responded, "I didn't see it and I don't care to see it. I know they say it's a good picture, but I don't care to see it. If John Wayne were alive, he'd be rolling over in his grave."

AMPAS is made up of a majority of old white men. So in a way, this really isn't that surprising.

And yeah, about SJP, it seems they'll let anyone into AMPAS. Will Farell is also a member.