The Academy trying to prove it's not homophobic?

[nakymaton]

Did Clint present the award to Ang Lee? (I didn't watch the broadcast. I don't have TV. So I can't really promise never to watch the Oscars again, because I've never actually watched them. And promising to never sit on the computer waiting for a friend to tell me the results via YIM just doesn't sound the same...)

Ang Lee seems too gracious to decline to present, no matter how he felt.

If Clint Eastwood and Paul Haggis win for something else they collaborate on, though, I will barf up my breakfast the next morning when I hear the news on the radio.

And I'm planning not to watch any movie nominated for any of the big awards (acting, directing, or picture) between the nominations and the awards, and I'm not going to watch whatever movie wins Best Picture, period. (Unless, by some bizarre circumstance, it turns out to be some movie that friends recommended before my nominations period movie blackout.)

Score winners, yeah, I'll check them out. I've tended to like the score choices better than the picture choices in recent years, and score is obscure enough that it isn't an annoying promotional tool.

[serious crayons]

And I'm planning not to watch any movie nominated for any of the big awards (acting, directing, or picture) between the nominations and the awards, and I'm not going to watch whatever movie wins Best Picture, period. (Unless, by some bizarre circumstance, it turns out to be some movie that friends recommended before my nominations period movie blackout.)

Wow. Now THAT'S a boycott.

In that case, here's what I would recommend seeing between now and then: Little Miss Sunshine, The Illusionist (which probably won't be nominated for any big awards anyway) and Hollywoodland (which might be).

[nakymaton]

Well, it's not that impressive of a boycott. I mean, I only see maybe five movies a year in theaters, at most. I just don't have time, and I hate wasting three hours on something that I'm not going to love. (Little Miss Sunshine and The Illusionist are both in town, but they probably won't be here for long, and I owe the kid a lot of time with him to make up for doing field work last weekend. So... no movies for me for a while. I'll see them on DVD. And I'm not the least bit worried that the Academy will pick something worth seeing as Best Picture. Their track record is just so dismal.) This year, the only movies I've seen in the theater have been Brokeback Mountain, Good Night and Good Luck (very highly rec'd by a friend, so that wasn't an Oscars sale), An Inconvenient Truth, and, ummm, Miami Vice. (Miami Vice was hubby's choice. Not mine. Honest.)

Edit: Also, Zodiac should be playing right around that time, if the release date is right, and it won't be eligible for this year's Oscars. So I'll have one movie I can see in good conscience, if I make time to see anything.

[ednbarby]

I plan on doing a similar boycott, actually.  And I do see a *lot* of movies, and in the theater to boot.  It's my hobby and my passion.  What used to be part of that passion was seeing all five of the Best Picture nominees, which I did last year like I do every year, before the awards ceremony.  Wasn't too tough to do last year - I'd already (unfortunately) seen Crash when it came out in May of 2005, Capote and of course Brokeback before they were even nominated.  The challenge was finding Munich after the nominees were announced and when I could make time for it around my repeat viewings of Brokeback, which I finally did at a dollar (now 3 dollar) theater - what fun sitting in that nasty, hard-ass seat for 3 hours it was!

I've seen Little Miss Sunshine and Hollywoodland already.  And I'll continue to see any movie that seems of interest and has potential to be good in my estimation between now and March.  If they happen to be Oscar nominees, I don't care.  Because I won't be going out of my way to learn of the nominees (I used to watch them live every year, and work an hour or two later to make up for the time I missed at work), nor will I care one way or the other what they are.  And I certainly will not ever again make sure I see all five of the nominees.  If I happen to, it won't matter a lick to me.  But I doubt that will be the case - they generally have at least one crowd-pleaser in there that I wouldn't see on a bet.

I will tell you what I absolutely will always boycott - any movie made by Lions Gate.  When I see that a movie is playing at my favorite theater that I want to go see, I check the production company.  If it's Lions Gate, I pass.  And that stands.  Forever.  I don't care if the movie is "Jake Gyllenhaal Naked" - I won't be seeing it.

[serious crayons]

I don't care if the movie is "Jake Gyllenhaal Naked" - I won't be seeing it.

Wow, that's even more impressive than Mel's boycotting determination!

Tell you what, though, I don't blame Lion's Gate -- or even Paul Haggis, for that matter. They just put out a movie. It's not their fault the Academy members are idiots and homophobes. I suppose the noble thing to do would have been to reject the Oscar and admit they're unworthy, but ... well, I guess that's more than I would expect, given human nature.

[ednbarby]

Wow, that's even more impressive than Mel's boycotting determination!

Tell you what, though, I don't blame Lion's Gate -- or even Paul Haggis, for that matter. They just put out a movie. It's not their fault the Academy members are idiots and homophobes. I suppose the noble thing to do would have been to reject the Oscar and admit they're unworthy, but ... well, I guess that's more than I would expect, given human nature.

Actually, that's not true.  Here's a little blurb from an article I just found, a link to which is posted below, that mentions what Lions Gate did to win the Oscar:

To bring it to the attention of the Academy, Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. spent nearly $4 million promoting "Crash," sending out multiple screeners of the film.

"This was by and large a triumph of marketing," said film critic Richard Crouse.

"They spent almost as much money in marketing this film strictly to the Academy Awards and the SAG Awards...as the movie cost to make."

Shot on a $6.5-million budget, "Crash" became a box-office success, grossing $55 million domestically.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060306/oscar_follow_060306/20060306?s_name=oscars2006&no_ads=

My understanding, and maybe Flashframe or someone else here can corroberate this, is that they sent a screener of "Crash" to all 130,000+ members of the Screen Actors Guild, planning to parlay a "Best Ensemble" win there into a Best Picture award at the Oscars.  There was also talk of some underhanded things they did back on the old IMDb board (ads they took out that were vaguely homophobic was one of the things talked about) during the voting period to sway Academy voters against it.  Because let's face it - everyone knows (now, anyway) that many of the voters, if not most of them, don't even bother to see the films nominated, so their votes are completely politically-based.

Some people hate Miramax for the "Shakespeare in Love" win over "Saving Private Ryan" in 1999 because the former "bought" the Academy by sending out slick screeners to every member, blah blah blah.  But here's the difference - critical opinion was pretty evenly split between SiL and SPR leading up to the awards, and each had won a variety of the big critics' circle awards and Golden Globes, BAFTAs and SAG awards.  And in my opinion, SPR was seriously flawed.  The ending went on for 20 minutes longer than it should have, and the movie lost a lot of steam after the thrilling first 20 minutes.  I was thrilled when SiL won because I thought it actually deserved to.  I'm sure there are a handful of people who would say the same of "Crash."  But pretty much everyone I talk to, for what it's worth, thinks SiL deserved to win but Crash did not.

Funny thing.  When SiL won and there was all that backlash against Miramax afterwards, my husband, who *had* seen both movies, and in the theater to boot, said, "Well, you can't polish a turd."

Then, when Crash won in March and I was so livid I was nearly hyperventilating, he said, dumbstruck himself, "It turns out you *can* polish a turd."

I will never watch another Lions Gate movie again.  I do blame them.  They took advantage of the Academy's (and our society's) homophobia just so their crappy ass movie that shouldn't have even been nominated could take the big prize.  I put them in the same category as the Bush Administration's taking advantage of the 9/11 attacks to start a war they were chomping at the bit before they were even put into power to start.  Shame on them.  They can all pucker up and kiss my lily white ass.

[serious crayons]

Hmm... Well, I can understand your anger and you are absolutely entitled to act on it in any way you like, and I'm really reluctant to set myself up as the defender of Crash, a film I found mildly entertaining at best.

But I guess I still don't fault the studio for promoting its own movie. Even for spending a lot of money doing it. It might be crass, and shame on the Academy if its members were swayed by it, and if any of the marketing was even vaguely homophobic it's unforgivable.

But unless I'm missing something I don't find self-promotion intrinsically immoral on the order of the Bush Administration exploiting 9/11 to start a war. And I can't condemn some filmmakers for failing to back off or to acknowledge that a competitor's film was better. Again, underhanded marketing is another matter entirely.

In any case, feel free to boycott! That's just my 2 cents. 

[ednbarby]

Hey, you - get offa my cloud!

Lookit.  If I wanna boycott an entire movie studio for silly, completely subjective reasons, that's MY business!  Never underestimate spite.  Mine keeps me warm at night.  (Hey - I'm a poet and I don't even know it.)  I try not to let the truth get in the way of a good Spite Fest.  Now leave me be!

 

[serious crayons]

Hey, you - get offa my cloud!

Lookit.  If I wanna boycott an entire movie studio for silly, completely subjective reasons, that's MY business!  Never underestimate spite.  Mine keeps me warm at night.  (Hey - I'm a poet and I don't even know it.)  I try not to let the truth get in the way of a good Spite Fest.  Now leave me be!

 

You are right. Sorry! I'm just so argumentative I'm willing to jump in and defend a movie I hold in contempt myself! (I'm not much for astrology, but it's classic a Libra trait of mine.)

  

[adrian]

Let's face it, homophobia is the reason Bush got re-elected.  His "manipulation machine" worked overtime appealing to the religious idiots to come out and vote AGAINST gay mariiage by voting FOR them.  This worked, and frightened all the poor "sheep" of middle American right into their web.  Now, most Americans feel, by recent polls, that they made a terrible mistake, and will probably try to correct it in November.

Well, this tactic worked again in Hollywood, but in a slightly different way.  As you we all know, the gay cowboy jokes were rampant.  Critics loved the movie but it slowly became unpopular to support this 'homosexual' film.  So, Lion's Gate pushed their film as the one that supported all minorities, with a moral that 'healed' relations between all peoples, except gays of course, as there were no gay characters represented.  Funny, being that it took place in Los Angeles.  Anyway, their appeal to the older more conservative voters, the silent homophobic members and those on the fence, worked like a charm.  We know Crash was the worst of the five nomimated for best picture, yet it took the prize.  All that says to me is that the majority of this Academy is out of touch, and llike the Presidential election, voted for a movie that didn't deserve to win.  Well, I am not, and never have been, "sheep", and like the voters will do in the November elections for the House and Senate, the Academy is trying to do now by inviting Jake and Heath to join the Academy and asking Ellen to host next year.  

TOO LATE.

-Adrian