Oscar fever, catch it!
True, Oscar likes a pet project. One might think that "Munich" will get some attention...that strong desire to seem racially sensitive. But this year it isn't racial sensitivity that's going to win out--except for in the category of short documentary, in which case, "God Sleeps In Rwanda." After past burns, I've learned never to vote against anything that's actually made in Africa, because as we all know, Oscar loves Africa even though its relationship with African Americans can be, at times, a bit tepid. Chris Rock did not heal this rift. But I digress.
March of the Penguins should win because it's a great documentary and those guys had to go through hell to make it, but let's face it--there are very few people to please in Antarctica, and Oscar is all about pleasing people these days. "Murderball" would be my second choice--it's really good, but question, where's "Grizzly Man?" Didn't that come out last year? I might be wrong. The point is: go see Grizzly Man.
What I'm saying is that racial sensitivity is yesterday's news, marked by a clear delineation when Oscar said, "forget it, I'd rather favor Australia and imaginary lands filled with crying midgets then sit through another Antwone Fisher," though it showed some signs of being fickle: "Ray."
But now those days are done: the Academy Awards Church Auxiliary Group has moved on to a much more topical social ill. With all those gays trying to get married, it's a shoe in that Hollywood wants to show their appreciation for the love that dare not speak its name and men's men everywhere. Hell, you don't have to be the producers of South Park to realize that Hollywood's just been itching to bring itself up to the reputation of Cannes with their own celebration of gay cowboys eating pudding.
And so, this year, though I haven't seen the movie, I have to vote for "Brokeback Mountain"--for everything. Clearly, it can't make the sweep of say, a Chicago or a Return of the King. Unlike Peter Jackson's monument to letting the camera keep going that won him an Oscar for..."Film Editing" (oh, that still kills me). Brokeback, in its infinitely derivable and derisable name, is only nominated for 8 academy awards. I predict that it will get all eight, including best supporting actress, which isn't actually ironic, though it really seems to be. By the way, I liked Chicago, but then I also liked Deuce Bigalow. Why did that movie deserve so many damn Oscars?
I have two major problems with the fact that I'm going to be right in regards to Brokeback. First of all, it will somehow vindicate Annie Proulx, which is actually one of the signs of the apocalypse. I believe the vindication of Annie Proulx is the sixth trump, just after a rain of frogs.
Second off, it lets Hollywood out of the fire, so to speak. After all, "Brokeback Mountain" is not the only movie about gay people on the ballots this year. Wasn't Capote gay? But he will win nothing if he is up against Brokeback. Why, you ask? Because Hollywood likes fictional gay people. Fictional gay people are romantic. They throw parades, get funny haircuts, and try to get married like straight couples. By the way, that's not a dig at lesbians. That's a dig at their hair, which is the contemporary and secular equivalent of the penitant's hair shirt and the minister's powdered wig. In a hundred years, people will look back at the photos and wonder why do they cut their hair like cub scouts?
Fictional gay people can be loved without having to invite them over for coffee or dinner. But real gay people, they demand actual consideration, God forbid. Capote is creepy. Whereas, when Gene Shallot even suggested that there was something creepy about Brokeback Mountain, he was castigated like he'd rained on a parade. The message was clear, "Don't talk badly about fake gay people!"
And again, Annie Proulx!!! It's like giving Yahoo Serious an Oscar, or Ed Wood--not the Johnny Depp version; Plan 9 From Outer Space!
March of the Penguins should win because it's a great documentary and those guys had to go through hell to make it, but let's face it--there are very few people to please in Antarctica, and Oscar is all about pleasing people these days. "Murderball" would be my second choice--it's really good, but question, where's "Grizzly Man?" Didn't that come out last year? I might be wrong. The point is: go see Grizzly Man.
What I'm saying is that racial sensitivity is yesterday's news, marked by a clear delineation when Oscar said, "forget it, I'd rather favor Australia and imaginary lands filled with crying midgets then sit through another Antwone Fisher," though it showed some signs of being fickle: "Ray."
But now those days are done: the Academy Awards Church Auxiliary Group has moved on to a much more topical social ill. With all those gays trying to get married, it's a shoe in that Hollywood wants to show their appreciation for the love that dare not speak its name and men's men everywhere. Hell, you don't have to be the producers of South Park to realize that Hollywood's just been itching to bring itself up to the reputation of Cannes with their own celebration of gay cowboys eating pudding.
And so, this year, though I haven't seen the movie, I have to vote for "Brokeback Mountain"--for everything. Clearly, it can't make the sweep of say, a Chicago or a Return of the King. Unlike Peter Jackson's monument to letting the camera keep going that won him an Oscar for..."Film Editing" (oh, that still kills me). Brokeback, in its infinitely derivable and derisable name, is only nominated for 8 academy awards. I predict that it will get all eight, including best supporting actress, which isn't actually ironic, though it really seems to be. By the way, I liked Chicago, but then I also liked Deuce Bigalow. Why did that movie deserve so many damn Oscars?
I have two major problems with the fact that I'm going to be right in regards to Brokeback. First of all, it will somehow vindicate Annie Proulx, which is actually one of the signs of the apocalypse. I believe the vindication of Annie Proulx is the sixth trump, just after a rain of frogs.
Second off, it lets Hollywood out of the fire, so to speak. After all, "Brokeback Mountain" is not the only movie about gay people on the ballots this year. Wasn't Capote gay? But he will win nothing if he is up against Brokeback. Why, you ask? Because Hollywood likes fictional gay people. Fictional gay people are romantic. They throw parades, get funny haircuts, and try to get married like straight couples. By the way, that's not a dig at lesbians. That's a dig at their hair, which is the contemporary and secular equivalent of the penitant's hair shirt and the minister's powdered wig. In a hundred years, people will look back at the photos and wonder why do they cut their hair like cub scouts?
Fictional gay people can be loved without having to invite them over for coffee or dinner. But real gay people, they demand actual consideration, God forbid. Capote is creepy. Whereas, when Gene Shallot even suggested that there was something creepy about Brokeback Mountain, he was castigated like he'd rained on a parade. The message was clear, "Don't talk badly about fake gay people!"
And again, Annie Proulx!!! It's like giving Yahoo Serious an Oscar, or Ed Wood--not the Johnny Depp version; Plan 9 From Outer Space!
posted by Monstro D. Whale at
9:54 AM
3 Comments:
No ... wait ... did he just say he like Deuce Bigalow? I haven't had my head swim this much since Drivler suggested a hobby store devoted to Ween. My god the horror. I think I may be sick. Ill for the next hour at least. I'm going to go into a dark room and lie down for awhile.
Well it's still there. The juxtposition of "like" and ... I just can't type it. That D B movie with R S in it. I had hoped it was all some horrid dream or a bad vision brought on by some bit of bad beef -- but no. After a night of troubled sleep it's still there. I thought Drivler's comment on Ween was the worst this week could offer. And then this just washes that horror out of context. I don't know what to say really. The horror, the disbelief, even the sense of betrayal. I just don't know.
I have a vested interest in the success, both box office and Oscar, of "Brokeback Mountain." While I unabashedly admit that I enjoyed Proulx's first book, The Shipping News (more than its film adaptation, anyway), I admit that I have not read "Brokeback," nor have I seen the movie. And I can't say that our trip to McMurtry's book store has endeared me any more to his work.
The important thing is this: I own a signed copy of "Brokeback Mountain." Since the phenomenal success of the movie, I've seen Ebay prices of signed copies soar. I've been waiting until after the Oscars to list my copy because I know the price will climb to even more ridiculous heights.
So please cease and desist your "Brokeback" trash-talk. You're taking food away from my young-un every time you lambast Ms. Proulx's fine work.
Post a Comment
<< Home