|
|
Why 'Crash' won, why 'Brokeback' lost and how the academy chose to play it safe.
March 5, 2006 Sometimes you win by losing, and nothing has proved what a powerful, taboo-breaking, necessary film "Brokeback Mountain" was more than its loss Sunday night to "Crash" in the Oscar best picture category.
Despite all the magazine covers it graced, despite all the red-state theaters it made good money in, despite (or maybe because of) all the jokes late-night talk show hosts made about it, you could not take the pulse of the industry without realizing that this film made a number of people distinctly uncomfortable.
More than any other of the nominated films, "Brokeback Mountain" was the one people told me they really didn't feel like seeing, didn't really get, didn't understand the fuss over. Did I really like it, they wanted to know. Yes, I really did.
In the privacy of the voting booth, as many political candidates who've led in polls only to lose elections have found out, people are free to act out the unspoken fears and unconscious prejudices that they would never breathe to another soul, or, likely, acknowledge to themselves. And at least this year, that acting out doomed "Brokeback Mountain."
For Hollywood, as a whole laundry list of people announced from the podium Sunday night and a lengthy montage of clips tried to emphasize, is a liberal place, a place that prides itself on its progressive agenda. If this were a year when voters had no other palatable options, they might have taken a deep breath and voted for "Brokeback." This year, however, "Crash" was poised to be the spoiler.
I do not for one minute question the sincerity and integrity of the people who made "Crash," and I do not question their commitment to wanting a more equal society. But I do question the film they've made. It may be true, as producer Cathy Schulman said in accepting the Oscar for best picture, that this was "one of the most breathtaking and stunning maverick years in American history," but "Crash" is not an example of that.
I don't care how much trouble "Crash" had getting financing or getting people on board, the reality of this film, the reason it won the best picture Oscar, is that it is, at its core, a standard Hollywood movie, as manipulative and unrealistic as the day is long. And something more.
For "Crash's" biggest asset is its ability to give people a carload of those standard Hollywood satisfactions but make them think they are seeing something groundbreaking and daring. It is, in some ways, a feel-good film about racism, a film you could see and feel like a better person, a film that could make you believe that you had done your moral duty and examined your soul when in fact you were just getting your buttons pushed and your preconceptions reconfirmed.
So for people who were discomfited by "Brokeback Mountain" but wanted to be able to look themselves in the mirror and feel like they were good, productive liberals, "Crash" provided the perfect safe harbor. They could vote for it in good conscience, vote for it and feel they had made a progressive move, vote for it and not feel that there was any stain on their liberal credentials for shunning what "Brokeback" had to offer. And that's exactly what they did.
"Brokeback," it is worth noting, was in some ways the tamest of the discomforting films available to Oscar voters in various categories. Steven Spielberg's "Munich"; the Palestinian Territories' "Paradise Now," one of the best foreign language nominees; and the documentary nominee "Darwin's Nightmare" offered scenarios that truly shook up people's normal ways of seeing the world. None of them won a thing.
Hollywood, of course, is under no obligation to be a progressive force in the world. It is in the business of entertainment, in the business of making the most dollars it can. Yes, on Oscar night, it likes to pat itself on the back for the good it does in the world, but as Sunday night's ceremony proved, it is easier to congratulate yourself for a job well done in the past than actually do that job in the present
有时候你通过失败而获胜，再没有什么比BBM在奥斯卡上的失利更能证明它是一部多么强而有力、破除禁忌的影片。
尽管所有的杂志都以它做封面，尽管它在保守的州取得了很好的票房，尽管（也可能是正因为）那些晚间脱口秀不停地拿它开玩笑，你不得不承认，很多人还是明显地对BBM感到了不舒服，而这些表现，恰恰很好的体现了电影工业的脉动。
在所有被提名的影片里，BBM是很多人都拒绝看的影片，他们不去看，也不理解为什么它为什么会成为话题。他们想知道我是不是真的喜欢。是的，我喜欢。
和许多在民意调查里领先，却在投票中失利的政治人物一样，人们倾向于奖出局送给那些难以言状的恐惧和偏见，这些恐惧和偏见，可能是他们永远也无法体会的，也可能是他们不愿承认的。而今年，BBM出局了。
对好莱坞而言，它声称自己是一个自由开放进步的地方。如果今年没有其他更合口味的选择，人们可能会深吸一口气，投BBM一票。但是今年有了Crash这个搅局者。
对于选择Crash的人，我不怀疑他们的真诚或正直，我也不怀疑他们对一个更平等的社会的期待。但我对于他们选择的电影有很深的疑问。可能该片制片人Cathy Schulman在获奖时说的是对的，这届奥斯卡是“是美国历史上最离经叛道的一年。”但是，Crash不在其列。
我不关心Crash花了多少财力和人力来为奥斯卡拉选票，这部片子的实质，也是为什么它能够拿最佳影片，是因为，本质上讲，这是一部好莱坞标准的电影。一部刻意经营，不符实际的片子。而且更甚。
crash最大的资本是它给了观众巨大的好莱坞套式的满足感，却同时让他们觉得自己看到了一部具有颠覆意味的影片。从某种意义上说，这部片子让你感觉自己是个好人，让你觉得好像自己履行了道德义务，深入探讨了自己的灵魂，但实际上，你只是getting your buttons pushed (不知道怎么翻好)，其实你只是看到了你想看的东西。
所以，对于那些被bbm弄得不舒服的，但想在照镜子的时候感觉自己是个进步开明的好人的人，Crash为他们提供了安全的港湾。他们可以心平气和的投上一票，还感觉自己是进步的，感觉自己被贴上了开放的标签。他们也正是这么做的。
事实上，BBM是本届Oscar上最不张扬的一部挑战传统观念的电影。Steven Spielberg的《慕尼黑》，最佳外语片提名的《天堂此时》，和获最佳纪录片的《Darwin's Nightmare》同样震撼了人们看这个世界惯有的习惯。但以上片子没有一部获奖。
当然，好莱坞从来不是一个承载进步力量的地方。它是娱乐商业，是赚钱的行业。奥斯卡之夜表彰了你过去的工作，但它不开拓未来。 |
|
发表于 2006-3-6 21:59:22
发表于 2006-3-7 17:33:08
