|
|
|
|
|
Proulx BS, or How the Little Bald Guy
Became a Political Lightening Rod.
(March 18, 2006) The 78h Annual
Academy Awards went into the books with few surprises except one big one. To
some that would be an off color crack from freshman host Jon Stewart (be it
delight or dismay), but for most it was the end of the night shocker that
fell from Jack Nicolson’s droll lips—one that many have tagged the “the
biggest upset in Oscar history.” I speak of neither. What caught me blind,
and continues to confound me, is the backlash of bitter indignation that has
spewed forth from camp “Brokeback.” One fervent film critic
underscored his aguish by deriding the winning film as well: “'’Crash’ is in
its way a conventional social-problem drama that also appealed to voters'
sense of laziness. The movie is set in their backyard,” author Annie Proulx,
who penned the novella that became “Brokeback” the movie, tagged it as
“Trash” in her articulate, but self-aggrandizing post mortem, Blood on
the Red Carpet in The
Guardian Unlimited, and a coalition of empowered fans (mostly GLAAD
members) have drawn together enough funds to voice their support in a full
paged ad in “Variety,” and have plans to target other industry rags like
“Entertainment Weekly.” So is the stir about
Hollywood not doing the right thing politically, or that “Crash” was an
unworthy recipient? The irony that abounds in
the ceremony’s aftermath is the sudden shift to nothing but politics.” Leading
up to the Oscars, most who embraced “Brokeback” as an anthem of truth and a
beacon of light, steered the conversation everywhere but sexual orientation
or social politics. “It’s a gay cowboy movie, now get over it,” one smitten
reviewer cracked before waxing on about the universal fabric of the love
story at the film’s epicenter. There’s no denying that
“Brokeback” is masterful, well composed, brilliantly acted and scrumptious to
behold. And yes, it is much more than a (strike up the refrain) “gay cowboy
movie.” The forbidden love that torments two forlorn souls over decades is
palpable and beckons to the romantic in us all (assuming you’re somewhat open
minded), but it’s also about intolerance. To have made efforts to obfuscate
such, in order to bolster the mainstream appeal of the film, was frivolous,
and in itself, a form of politicking. So let’s talk politics. “Crash”’s entire agenda
is intolerance and how it writhes beneath us in everyday life. It cuts a
powerful portrait of diverse and interlocked lives colliding across cultural
and racial divides. Anyone who dismisses it as simply a white and black thing
is missing the point. And while there are no depictions of gays amongst the
stirring collection of episodic vignettes, the lessons and message rings true
for all cracks in the sidewalk of the great American melting pot. In a Venn
diagram charting intolerance as depicted in cinema, “Brokeback” would neatly
fit within “Crash”’s superset. Furthermore, the wave of
assertions, that Hollywood’s refusal to award “Brokeback” the Oscar for Best
Picture denotes an air of homophobia and a lack of perspective, are about as
ludicrous as digging for political correctness at a Klan meeting. Hollywood
has always done as Hollywood pleases.
It’s driven by money, leans to the left and is always eager to infuse
its product with something polemic and controversial (a point that George
Clooney made so poignantly in his Best Supporting Actor acceptance speech
after a ham-fisted lead in). Clearly though, the glitzy
veneer of Hollywood’s surreality did not sit well with Ms. Proulx. “Dim LA
crowd” and “atmosphere of insufferable self-importance” as she calls it.
Which is more than just a tad ironic when you consider that Ms. Proulx
wittingly attended the gala. Perhaps the buoyant balloons of confidence
(“Brokeback” was the odds-on favorite) made the indecorous decay of LA
palatable, but when things didn’t go her way, she reacted like spoiled child
(in her published tirade) throwing a temper tantrum in the middle of a
grocery store when denied a bar of chocolate. Such a dudgeon is a direct
reflection of the behavior Proulx tries to pin on those she eviscerates as
entitled and out-of-touch, and even worse, it’s hypocritical. For a sagely writer,
Proulx, plays the fish-out-of-water card well (with the 2001 cinematic
adaptation of her novel, “The Shipping News,” Ms. Proulx is no stranger to
the movie biz). In her rant she lambastes distributor Lions Gate for
aggressively distributing DVD copies of “Crash” to members of the Academy. I
have news for Ms. Proulx, “Crash” was released theatrically in May of 2005.
Most films that carry that Oscar glow are held from theatrical release until
the Fall or Holiday Season (when “Brokeback” was released), strategically
close to year’s end so that they’ll be on the minds of critics (picking their
top 10s) and voting awards bodies (namely the Academy); thus circulating an
early released contender like “Crash” on DVD to the Academy’s voting college
is a prudent and common practice, and no stratagem of manipulation as Proulx
implies. 2005 was the year of
small films about big topics. The five nominated films (“Capote,” “Good Night
and Good Luck” and “Munich” along side “Brokeback” and “Crash”) each pack
their own political depth charge (gays, terrorism and McCarthyism, oh my) and
viscerally affected viewers in different ways (this is where the where you’re
coming from and the where your mind’s at come into play). But no matter, all
five bore cinematic merit, and isn’t that what film awards are concerned with
foremost? True, the magnum opus has to touch the viewer and be emotionally
compelling, but you can’t be provocative, if your dialogue is stilted
monosyllabic mumble, and no matter much grit and verve you’ve got going on in
front of the camera, no one’s going to notice if its blotted out by solar
glare or lost in the shadow of the deep woods. When it all comes down to
it, can’t it just be as simple as the best picture won that night? I know Ms.
Proulx thinks of “Crash” as “a safe pick of ‘controversial film’ for the
heffalumps.” She may be right, but then again, “Brokeback” could have filled
that bill as well—the point being, all were deserving, one won, four lost and
there’s always going to be sore losers. So what if “Brokeback”
had won, what then? Would that have validated gays in America? I think not.
In claiming the win, there’s no controversy and the talk stops. Needless to
say, the disappointed activist, supporters and ardent flag wavers should take
solace in the knowledge that, “Brokeback” by virtue of its being, through the
critical kudos, heap of awards and perpetual dialogue, has kept the issue of
mainstream acceptance of gays at the forefront of the American conscience.
It’s been the perfect counterbalance to states banning same-sex marriage. By
not making the final walk to the podium “Brokeback” has not only raised its
banner higher, but also kept it flying longer. And to all those who stand
under it, a reminder that grace is a mightier sword than indignation. - TBM Also see: |
|
|
|
|
|