Best Picture 2005

This was a year that I've wanted to come back to and review for a long time now. This is regarded as one of the worst BP winners and most shocking upsets ever. That irritates the fuck out of me because people champion Brokeback so much that they elevate that movie to a place it doesn't deserve to be. I like Crash and I'm not ashamed of that. But it also denigrates the other nominees here, as well. It'll be interesting to see how everything holds up especially after finally getting watch that gay cowboy movie.

2005 Best Picture

Crash

This is routinely said to be one of the worst Best Picture winners of all time and one of the biggest mistakes by the Academy ever. I HATE people who say this. I just absolutely, categorically disagree with them. I remember this being the first movie that I really, really wanted to win BP. I loved it and I still do. It's not my first Oscar memory but it's when I first starting paying serious attention to the race. I bristle at those that cry that Crash won because of homophobia or even to a lesser extent that it's an LA movie and that actors voted for their own. I mean, how absurd! Why wouldn't the actors vote for a film many considered to be the best and expertly acted in Brokeback? And I definitely don't buy the homophobia cries because it's not as if Brokeback is far and away the better film. If it was a classic and an all-time film, then sure that argument is valid but it's a good movie in a year of great movies. I really don't understand all the hate for Crash. Yes the message is in your face at times and drilled into your head over and over but it doesn't make it any less of a film or weaken the message. We are all definitely racist, bigoted, sexist, hateful in some way. This film shows just how subtle and not so subtle those ways can be. Sure, our lives might not be so neatly interconnected but the point still stands. Maybe we joke with our friends about something or get angry and say something derogatory when someone cuts us off or are scared when entering an area we deem to be full of people who might want to do us harm. I say all this in the broadest terms but we are as a society extremely racist and it's so pervasive in our culture almost to the point where it's just seen as a joke or part of normal society. I think Crash is an important film because it calls everyone out on our behavior. No one is exempt and I'm sure the same film could be made specific to any country in the world. That's why Crash is so good and relevant to me even today. Yes, it's heavy handed and speaks at us at times but I don't feel as that detracts in anyway from the overall message. There are literal and metaphorical car crashes that hammer home the point that in order to feel and commiserate we need to be a society that interacts with one another. We can't just be insulated in our own little cocoons. We need to deal with these issues head on, we need to examine our own selves and understand why we think these things. Crash seems to posit that a lot of it is from trauma and tragedies in our lives but it's way deeper than that. That's why I love Crash because it makes us think about these issues and really evaluate not just ourselves but society as a whole. It's a great launching pad for debate and whenever a movie can do that, it has succeeded. Some of the acting is top notch such as Don Cheadle and Terrence Howard and the music fits the film perfectly and adds a lot to the overall feel. Some of the shots of LA are breathtaking and make you feel as if you're in the middle of the action at times. Of course, some of the acting is not so good (Brendan Fraser, the Asian woman) and the writing struggles at times with the various actors but overall this is a really fantastic film. It doesn't deserve all the scorn and derision it continues to receive even today.

Brokeback Mountain

I have read so much about this film online by people who say it was robbed of the Best Picture Oscar and was a masterpiece and is one of the worst, most egregious Academy failures. Finally having watched it, I can't understand all that talk. I was expecting to agree with them or at least say yes it was indeed a phenomenal film. But it has it's flaws just like everyone complains that Crash does. Two of the words that kept coming up when reading reviews were inert and passion. Some reviewers felt that the directing and cinematography were inert and I'd have to agree. For being a western set film, the cinematography was bland and boring. Some of the shots of the landscape just lacked any feeling and scenes just felt pedestrian. You could argue that Ang Lee was just focused on the story and characters but then the other word - passion - comes up. I noted that there was a lack of passion in the romance between Jack and Ennis. There were blips here and there but I really wanted to root for the two cowboys but I wasn't really given any incentive to. The directing just seemed too reverent, as if a homosexual cowboy movie couldn't handle intimacy. Maybe they feared alienating the audience if they went "too gay" which is a shame because a movie about homosexual cowboys shouldn't keep itself in the closet. The story deserved the kid gloves being taken off to deal with the subject matter. It needed to be something honest but instead we got melodrama with paper thin supporting characters. However, it's not a terrible movie as I make it seem. It's an interesting love story that breaks new ground in mainstream cinema. Heath Ledger is fantastic and Ang Lee is still a great director despite my hang ups here. Brokeback being a Best Picture nominee is certainly a good thing for film. It not winning Best Picture is certainly not the worst mistake by the Academy, not by a long shot.

Capote

Capote is a film that centers on Truman Capote researching and writing his hit non-fiction novel In Cold Blood. It's a vehicle for Philip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal of Capote which is absolutely the star and center of this film. And really that's about it. Capote comes off a bit bland at times which is unfortunate because the subject matter is wholly fascinating. An eccentric, effeminate writer that wants to dive into a brutal murder of a Kansas family and gets develops a relationship with the killers should be inherently compelling stuff. But the only draw here is Hoffman. The supporting cast is underwritten and left to be things that Hoffman acts against save for one of the killers. They don't add much of anything to understanding Capote's character. There is room for them to be more of a moral force in Capote's life, to highlight his obsession with the case and his book instead of paying attention to his relationships with his friends, and to essentially reign Capote in and humanize him. Keener's Harper Lee is there as his friend and confidante but there's more exposition than confiding. His boyfriend is always upset that he's busy but you never see them be affectionate or act like anything other than roommates. And the Kansas townfolk are just minor inconveniences to Capote getting what he wants with little resistance. Time is hard to fully grasp in this movie even though there are graphics that say a year has passed and so on which points to a problem with pacing to me. In the beginning there are scenes that are short and quick that seem very underdeveloped as if the director/writer wants to get on to the juicier parts of the story while skimping on some of the other characters' developments. Maybe that's just a gripe for me but time seemed very arbitrary when it should have been felt more especially since the book took so long to write and publish. The highlight of the film is Capote's interaction with one of the prisoners and is what the film should have focused more on instead of being too broad. This is where we get much of the inner conflict in Capote and is the most compelling part of the film. There are homosexual undertones, childhood trauma, turmoil about taking advantage of the prisoner, regrets, a search for the truth. All of those are things that could have been more fully explored and impacted the audience in a more profound way. Capote may have been more thrilling and made for a better nomination if the fat had just been trimmed.

Good Night, and Good Luck

This is a Very Important film. It's about Edward R. Murrow and his crusade against Joe McCarthy and his bullshit commie outing witch hunt. Murrow convinces CBS to let him run these stories that show McCarthy to be a nut and liar and awful person which rocks the boat but helps lead to McCarthy's downfall. My main issue with the film is talked about in the Best Actor category where I really wish the film would have dug deeper into Murrow's character instead of giving us this God-like newsman that we knew nothing about personally. He's this perfect, infallible guy who encounters very little resistance on his way to challenging a sitting US Senator, something we know would take more than just conviction and impassioned speeches. The whole film just seems to tidy and easy and there's not much real tension. I'm not worried they'll be pulled off the air, I'm not worried the secretly married couple will be outed, I'm not worried Murrow will be damaged in anyway by this. Of course, it's not a bad film at all. The black and white cinematography works extremely well for this kind of movie. The smoke that fills every room and scene is almost highlighted by this technique and adds to the overall feel of the film. The story itself is pretty fascinating and is not one that's tackled very much in film. You genuinely want to see what happens and where the story goes on a purely historical level. The slicing and dicing of McCarthy, too, is a lot of fun to watch because he was such an evil scumbag. Murrow's story is the main plot and everything else just falls to the wayside. So the scenes with the married couple and the other newscaster who commits suicide just seem really unnecessary. If Clooney (who directed) were to tighten those things up and give us a more engaging, in-depth look at Murrow, a true classic might have been made. Instead, we got a great looking film with an interesting story that just falls short of being truly compelling on the basis of it's characters.

Munich

Spielberg sure knows how to make an opening scene absolutely riveting. It really does set up the entire movie as we see the terrorists capture the Israeli Olympic team and then the subsequent botched rescue attempt. That sets into motion the whole point of the film which is revenge - pure and simple. It's such an evocative look at what revenge is and how it affects people, countries, history. During that first assassination the viewer is on the edge of their seat, palms sweaty, holding their breath as they watch what unfolds. It's gripping film making. You get lost in the moment and root on the assassins before remembering the man did nothing but read from a book and get groceries and then you remember he's involved in the Munich massacre. It's a rollercoaster of emotions and typifies the feelings of the whole operation; is this right and just? Or just murder? Can it be justified because it's backed by a government? And that's the first 30 minutes! The film is slow because it has to be. Is it a little bloated? Absolutely. But it's 3 hours doesn't feel so long and we can understand when telling this story that it needs all the room it can get to tell the story. There's so many tense moments that time is immaterial. And it's all compelling. Munich brings up a lot of questions like is killing as a reprisal worth it? It seems to be never ending. Countries and ethnicities go back and forth without any end in sight. Is violence and bloodshed ever the answer? This movie brings up so many questions that are extremely hard to answer and that bring up so many good debates. I cannot fathom why Munich did not receive any acting nominations. There are a lot of performances I can point to as worthy of a nom: Eric Bana easily, the female Israeli Prime Minister, Geoffrey Rush, and some of the members of the assassination group. The acting is top notch. Spielberg himself knows when to turn on that directorial charm. When he wants to be in the middle of the action we get the shakycam right in the middle of the action. When it's supposed to be more subtle, the lens is hiding behind everyday objects like its peering from the other room or side of the street. He knows how to tell a story and he uses all his tricks to good use here. I find here a fascinating movie that grabs me and never lets me go. It's provocative and still incredibly relevant to today's time. For me, this is the hands down best movie of 2005.



This was around the first time that I actually started paying attention to the Oscars and was able to watch this one on TV (AFN to be exact) while on the night shift in Iraq. I wasn't hardcore into it like I am now, but I knew that I had seen Crash before when my parents sent the DVD in the mail and I knew that I liked it and wanted it to win. I don't even think I had seen any of the other nominees but it didn't matter to me. I loved Crash and was rooting for it. It made watching the ceremony fun and little did I know that Brokeback had pretty much cleaned up the precursor awards and many thought it would and felt it should win. That would set the internet ablaze with cries that Brokeback was robbed, that the Academy was a joke and that Crash winning was the one of the biggest failures of all time. I hated that sentiment then and I hate that sentiment now. I don't see the supposed masterpiece in Brokeback and truly wonder if it had to do with it being a gay movie that made people just fervently root for it and against everything else. To me, there was always that sense of if you don't like Brokeback or think it should have won then you are just a homophobe. I think people wanted to back it for fear of being on the wrong side of history and because people are petulant. I think people wanted it to be this watershed moment, this monumental shift in thinking in Hollywood and America that they lost sight of it being a flawed film. You could argue for the other 4 films just as hard as the polarizing one. This is just something I wanted to call out because it was my first true Oscar following experience, especially because it denigrates a rather great BP field. Maybe if Brokeback was the only worthwhile film nominated would I agree but the other are good to great in my eyes which makes all of this that much more absurd. Munich is easily the better of all of the three films. It's a full movie to me. I know the knock against it is length and individual acting but I think those people are just completely delusional. Munich is my clear winner. And if it wins do we have this stupid Brokeback controversy? I think it's not as loud and that film can fade into the background. Munich is just an absolute amazing film and I don't understand why it doesn't receive more love.

Oscar Winner: Crash
My Winner:  Munich
Crash
Brokeback Mountain
Good Night, and Good Luck
Capote

Leading Actor 2005

Favorite category time! And with 3 performances that I've actually never seen before which is always nice. A fresh take is great to have. Which also begs the question: Is a first impression definitive? I'll say usually yes. But sometimes it's easy to change your opinion. I know that there's been a few films and performances that just didn't click until the second or third time I saw them. But I also like to think I'm not being overly critical or hateful with this blog and have been very open with my mind. It's something interesting to think about because critics always write about a film after seeing it once, so how many would change their reviews after a year or ten? It will be interesting to revisit all of my reviews after some time and see how they all hold up. On to the performances, though!

2005 Best Actor

Philip Seymour Hoffman - Capote

It's strange to be reviewing Hoffman's winning performance right now. I always seem to review a few films/performances at a time before getting stuck on a film for a few months, usually due to being busy with life but also because I've seen a film a few times already. But I'm writing this just a few days after Hoffman was found dead of an overdose and this was the film I was stuck on. So it seems poignant to write about Hoffman now, somewhat out of disbelief but mainly out of celebration. This is the role most people seem to remember him by and with good reason. Hoffman was an actor that gave his all for every single performance he did, whether it called for it or not. His acting never hurt a film and almost always helped to elevate it to something greater. He was a genius -  a man committed to his craft in the fullest sense and he left us with amazing performance after amazing performance. His turn as Truman Capote is more than just mere impersonation, it's the realization of a character. The affectations are somewhat jarring at first, but Hoffman never falters with them and effortlessly makes the viewer see past the voice and the antics which is not an easy task. For some this would be the role of a lifetime, and it is that good, but Hoffman was able to bring the earnestness found here to every role he had. No doubt he would have had many more. As the film progresses, it's a little hard to tell if Capote is in love with one of the murderers or just sees a lot of himself in the man - or both. This ambiguity is expertly portrayed by Hoffman. There is longing and torment and caution and excitement written all over Hoffman's character. You almost feel for Capote as if he's losing a friend or family member before remembering this man brutally murdered a family. Hoffman is able to get us to feel right along side his character which is invariably a tough task given the subject matter. I'm so glad Hoffman was able to win an Oscar in his lifetime because he really was one of the best working when he was alive. His Truman Capote is one of those times where you can actually say the Academy got it so perfectly right.

Terrence Howard - Hustle & Flow

Howard absolutely elevates this film into something more profound because at times it comes off like a B movie (a bit harsh, admittedly, because it's an entertaining film for sure). It's a role that you wouldn't think the old, white Academy would even think of nominating, so I gotta give some props to them here, mang. There was surprisingly a lot more to this role then I imagined and anticipated. Howard brings complexity and depth to the character. He's not just this hard living pimp that's playing down to the typecast. I don't want to say he's a pimp with a heart of gold, either. He's a struggling black man that has dreams just like any other person and though he keeps his hos in line it never seems unnecessarily cruel. DJay works hard to make a living and the depth Howard brings to the character is from the humanity he infuses into the role. We see DJay as more than just a predatory pimp. We see the man behind the rough exterior who wants to make something of his life and achieve his own American dream. Howard puts his all into this character and it shows for the better. It transcends being just a rapper or a gangsta, it's a fully realized character that interests us even if we don't care for the subject matter. He also kills it with the rapping. It's earnest, raw, captivating. Those songs aren't just rap songs by some anonymous guy. When you hear them you feel the hurt and the anger and Howard does a fantastic job of portraying all of that while performing them. That is a sign of Howard's tremendous talent on display here. This is very much his movie and he rises to the challenge and doesn't bend under it's weight. Howard delivers a surprisingly strong performance.

Heath Ledger - Brokeback Mountain

It's always great when an actor who you knew had potential early in his career puts it all together and delivers with some fine acting and becomes more than a handsome face or teen heartthrob. Ledger achieves that with his gay cowboy Ennis here. Ennis is the prototypical cowboy: strong, stoic, handsome, and temperamental. Ennis is a man of few words and those are usually deep voiced and mumbled. Ledger does a great job with the accent which gives his cowboy a sense of authenticity. You can really see Ledger as being a cowboy, hunting and fishing on his own in the elements and begrudgingly interacting with others. Ledger adds a lot to the love story and makes it very believable on his end. The actual relationship with Gyllenhaal leaves a lot to be desired, though that's no fault of Ledger who gives it his best shot. He's a man of few words but also few emotions. So when those emotions do come up they seem all the more real. The love never seems too forced. Ennis is a man that is able to adapt to his surroundings and lives out of necessity. His marriage and kids and working in a small Wyoming town are because society won't accept the other part of Ennis' life and I'm not too sure Ennis would be ok with living openly anyway. Ledger portrays these subtleties of his character wonderfully. He knows how to survive on the ranch and that equivocation makes him all the more human. This is Ledger's movie and he gives a good performance in a tough movie.

Joaquin Phoenix - Walk the Line

Joaquin is undoubtedly a fantastic actor. And in Walk the Line, it's almost as if we watch him mature in front of our eyes. When Phoenix fully inhabits Johnny Cash, there's a confidence about him that is striking. He goes all in and gives a mesmerizing performance in those instances. He also does a good job at the singing part, which is difficult because Cash is so well known with his own style and so damn iconic. Walk the Line as a movie, though, isn't exactly top notch. There are plenty of moments where the writing is bad, particularly in the beginning and it's as if the actors are fighting through it. It does the actors no favors and if not for the abilities of Phoenix, a lesser actor would have made those parts unintentionally comical. But as Johnny's career takes off so does the performance of Phoenix. He is especially good in the musical scenes which is where the film shines, thanks in large part to Phoenix. The family life stuff and romance junk just isn't as compelling and usually comes off a bit hokey. And try as he might, Phoenix isn't able to salvage these scenes. It also doesn't help that a lot of these scenes bring to mind Walk Hard which makes them seem so damn funny! It's not fair but I can't unsee it. If the film had a better script and was less by the numbers biopic-y, Phoenix would have been in the discussion for a win

David Strathairn - Good Night, and Good Luck

David Strathairn does a good job of playing up to the role he is given in this film. He is Very Important and stately. He has unblinking eyes and unwavering focus that really tells you all you need to know about the character. He's serious, no nonsense, and just. But if you really wanna get down to it, Strathairn does play Murrow very one note. He's not given much else to do but imitate Murrow and come off as being very important. That's all there is to the performance and to this version of Murrow. We never get to see anything below the depths of his visage and Murrow just comes off as too God-like, a white knight crusading for something so morally right that we can't question anything else. Strathairn's delivery of his lines did come off like watching Robert Stack on Unsolved Mysteries, I was half expecting the theme to start playing at times. It seems it was done to obviously imitate Murrow, but also to hammer home the importance of what was being said. Strathairn plays it straight the whole time through but I wish that the movie allowed for more glimpses into Murrow, where Strathairn's acting could have actually been a lot more useful and evident. Imitation is fine but definitely feels ways too hollow.


Always a great category to watch and write about it. There's not a performance I dislike. Choosing a winner is a bit difficult. I do believe Hoffman delivered an excellent performance, one that was easily beloved by the Academy. But I'm not the Academy, so the margin between Hoffman and the rest of the group is not so wide to me. The rest gave him a serious run for his money. Ledger was the one I was most curious about since I'd never seen his film and had heard good things about his role in particular. He did go on to win a posthumous Oscar and you can see an actor coming into his own here. I'm glad we got to see this performance from him. Howard is nominated partly because of Hustle & Flow and partly because of his acting in Crash, I believe. I think they rewarded him with the nomination and it was a really inspired choice. Phoenix, too, provided us with a pretty good musical role. His performance stumbles a bit due to the writing and film itself but it's still really good when he's on. Finally, Strathairn. The straight man to everyone else nominated. A serious performance that makes Strathairn shine. As I said, really damn tough. They are all kinda equal here. I can nitpick them all or gush about how much I like them all. I like the fact that this turned out to be a win for Hoffman because of his early death, meaning he at least got 1 Oscar. I almost feel bad about picking against him here. So in respect for his acting ability I'll go with Hoffman but I really did enjoy Howard also. I'd give him the win if not for Hoffman's untimely death and still could later. It would have been a hell of a choice by the Academy for sure.

Oscar Winner: Philip Seymour Hoffman - Capote
My Winner:   Philip Seymour Hoffman - Capote
Terrence Howard
Joaquin Phoenix
Heath Ledger
David Strathairn