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