Very late so my last note before hitting the hay.
** Kenneth Turan is not gay. He's married to photographer Patricia (Patty)
Williams.
** However, he is woven into the fabric of critics who are also social
activists, and in that sense, my view is it's difficult for him to detach
himself from personal causes very dear to him when they cross into the films
he chooses to review.
** He is both loved and hated within L.A. itself and while not as blatantly
political as Frank Rich of the NY Times, he's considered a bit of a pariah
even in liberal Hollywood circles for brow-beating film directors who are
commerical, obviously preferring arty films that are more "daring." If
Turan had his way, all films would be this way, loaded with messages and
he'd still expect it's your duty to fork over $10.75 to see 'em in Westwood.
** His most famous public fight was with director James Cameron. The NY
Times surprisingly gave "Titanic" spectacular reviews in 1997, forgiving its
maudlin script as being purposely derivative of Hollywood romances of the
1940s, even comparing it to "Gone with the Wind," inferring if "Titanic" had
been released in 1947 intead of 1997, people would understand the film as
being "retro" as all get out, a stick-figure old-fashioned Hollywood
romance, not one based in reality.
** Turan (and many others) vehemently disagreed, would have none of it, and
it appeared to many out here that Turan engaged in a vendetta against
Cameron, campaigning actively to wipe out Titanic's (mostly) favorable
reviews, imploring the Academy to come to its senses. Cameron took it
personally and went so far as to buy ads to counter Turan's poison pen.
Turan was dismissed by the Academy and "Titanic" went home with 11 Oscars.
** He remains the most influential newspaper film critic in America, more
important than the NY Times, simply because he's based here, has been a
fixture for eons and the LA Times is read by everyone in Hollywood along
with the Hollywood Reporter. About the only people who read the NY Times
are east coast people transplanted to the west or people who must read it
because it's as essential to their jobs like the WSJ is to people in
business.
** If you're looking for a big-time counter-point to Turan's view, check out
the following from equally liberal but Pulitzer-Prize-winning critic Roger
Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times. While I don't agree with his love and
defense of "Crash," I do agree with his brilliance conveying the futility of
wringing hands just because your favorite picture didn't win.
http://tinyurl.com/gjaj8
** Turan is out of line for bullying people for making what he feels was a
wrong decision. He doesn't have a vote. And the way he wrote his piece,
he's not going to win the hearts and minds of Academy members by implying
they should all feel ashamed or something akin to "buyer's remorse" with
their votes.
-koose.
----Original Message Follows----
From: Richard Halegua Comic Art <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Richard Halegua Comic Art <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: Re: Kenneth Turan's take on Brokeback's loss
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 15:20:45 -0800
David
an observation that I have is that this guy isn't just bitter. He is totally
outraged that Brokeback didn't win best film. As a matter of fact, I also
see that what he is saying is that Hollywood is homo-phobic and that's why
they voted for Crash. To go even further, his commentary is something that
journalists try to avoid as a matter of course because while there is
nothing wrong with taking sides, you at least need to avoid an appearance of
impropriety or in other words, you need to be balanced in your speech, even
if not in your temper.
Now I want to go out on a limb here and say something & I don't want anyone
thinking I'm homophobic , because I'm not & have a number of gay friends who
I respect dearly. But I think the reason Kenneth Turan might be so virulent
in his treatment is that he may be gay himself, and sees this as one more
snub from his peers in some way. His intemperance in the article is too
outraged, so I think there's something in back of his anger.
His reasoning also for Brokeback being best also strikes me as shallow and
his frontal attack on Crash is unreal, in this context.
thanks for sending me the read
Rich===========================
At 02:57 PM 3/8/2006, David Kusumoto wrote:
Below is the previously mentioned "analysis" of what happened Sunday night
by Kenneth Turan of the L.A. Times. I think it would be safe to say that
he's a tad bitter.
-koose.
======================
LOS ANGELES TIMES - ANALYSIS
THE ENVELOPE
March 6, 2006
'BROKEBACK' DREAMS CRASH AND BURN
AS THE ACADEMY'S VOTERS PLAY IT SAFE
By Kenneth Turan, Times Staff Writer
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 at themselves in the mirror and feel as if 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 to actually do
that job in the present.
----Original Message Follows----
From: David Kusumoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: David Kusumoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: Re: ANALYSIS: Should'veseen signs of "Crash" coming
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:36:20 -0800
As I noted to another MoPo friend earlier:
The "Crash" win was a still a stunner. Never mind that I didn't like
"Brokeback" as a Best Picture winner, I was still open-mouthed shocked. A
string of victories akin to "Saving Private Ryan" and then "clipped" on
Oscar night? I agree though -- when the SAG awards were given out, I
thought to myself Brokeback wasn't a sure thing, but still a safe bet. LA
and NY film critics' choices never affect most Academy members (though they
do help hone down finalists), but the Globes, SAG and more recently, BAFTA,
do have an impact. (Many stars show up to such affairs.)
I just didn't want "Crash" to be the picture to knock Brokeback off its
pedestal because other pictures were better. My personal choice was not
"Crash" but "Capote." But of course my opinion doesn't matter.
I also never figured in the residency of Academy members being
overwhelmingly LA. I didn't know the figure (80%) was that high. This may
explain why NY-based directors such as Scorcese and Woody Allen haven't won
a Best Director or Best Picture award since 1977. Funny this anti-NY-trend
hasn't hurt foreign directors who've won Best Picture or Best Director,
e.g., Bertolucci, Polanski, Forman, Ang Lee, Attenborough, etc.
You guys should read Kenneth Turan's mildly bitter analysis in the L.A.
Times. He seemed especially perturbed about what happened.
-koose.
----Original Message Follows----
From: "JR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David Kusumoto"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject: Re: [MOPO] ANALYSIS: Should've seen signs of "Crash" coming
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 13:30:14 -0500
While this is an excellent analysis of the process and the innner workings
of the Awards, the simple fact is that more members of the Academy liked
CRASH than they did BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. It may have been a matter of one
vote difference between the two of them, or it may have been hundreds. I'm
not sure we'll ever know or that it really matters.
-- JR
----Original Message Follows----
From: David Kusumoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: David Kusumoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: ANALYSIS: Should've seen signs of "Crash" coming
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 09:00:31 -0800
In today's Hollywood Reporter, the movie bible out here (vs. Variety, which
is national, industry-diverse, esp. for plays and musicals, and more New
York-centric).
-koose.
=================
THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER
Should have seen signs of "Crash" coming
March 8, 2006
By Martin A. Grove - Analysis
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Looking back at how "Crash" climbed over
"Brokeback Mountain" to take the best picture prize at the Academy Awards
on Sunday, the question isn't "Why didn't we see it coming?" but, "Why
didn't we believe we were seeing it coming?"
Despite the fact that "Brokeback" had swept the most meaningful awards
races from December through February, the buzz was that "Crash" was gaining
momentum while "Brokeback" was losing steam.
Nonetheless, most Hollywood handicappers just weren't willing to believe
the Oscar outcome would differ from all those earlier votes by members of
the Producers Guild of America, the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn., the
Broadcast Film Critics Assn. and the British Academy.
What some insiders are saying privately is that many Academy members felt
so threatened by "Brokeback's" gay cowboy romance they couldn't bring
themselves to view it even on DVD. As a result, many votes reportedly were
cast much later in the game than is usually the case -- by which time
"Crash" was being perceived as a worthy alternative.
There also may have been fewer votes to count if reports are true that as
many as 20% of Academy voters didn't send in their ballots.
If that's what happened -- the public will never know, of course, since the
Academy never reveals the voting results -- it becomes easier to understand
how "Brokeback" got trumped by "Crash."
With 6,188 voting members of the Academy, if 20% of them abstained from
voting that would remove 1,238 votes from the mix and leave just 4,950 to
determine the outcome. In a race where every vote typically counts, that
alone could dramatically alter the results.
Actors, meanwhile, make up the Academy's biggest branch. There are 1,359
actors who vote and they represent nearly 22% of the Academy's membership.
It's a safe bet that they preferred "Crash" to "Brokeback" since the Screen
Actors Guild in late January gave "Crash" its Best Ensemble Cast award, its
equivalent of a best picture honor.
It was the only important vote that "Brokeback" missed out on, but it sent
a signal that the movie wasn't resonating with actors.
By sending about 110,000 "Crash" DVDs to SAG's full membership, Lionsgate
made sure that all of the guild's members had an opportunity to watch the
film at home. This was the first time anyone had ever sent DVDs of an Oscar
contender to the full SAG membership. Because this marketing technique
worked so well, other distributors are likely to adopt the same approach
next year.
It's worth noting, however, that the reason Lionsgate was comfortable doing
this was that "Crash" had opened in theaters last May and had gone into DVD
in September. The DVDs sent to SAG members didn't need to be specially
watermarked or encrypted because awards season piracy wasn't something
Lionsgate was worrying about at that point.
In future campaigns, however, studios with films opening theatrically in
November or December will find themselves at a disadvantage since
promotional DVDs have a much greater risk of being pirated. Their
distributors will have to weigh the pros and cons of sending them on DVD to
all SAG members.
"Crash" had an additional advantage with SAG and other union members
because it was shot in the Los Angeles area. Unlike "Brokeback," which
filmed in Canada, "Crash" provided jobs for actors and other L.A. based
workers, who are increasingly frustrated by "runaway" productions that
travel to far-flung locations where cheaper costs and tax deals are
increasingly helping producers stretch their budgets.
Moreover, because "Crash" was a story dealing with complex racial relations
in Los Angeles, it was something that L.A.-based Academy members could
easily relate to.
Nearly 80% of the Academy's membership lives in the L.A. area and Lionsgate
was very perceptive to recognize how important a constituency that could be
for "Crash."
All of these were factors that should have told Hollywood handicappers that
"Crash" was a very strong contender that would give "Brokeback" real
competition for best picture. But that message didn't really get across.
"Brokeback" was boosted by a steady stream of big victories over the entire
awards season. In past years, that level of success would typically have
translated into Oscar gold for "Brokeback." Not so this time around.
Beyond the film's sensitive subject matter, it's also possible that Oscar
voters rebelled at the prospect of looking like the last group to jump on
the "Brokeback" bandwagon.
In applauding "Crash" over "Brokeback" Academy members were saying, in
effect, that you can't take their votes for granted.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
