Posted on 03/04/2006 5:41:59 AM PST by madprof98
When you dig deeper, nominees for best picture offer more than the expected viewpoint
Midway through the movie "Capote," the famous writer's lover is concerned over how manipulative Truman Capote is becoming in order to get the information he needs for his book "In Cold Blood."
"Be careful what you do to get what you want," he tells Capote. It's a line that sounds simple, but then morality can be that simple, sometimes. And complex, other times.
Parsing the Oscar nominations has become a multilevel game, what with the Vegas oddsmaking, the studio campaigning, the outfit-speculating and the endless opinionizing on acting, directing, writing, etc. One aspect that's hardly ever discussed, though, is the moral points of view of the nominated movies.
More than is usually the case, this year the five flicks nominated for best picture are trying to say something. Some observers lump them together as issue-oriented and left-leaning, playing up certain stereotypes of the film industry. While as a group there do seem to be more issues and liberal sensibilities than usual, there's also more dynamics going on than that simple reduction.
So before you settle in for the Academy Awards Sunday night, spare a moment to consider the values at work in the best picture nominees.
'Brokeback Mountain'
So much depends on where you sat before you even went into the theater. If you have moral issues with homosexuality, nothing will convince you this isn't just Hollywood pushing a pro-gay agenda. If you are supportive of gays, "Brokeback" may come across as a sorely needed and beautiful affirmation of love, but one thwarted by society.
In today's climate, "Brokeback" was bound to be politicized, but if you just view the movie, there really isn't anything political about it. It's a love story, and a deeply human one; even those who may be uncomfortable with some of the scenes should be able to acknowledge that. The "gay cowboys," as they've been dismissively called, keep persevering, trying to make their lives and their love work, even as it becomes increasingly clear that the story will not end happily. That perseverance is worth celebrating.
'Capote'
The film focuses on how Capote wrote his masterpiece, "In Cold Blood," which involved him befriending the two men who killed a Kansas farm family in a robbery in 1959. The moral hinge of the movie seems to be how far Capote will go to get the more vulnerable of the killers, Perry, to confess the details of the murders to him so he can have an ending for his book.
The movie seems to be saying that Capote "used" Perry for his own commercial ends, which has some truth, so far as it goes. But it obsesses so much on Capote's manipulation ('cause that's where the conflict is) that it seems to forget that the person being used has shotgunned four innocent people in a robbery that netted about $50. Capote's book was sympathetic toward Perry, and the movie, pursuing the story from a different angle, also ends up being sympathetic to him. Perhaps "Capote" is so entranced with the mote in the author's eye that it forgets the beam in the killer's.
'Crash'
There are more complexities, contradictions, dilemmas and quandaries in "Crash" than there are in the other four nominees combined. The drama follows a dozen or so characters whose lives intersect over 36 hours in Los Angeles as they struggle with car crashes, carjackings, handguns, drugs, fear, anger, racism and, worst of all, their own hearts of darkness. (The movie's ads featured the line "You think you know who you are. You have no idea.")
Just because "Crash" is set in L.A. and deals with race, don't think you know what it's up to. The movie easily hurdles politics on a dash toward something deeper, scarier and thornier. Like Sandra Bullock, who realizes she's been waking up angry every morning for no good reason. Or rapper Ludacris, playing a thug who's confronted with an unexpected moral choice. Or Matt Dillon, who's both a nasty racist and an unlikely, lump-in-the-throat hero. It's black and white and shades of gray all over.
'Good Night, and Good Luck'
This one's easy, right? Journalist Edward R. Murrow took a brave and honorable stand and said, "Enough!" to the out-of-control bullying of Sen. Joseph McCarthy. The consensus of history is that Murrow really was a hero here and McCarthy really did need to be brought down.
Maybe it's not so easy. First, maybe the real hero of "GN&GL" isn't necessarily Murrow, who had some of the showboat and martyr to his personality. Maybe it's William Paley, the chairman of CBS, who was deeply ambivalent about Murrow's plans, but let him go ahead. Paley eventually chose profitability over crusading journalism, but at the moment of this movie, he backed his man.
Second, George Clooney, who wrote, directed and co-starred, has been clear he intended the national mood in the McCarthy era as an allegory for today's America. This gives the movie much more resonance than, say, "Capote."
'Munich'
Three cheers for moral ambivalence! OK, how about one and a half cheers? Steven Spielberg, working from a script by Tony Kushner, told the story of how a team of Israeli assassins hunted down and killed the Palestinians responsible for the 1972 Olympic massacre. Along the way, the killers and the audience come to doubt the rightness of the mission.
"Munich" has some interesting views on morality, but it has an even bigger problem, which is the movie itself. It simply didn't happen this way. Kushner says the script is "fiction," acknowledging widespread criticism of how far the movie deviates from history. (The movie says it is "inspired by real events," which turns out to be a fairly meaningless statement.) Spielberg seems to want a tough Jewish hero with a guilt-ridden soul, and since one wasn't available in the historical record, he made him up.
If Oliver Stone had made "Munich," with its slim premise of historical fact and vast chunks of fiction, he would have been massacred by the media. But because "Munich" was made by Spielberg, the criticism hasn't been as loud or wide-ranging.
To circle back around to the advice to Truman Capote: Be careful what you do to get what you want.
Murrow smoked a crapload of cigs, and Hollywood is blowing smoke up America's *ss with this load of bull/distortion.
jmo
|
|
|
Lots of bird cage liners for people that still subscribe.
At times I thought I was watching Truman himself. Hoffman made me not want the movie to end.
LOL on teh Lee Marvin photo. I'd like to see the same thing except Marvin from Cat Ballou. Damn, a drunk Marvin being told the cowboys next to him are faggots....lol
'Cinderella Man' and 'Walk the Line' should have been nominated for Best Picture. My brother went to see 'Munich' against my advice and WALKED OUT. According to him, not only was it a bloodbath, but you got to see the Palistinian's point of view.
|
|
|
As far as the Murrow-McCarthy dig, I am still absorbing the context of the era back then and so far it appears McCarthy may have indeed got a bum rap from the leftist press.
I think it was Ann Coulter that attempted to set the record straight about McCarthy. I haven't read her account of McCarthy but maybe someone will summarize it here for us.
But the new film (which I haven't seen) 'Good Night...' I would guess is another hit on McCarthy's character. In fact with Clooney as the main driver in it I am sure it is in the same way as 'Tailgunner Joe'.
Now here is what I would like to see: That some filmmaker would do a film about McCarthy that presents both perspectives on his character and merits.
And here is what I really wanted to point out: Marlon Brando made a hugely successful film 'Mutiny on the Bounty' which depicted an English Naval Captain Bligh as a monster of inhumanity. Viewers of that film left thinking that authority figures such as Bligh deserved what they got.
But years later Anthony Hopkins delivered a performance as Bligh in the film 'The Bounty' that depicted Bligh as balanced and fair authority figure who was victimized by a spoiled and insolent young officer Christian. Viewers of that film left thinking that Christian was a bipolar case who acted in a wild fit as a mutineer.
So we need a film on McCarthy to balance the film accounts so far. Mel Gibson comes to mind as a director that has the capacity to take on the Hollywood Left. Whoever does take on the Hollywood Left eventually will need a powerful film with lots of Box Office appeal to counter the onslaught of critics and political backlash that will inevitably come.
He's a wonderful actor...... and I very nice person.
The box office has been in a free fall because on the whole Hollywood, like the MSM have gone off into their own fantasy land which just went from bizarre and outlandish to just disgraceful and sickening. Oscar has "jumped the shark" at long last.
Last year the movie constantly wondered why box office revenues were way down compared to 2004--totally missing the point that American moviegoers don't want to be preached the Leftist point of view. I mean, look at the most successful movies of 2004--Passion of the Christ, Shrek 2, Spider-Man 2, and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban--they appeal to a far wider audience and did a lot of repeat business, too. I LOVED Shrek 2 because to so successfully poked fun at the entire Hollywood culture.
"have gone off into their own fantasy land"
Let's face it --Hollywood is for the people(of Hollywood) and by the people(of Hollywood) only.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
