Sorry for the shameless self.promotion, but I am gonna quote myself with a post I wrote a few weeks ago:

"So, why can´t you think that people actually like the film cause maybe, just maybe, it is very good? Is it cause of the short story by the pulitzer winning author? Or the screenplay by the also pulitzer winning writer? Or the Oscar winner director? Or the already awarded performances by the actors?

I guess, in the end, It doesn´t matter. Apparently, a gay love story must be under suspicion, cause there must be some other reason why people are liking it. It just can´t be good, right?"

That is the problem. Apparently, if a gay romance movie is the frontrunner for the Oscars, It can´t be cause of quality - there has to be something else. Therefore no movie with a gay romance can win anything without being "suspicious". It doesn´t matter how good the reviews are, all the awards It is collecting, the great box-office... Nah, It there has to be some other explanation. Something that doesn´t happen with straight love stories, of course.

BTW, in the last few years, a few stories of "lovers set apart by circunstances" have done well at the Oscars - Titanic, The english patient, Shakespeare in love, Moulin Rouge, to name a few - and all of them are straight stories. Goes to show how much gay love stories are award magnets, I guess. And if anybody thinks that this movies would have done better with the Oscars had they been about a guy-guy relationship, they are out of their minds.

I´s say that BBM is the Oscar frontrunner despite being a gay story, and not cause of it. And I am surprised that the same people that were saying before that this movie was not going to be nominated cause It was about gay cowboys, now are saying that It may win cause of that same reason! Just crazy. Besides, BBM is such Oscar bait, than the movie was 8 years in development hell cause nobody wanted to produce what was considered one of the best unproduced screeplays out there. They must be all morons.

I guess if Schlinder list wasn´t about the holocaust, It would never have won. Or "The colour purple" would have never got so many nominations had it been about white... slaves. Sigh.
By the way, BBM got a lot of attention, but so did Munich, for example, and now Munich seems to be behind in the race. Attention will not get you so far, you have to be able to live up to the hype.

The problem with the Bernardelli article is that he likes other movies better than BBM (Munich was his #1 of the year) and he apparently feels the need look for reasons as of why BBM is doing better than those other movies... but couldn´t it just be that (a majority, but not an overwhelming one) of people just like BBM better? Last year, I loathed M$B, but I didn´t have to look for explanations of why others loved it - people have different opinions, sometimes you are in the majority, others in the minority. Lots os people are liking BBM, but that doesn´t make it a better movie - It´s just a question of opinion - but surely not a mediocre one that everybody wants to push. If you think It´s ok, or bad, fine. But can´t you understand that others simply like it a bit, or a lot?

And if anybody wants to use the "but of course you defend it, you are gay" or the pink mafia thing, that would be as brilliant a point as to say that whoever attacks the film is homophobic or part of the straight mafia... wait, is there a straight color?

I'm pretty sure it's blue. Dark blue.

Deleted my post. I don't want to get in an argument with dar this weekend.

Suffice it to say my reply was that, in the article he says that he thinks the people who like Brokeback are sincere. He says so.

I think you reveal your position on Brokeback's critics when you mention he doesn't think Brokeback Mountain is the most deserved Best Picture this year.

He's asking questions which a lot of people ask of every Best Picture nominee. Brokeback Mountain is getting a relatively easy ride so far compared to pictures from previous years.

1. It´s fine to criticise films. But what people are doing here is question why a movie is getting so many awards, when they think It´s not worthy... and the conclusion is not that others are liking it, but just the fact that cause its a gay story, people feel the need to support it. That, IMO, is to question someone "sincerity" in awarding a film. You can call it however It pleases you, of course.

In any case, this is the awards forum. We are talking about the awards season. People were talking about how the awards have been given so far. Not about specific reviews, and specially not about the reviews of anyone on this site. Nobody has said that movies can not be criticized or destroyed or insulted if anyone wants to, but that is one thing and a different one is to assume that a movie is getting rewarded not because of its quality, but others extra-cinematographical reasons. I hope you see the difference.

2. Crash is similar in that sense. I have read in this site many times -you said it - that is was being liked, or it appealed to people cause it was a guilt trip for white people. It´s not only that you don´t like the film, is that you have to discredit the reasons why others like it. Again, that is the difference.

3. If I were mad cause BBM is not getting a free pass, I would voice such concerns in the "Everybody´s a critic" forum, where people are in fact giving their opinions on the film. I haven´t criticized anyone for not liking the film, here or there. What makes me roll my eyes is when people have to find an explanation for others liking the film very much, be it critics or award groups -It´s pc, they want to support gays, bla, bla - without considering that they just may like it and have a different opinion. Actually, if you say (And I donñt mean YOU said it) that all the success of BBM is cause people want to support the film no matter the quality, It is you who are not respecting other´s opinions... exactly the same way that if I say you didn´t like it cause you are a homophobe, something that I never said, by the way, neither I think anybody on this site has said.

In any case, I remember you were already suspicious of the acclaim the movie was getting in the first reviews... and that was before even seeing the film.

4. Of course, a movie like BBM can "speak" in a really strong way to gay people, being needy for good movies with gay stories. But that doesn´t speak badly of the quality of the film... again, It´s like saying that you were moved by "Schlinder´s list" and someone replying "but of course, you are a jew!"

5. The Loyal comment is completely out of context. What Loyal said in that thread is that cause he felt that the race was shit cause some movies were missing (I assumed he was talking about movies he liked, and not "Narnia" or "Charlie and the chocolate factory", for example). Everybody is entilted to that kind of feelings, and I have felt that way in the past, when the five BP nominess didn´t do it for me at all. And I find perfectly understadable to say that you are not interested, or you think this year is shit, or yes, you are a bitter about it (you can say I was bitter about "Closer" last year). But there´s a difference between that and saying that an Oscar year is shit, objectively. We already argued about that, It was fun. And please don´t tell me you are not bitter cause "Munich", for example, is not getting more recognised, or "Crash" being awarded. "Bitter" is not bad. You all have films we want to do well and when they don´t, we get pissed. Shit happens.

6. No, I don´t see an agenda in everybody who thinks BBM is not the best movie of the year. Please. And I´d love if you could point out when I said such thing. However, when you write a piece about why you think a movie doesn´t deserve BP, there´s something else there... But you wanna know the difference? I think Bernardelli is biased (as we all are) cause of cinematographic reasons (he likes other movies more) which is fine. However him, and others, consider that the so called agenda to support BBM has nothing to do with the quality of the film. He´s not even considering the fact that others may like it more than him, no. There´s must be something else... Again, that is discrediting someone else´s opinion.

I quote you: " Yes, but part of discussion is understanding why someone would like something and someone wouldn't. You are essentially saying it is *BAD* to ask questions or bad to pose arguments".

That is perfectly fine, of course. But the problem is that such discussion is not carried in cinematic terms, but ideological ones. Why a scene made me cry and the same one left you cold, in any movie? That is very interesting. But saying "I thought this scene was crap, and if someone else liked it, ther must be an ulterior motive that is just not in the film" sounds a bit insulting to me. It´s like Libs saying that she likes "Under the Tuscan sun" and someone else going "Awww, but of course, you are a chick", like if she weren´t able to distingish between chick flicks that she finds good or bad. Or like thinking just because you are gay there aren´t many gay movies that don´t get any support simply cause the majority consider them terrible. Believe me, I suffered lots of them.

7. All this would be more or less ok, but what it really grips me is people thinking that this movie has the Oscar locked (whoever thinks so) or it´s the frontrunner, cause It´s a gay romance. Brilliant. Like there has been so many of then winning - or nominated - in the past. Right, there has been none. The "gay cowboy" thing is something the movie has to be overcome, not the other way round, and It is doing it quite well. Is it cause of its quality? I wouldn´t say so, cause I think quality is mostly subjective, but It´s because some people are liking it a lot. Just the same way you like "Munich".

i missed this the first time you posted it. but you said everything much better than i ever could have, including the whole thing were a few months ago people said it wouldn't be nominated because of its gay content. now it's the reason it will win

Midnight Cowboy, a fav of mine that won BP, was sort of gay. So BBM wouldnt be the first.

You know, even if the homosexual communtiy and the "liberal" people who devote about 1/1000th of their time recognizing the legitimacy of homosexual relationships are praising and attaching a bigger meaning to the film, I have yet to understand why that's such a bad thing. In fact, Brokeback Mountain is one of the rare movies that portrays a homosexual relationship in a realistic way and DOESN'T gloss it over with the typical Hollywood gay stereotype. So that alone, in my eyes, is enough to recognize the film as something more than a damn good movie. Plus, if the Academy awards Brokeback Best Picutre for political reasons, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.

And andaroo, there are just as many anatgonists (if not more than usual) going after the movie as there were with other Best Picture frontrunners. It is true that Million Dollar Baby got some heat for its subject matter, but that doesn't mean it got a more difficult ride. It's just that its supporters weren't as defensive or vocal as Brokeback's.

One of my favorites as well, and I'm glad the Academy didn't bend to the turmoil surrounding it.

Damn. I really like that color.

Sorry andaroo, I already replied. And with a quote.

He´s not asking the same questions people ask other years, no. Not at all. But hey, opinions... If you don´t wanna have an argument (in an internet forum), ok. I do not take it personally, and if we disagree, It´s only in this issue, I think. Problem is, the oscar season lasts for about four months now, so It´s an issue that just won´t die till march (and probably a bit later, depending on the result)

Or fabulously organized.

Holla!

But that was more in a subtext-y kind-of-sort-of-gay way, wasn´t it?

I can´t tell, I saw the movie eons ago.

Yep, but that still didn't keep the MPAA from slapping it with an NC-17 rating (circa 1969 though).

There were other, very dark subtexts to the film.

BTW, if it appeases the masses...

I thought My Summer of Love was a MUCH better "gay" movie that was released this year.

I wont get to see this before the Golden Globes, but I did get good news that it'll be nearby next Friday.

my favorite color

I don't feel like jumping into the fray or engaging in any intelligent discourse, so my comments are limited to this - If you are going to make fun of Brokeback Mountain's title do it right! "Bareback Mountain" is only going halfway and really nothing is better done halfway..."Bareback Mounting" or "Bareback Mountin'" (I think the apostrophe adds a little to it but it is all up to personal taste) is clearly the superior if more juvenile parody.

I actually don't see many movies. I need real WOM to get my butt to a theatre. It takes forever to write intelligent posts because so much of this is nuanced, and I have been heartily schooled in what people think of nuance.

I think that Loyal and Bernardinelli are wrong. The whole BBM-is-gay issue is a convenient excuse to fall back on if you are looking for something negative to say. Or, more pointedly, if you have a deadline for your newspaper column or your magazine article or your tabloid-TV show and you can't think of anything else to say. BBM is Oscar material simply because it is well-made, well-acted, well-directed, well-written, whatever.

You are right of course, and Gladiator is Oscar material simply because it is well-made, well-acted, well-directed, well-written, whatever.

We shouldn't question the divine logic of critics and the guilds, EVEN if we disagree with them.

Meh. It's a moot point since I have a plagueing suspicion Crash is going to surprise.

I had a reply here but I followed up with dar in private.

But in short, I think the thing here (and I will speak for myself) is that I see the Oscars and Quality as two separate entity.

1. Quality of a movie is subjective, can change, and is personal, and really doesn't have a lot to do with this Forum

2. Oscars very rarely bow down utterly to quality, and because of the multi-million dollar ad campaigns, wonky release schedules, and in general... politics. So I see no reason to question that, like it is questioned every year. Like the Holocaust movies, etc. And despite it being a weird year, there is still some Oscar politics in there...

Also, I think negatives, such as "edgy material" can hurt the perception of a movie. Let's take fantasy and Lord of the Rings as an example. Fantasy was a hurdle that had to be overcome, but when Return of the King came out, I would actually say that instead of a hurdle, it was all of the sudden a question of asking the Academy "why NOT award a fantasy film?". I completely believe the liabilities can become assets and assets can become liabilities. Typical Oscar aiming films like Cinderella Man or Walk the Line with their mediocre scripts and over melodramatic plotlines suffer more in a year that is becoming about indies than typical, when things like Seabiscuit and Ray slide easily into nominations.

It works both ways. But that's part of the race.

I do agree that it's quality can't be denied, but I also believe that it's themes play strongly in it's favor. Put Brokeback Mountain up against a film of the exact same quality, but take out the controversial subject matter, and it wouldn't be in the position of frontrunner like Brokeback Mountain is. I'd say Good Night, and Good Luck probably fits that description.

Don't jinx things.

The support for Crash baffles me- the most critical people in the world seem to absolutely adore it!! It doesn't make much sense.

Have no fear, it won't win anything big. I'm almost sure of it.... but what do I know? It's just too weak at this point, with pictures like Brokeback, Munich, and Good Luck hogging the light imo.

We'll see after tomorrow night just where the support is, but then again, Crash wasn't nominated irrc.... still leaves it as the dark horse.

I was just thinking about this today actually (applying it to Brokeback of course, since I just saw it). I mean, people can say it's the subject matter or whatever that's responsible for garnering all the attention, but honestly, if a the movie was crafted by a lesser known director, had lesser known stars, it's quite possible that it would not have garnered all of this buzz throughout Hollywood. Not taking anything away from the picture's quality though