I have been writing about the Oscar race for seven years. In only one of those years has my favorite film won. I am extremely familiar with disappointment. But this is the first time ever in which I've experienced people enjoying the suffering of others within the context of the Oscar races. I never got any 'you lose!' taunts when Moulin Rouge! or Sideways lost. I am suddenly reminded of childhood's "smear the queer" games and high school bullying. Kick people while they're down. Nobody ever felt the need to attack me for loving films about French courtesans, penniless writers, or wine lovers. So why the gloating at the sorry fates of gay cowboys? I think it's a valid question. But one that the gloaters would be hard pressed to answer without looking deeper inside themselves.

People will say it's about the SAG Award or the huge ensemble cast correlating with the actors branch block of votes. The SAG Award did not turn the tide for The Birdcage, Sideways, Gosford Park, or The Full Monty. Magnolia, a film from which Crash steals shamelessly, couldn't even win the SAG ensemble despite its criss- crossing narratives and large casts. These things: large ensembles and crisscrossed narratives. They do not automatically equal actor branch love. If they did Robert Altman and PT Anderson films would have had better fortunes with AMPAS.

People will say it's because Brokeback was over-rewarded and Oscar does not like to be "told" how to vote. This is the most patently false of all statements you will hear. If you find yourself agreeing with this (it seems logical, right? Hey, I admit that it does to me) you need only look at the past 77 years of history to see how much of an anomaly it is. They are not accustomed to breaking cycles of unanimous support. Whichever film is the leader going in is the one that wins UNLESS there has been significant precursor battling for pole position going on. Shakespeare in Love vs. Saving Private Ryan for instance: A horse race is a horse race is a horse race. The Oscars are not usually a horse race in the top category. Brokeback Mountain had, statistically speaking, no competition for the main prize. Certainly not Crash... which received only 6 nominations (very low for a BP winner historically and if the actors loved it so much --see false point previous paragraph-- shouldn't there have been more acting nominations? The precursors managed to give it more acting nominations. So we know there was room) and no Golden Globe BP attention --another usual death knell.

So homophobia becomes the logical scapegoat. Even if you despise the argument, as many do without truly investigating it within the context of this particular awards season, it would be the compassionate Crash-like idea to consider that that's what it might be; Uninvestigated barely-acknowledged but insidious prejudices preventing people from connecting with others (or certain works of art, *ahem*).

And one final thing. If you find yourself still in astonishment at the sorrow of many Oscar watchers...if you find yourself muttering "IT'S ONLY A MOVIE". Consider this. Repeat it: "It's Only a Movie". Is this really the response and fallback motto that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, that Hollywood itself should prompt us to embrace?

The point: It's not only a movie.

If it is more than just a movie, then it's because the film's supporters have made it more than it is.

I agree box,its just an awards show and some of you people are making it bigger than it is.

But Box, we all now Brokeback is more relevant and profound than Crash. It's not *the* movie of the decade, but its much, much better. The simple fact of the matter is the Academy promotes such investment in the movies. From the FYC campaigns to their countless of thematical and topical montages, the Academy wants us to become invested in the movies they tout as the best, and I can't help but feel most of these narcissistic Hollywood-ites really do share that investment. Watch them laugh and cry and clap in glee! It's bothersome to think that America's liberal community - they praise themselves for being our leading progressives! - gets so wound up in this process that their true demons end up showing. Yes, obviously enough of them are hypocritical homophones, and this had an effect. Because of this, I think its fair to say Crash won over BM. Does it matter? Probably not. It's just another example of the Academy being ... the Academy.

If you buy into it, it's your fault. Simply put, you should know better than to care about what it is that some people who are, as they themselves state, "out of touch".

And they're not hypocrites. I think the liberal ones did voice their opinions in support of Brokeback Mountain. Those who were not fond of BBM voiced their opinions anonymously by not voting for it.

And again: simply because you don't like BBM does not mean you're a homophobe. I can just as easily see this as a film about two men who cheat on their wives. There's nothing heart-warming or romantic about that. More than 3 million women, for example, are probably married to men who have affairs with other men. To them, BBM would be about two scumbag cheats who lied to them, their children, and their families, and who ruined their lives. There's no homophobia anywhere in that; it'd effectively be righteous indignation, since they are the ones who are wronged. That's just an example.

I'm from Canada

So am I

Useless crap. I advise everyone to to ignore the Academy and consider the impact BBM has had and will have on individual viewers. No award can change that.

I'm from Canada, so I guess the best pic nominees didn't look all that groundbreaking to me based on their subjects, but when you think about it, can one really say that Brokeback Mountain is more relevant than Crash? Case in point, Ang Lee is the first Asian director to win the best directing Oscar. But unfortunately, with all of the Crash vs Mountain hoopla over which movie should have won, and which one was more important, some of the lustre that should have gone to an entirely different category did not get the attention that it should have gotten. And unfortunately, I can say that alot of people here are guilty of that very thing.

It was just THE ONE WAY to remind everyone that we (gays) are just not there yet.

Hi!

I think Lee has been getting praise for nearly a decade. Americans are willing to work with him and see his pictures and it's great that he finally won an award. However, I *don't* think much hoopla should be made over the fact that he's Asian. That pretty much perpetuates the idea that, as "progressives" we ought to single out races and whatnot. Honoring Ang as himself is the right thing to do, not the idea that "Hey, an Asian won!". It seems like the most backwards way to acknowledge the end of racial barriers.

That said, I'm enthused to see Asians become more recognized No, it's always wonderful to see the popularization of diversity, especially in cinema. I look forward to a growing trend because it ought to yield new faces and new approaches to the film formula.

Actually, it's Hollywood's general inability to honor diverse work that's leading to it's "recession". Thinkers and average people alike are getting sick of formulaic plots, characters, and throwaway films. Of course, this scares them. They might have to share the market with others, so they'll keep trying to ignore it without being obviously racist/xenophobic.

IT'S ALL JACK NICHOLSON'S FAULT!!!