The House Next Door

I'm astonished that THE NEW WORLD wasn't even nominated for best editing. Are only film editors allowed to vote in that category? If so, I have to wonder how qualified 99% of them are for their assumed profession... they should be ashamed.

"As both a liberal and a critic, that worries me because it means liberalism really is in hopeless disarray, and that people at the highest level of the film industry have lost even a cursory interest in aesthetics and are interested only in getting rich and publically reassuring themselves that they're still good people."
Well said. I'm just sick and tired of all this Hollywood self-congratulatory bullsh*t. These awards are just a tug to their egos because they know that the closest they'll get to the oppression of minorities is by recognizing films that pretend to be insightful about minorities. They're that removed from reality.

I guess I'm a big Jon Stewart lover but I thought his comments about Three 6 Mafia were rather affectionate-- especially when he said "that's how you accept an Oscar!" I don't know, I felt like he set a good tone. And his first line after their win, "I think it just got a little easier out there for a pimp," was the line of the night. I don't think he was making fun of them.

Yeah, that was a great line, and I love Stewart, too. But the only aspect of his comedy that bugs me is his recurring tendency to repeat African-American vernacular with implied quote marks around it. There was some of that happening last night. To paraphrase De Niro in "Goodfellas," he was makin' fun of them a li'l bit.

I was actually most psyched for Rachel Weisz winning for The Constant Gardener, which was my Best Picture vote for 2005. Sometimes the hype machine steers away from the clear favorite (which she was, after winning a Globe and a SAG award).

While I liked Amy Adams in Junebug for her unblinkingly sincere perf, I thought the movie was very much from the "Sundance sensation" mold, in that it was a very slight story that took an issue or marginalized group to elevate it's stature somehow. Junebug was a Hal Hartley movie down South with more "A-list" indie actors. And I was wondering in a category like Best Supporting, if she'd steal it away a la Tomei or Sorvino had in the past.

Weisz I think has finally made The Leap, and I look forward to her work in Aronofsky's The Fountain later this year (fingers crossed).

Highlight of the night: "For those keeping score: "Scorsese 0, Three Six Mafia 1".

I didn't here much mockery in his voice - just playfulness...but so many great jokes died on that crowd! They seem to love in-jokes with fellow chums like Crystal and Whoopi, but find Stewart too acerbic, snide, smart-ass. The Colbert campaign ads were brilliant too.

And why did both Brokeback screenwriters try to define art? It's so pretentious, so empty..."art is the mirror?" Don't quote Brecht at this empty spectacle. Don't bring your goods to town day after day, and then sing your song of praise.

The complete shut-out of Munich is the bigger disgrace. I'll take the horror and disgust of the Dutch prostitute assassination over the easy answers of what has just passed (I'm Australian...the broadscast just finished here...)

Stewart did a great job of deflating the broadcast's inherent pomposity; the staging of the song from CRASH was an utter atrocity that brought nothing to mind so much as the words, "Ladies and gentlemen, Debbie Allen." (Seriously, what happened to Toby's wife?) After the insufferably self-congratulatory and overtly offensive "controversial classics" montage, which a) takes credit for movies Hollywood had nothing to do with producing, b) trivializes the very nature of non-conformity, and c) includes ON THE WATERFRONT, whose eight Oscar wins were in part the Academy's way of rewarding Kazan and Schulberg for naming names, and none-too-subtle message to blacklistees that they could go fuck themselves -- I was actively praying for something just like Stewart's "And none of those issues were ever a problem again." This was, as you might guess, my big scream-at-the-TV moment of the night.

Wonderful moments: The Altman tribute, hands-down. Maybe it was me, or the mic-ign in the auditorium, which seemed to reduce all applause to a tepid median (thus removing the morbid fun of rating the montage of dead people by applause meter), but it really sounded like the crowd didn't "get" what Tomlin and Streep were doing for an awfully long time. The fact that they're ignorant of Altman's work was made painfully clear by the awarding of the best picture statue to a pallid, wrong-headed NASHVILLE knock-off.

Some other good moments, I was particularly impressed by Dolly Parton, who has more stage presence in one rhinestone-bedecked finger than the rest of the evening's performers combined. The Oscars really reveal how hapless even major stars are in front of a live audience. Thank god they didn't stage a TRANSAMERICA dance number to go with her.

I think I was too bored by the end to get worked up about Crash winning. I did enjoy the look that Nicholson gave Haggis when latter hugged former, as if a very large and annoying bug had just landed on his shoulder.

I was wishing people would start thanking their hair stylists, if that meant it would save us from people taking about "art." Blah blah blah. I will now sleep better knowing that Haggis thinks art is a hammer...no, a mirror...wait, I have a hammer, and art is the mirror...no, I'm the hammer, and society is a mirror...okay, there's a hammer and a mirror...

Sam Adams: I liked the Altman tribute more than you did, actually. And I thought Dolly Parton, while singing very nicely, looked like she'd been to Faye Dunaway's plastic surgeon. Still, her voice was in fine form, as were her, um, Brokeback Mountains. I would have loved to have seen a dance number too! With Travellin' Thru's kinda gospelly feel, the number would have looked like outtakes from The Birdcage crossed with The Fighting Temptations.

That Crash musical number would have been so much better if Jacqueline Bisset had come out in a wet T-shirt. After all, wasn't that woman singing the theme song to the 1977 wank-off classic "The Deep"? She kept saying "The DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP." Bissett could have come out, and put the car-b-que out with her T-shirt.

Seriously, you're right about the Crash musical number. I asked aloud "Did they hire Debbie Allen again?" With its slo-mo, multi-culti dancers, and the incredible amount of smoke that I wish had wafted over and caused Kathleen Bird York to start choking mid-song, it looked like 28 Days Later at the Benetton.

But nothing you saw onscreen could compare with the site of yours truly, armed with my ubiquitous pimp stick, dancing around my apartment to 3-6 Mafia.

I agree that "Tom Conti's" underscoring music made the winners feel like they were on Who Wants to be a Millionaire. The entire Gil Cates premise of cutting people off mid-speech or before they can speak HAS NOT MADE THE SHOW SHORTER. Personally, I think it's quite offensive. I WISH Bill Conti had cut off 3-6 Mafia, just for the reaction it would have elicited. Headline: The Academy Awards Turned Into the Source Awards Today...

Jon Stewart is getting a bad rap as host. I thought he was funny. The Oscars are a very hard emcee job, and I'm getting sick of the whiny people who keep comparing EVERYBODY to Billy Crystal's debut as host. Not even Billy himself was as good in later years. Get over it!

The regulars on this blog know that I had an Oscar bet with the landlord of The House Next Door. I went 17 for 24, which guaranteed me din-din on Mr. Zoller Seitz's dime. MZS sent his fellow Brooklyn resident Michelle Williams to my house to yell out "Odienator...Odie Nasty!" So, no East River lobster for Matt.

However, some props are in order, as he did call Crash for best picture. That was a ballsy move, and unfortunately, the correct call. So, the first drink's on me at the Odie Oscar Contest Celebratory Dinner Bash.

I've been reading other blogs (yes, I'm cheating on you, MZS!) and I keep hearing that homophobia was the reason Brokeback didn't win. That's a bunch of bullshit. While the folks in Chelsea have a right to be pissed off, Crash didn't win because the Academy is afraid of Red Hot Rumpy Pumpy on the Range. It won because, as MZS's other Crash post pointed out, Hollywood loves patting itself on the back over films they consider "important issues." So stop blaming Oprah and the NAACP. Last I looked, AMPAS wasn't exactly full of minorities and women, so I doubt either Oprah or the NAACP had anything to do with this. Blame Oprah for brainwashing women instead!

In closing: Do the Right Thing got two Oscar nominations, losing its screenplay award to the hideous Dead Poet's Society. DTRT wasn't up for Best Picture nor director. Despite what one may feel for that movie or its subject matter, I doubt anyone could argue that DTRT is more alive, more rambunctious, more clever, and better done than anything in Crash. But then again, I look at what won Best Picture that year, and realize that I should have been as prescient as MZS was when he predicted a Crash upset. If a movie about racism makes you feel comfortable or superior afterwards, then it's worth the Oscar. If a movie makes you do some self-examination, or shakes you to your core about racism, or anything for that matter, it's too hot for AMPAS. Go figure.

The fact that they're ignorant of Altman's work was made painfully clear by the awarding of the best picture statue to a pallid, wrong-headed NASHVILLE knock-off.

Wait, wasn't it a pallid, wrong-headed SHORT CUTS knockoff?

I thought Jon Stewart did a great job. But I thought Chris Rock did a great job too. Maybe I'm just under 25 years old.

I thought Jon Stewart did a great job. But I thought Chris Rock did a great job too. Maybe I'm just under 25 years old.

I agree with you, and I haven't been under 25 in BLEEP years. Damn that 5 second ABC delay!

I find it interesting that you seemed to think Jon Stewart did a creditable job when everybody else in the real world thought he sucked and was so pedestrian and uninvolved it was like Bob Hope was hosting - after Hope was dead.

By the way, homophobia didn't lose it for "Brokeback Mountain" - the movie sucked - no pun intended.

Liberalism will always be in disarray because liberals can't decide what to be liberal about - most dysfunctional out-of-touch political movement since the Wooblies. The Oscars could only go one way and that was "Crash" which was at the very least, a decent movie. The fact that some didn't like it because it was reflective of something they thought was well and done is beside the point.

The worst was the montage illustrating Hollywood's supposed political convictions, and the Sam Jackson speech that preceeded it. If that moment of mastubration didn't tell ya "Crash" was gonna win, I can't help ya.

And I thought Chicago was a deplorable Best Picture winner.

The tribute to Altman was outstanding. He is genius.

As for CRASH, it is apparent the quality of Paul Haggis' writing is unmatched. With these writing credits to his name how could we expect anything else?

"Walker, Texas Ranger"
"The Return of the Shaggy Dog "
"The Facts of Life"
"The Puppy's Further Adventures"
"Diff'rent Strokes"
"The Love Boat"
"One Day at a Time"

Love your blog. It's everything my blog is not. I'm too scared to write anything so I just parrot.

I thought Stewart acquitted himself well. He was obviously nervous in the monologue, but he soon got his footing and his taped bits were funnier than anything Billy Crystal came up with in a decade. I'm surprised that the prevailing media opinion seems to be that he fell flat, but I suspect it's more them wanting to bring him down a few notches after building him up so much. Then again, maybe it's because he mentioned on Larry King last week that he re-watched Letterman's Oscar telecast and said it was much funnier than its reputation. I give Stewart a thumbs-up for dissing Chuck Workman's monotonous montages alone.

For my money, they've gone as far as they need to go in the direction of "deflating pomposity." I miss Cher in a headress, Jennifer Lopez and others in almost nothing, Michael Moore yanked off with a hook, and other assorted looney tune festivities.

This ceremony ought to be chaotic, riotous, an exhibition of extremes of both good and bad taste. What is the necessity of all that subdued respectability?

It's a sign of the times, I suppose. A buck is harder to come by these days. Don't offend potential customers, even if they're not going to pay to see the current crop of nominees.

It's a Jerry Bruckheimer world, and screw him all to hell.

My question is: When are they going to let Conan host?

Is this even a possibility?

Yeah, I'm kind of baffled by the bad reviews Stewart is getting this morning. But I felt the same way about Letterman way back when.

I agree with everything you said. Thought Jon Stewart did a great job hosting. That Robert Altman has to wait 35 years to finally be recognized and the big pile of pseudo-importance that is Crash can win Best Picture shows once again how the Oscars never get it.

Odie:

Just to be clear, I loved the Altman tribute. I'm just not sure the crowd got it. Loved the way that, like a good Altman movie, it took a while to figure out what the hell was going on -- and showed how hard it is to pull off such seemingly disorganized crosstalk.

tim said...

For my money, they've gone as far as they need to go in the direction of "deflating pomposity." I miss Cher in a headress, Jennifer Lopez and others in almost nothing, Michael Moore yanked off with a hook, and other assorted looney tune festivities.

This ceremony ought to be chaotic, riotous, an exhibition of extremes of both good and bad taste. What is the necessity of all that subdued respectability?


Why in the world would you be actively opposed to subdued respectability? For me, Morgan Freeman was one of the few shining lights of the night, indicating what once was (way before the headress mentality) and what could be again.

I agree with Nathaniel. The Oscars are important whether we like it or not, whether rightfully so. They are a sign of the culture. Why would you actively cheer for bad taste? Which is the equivalent of actively cheering for Crash to win... And frankly, the kind of irony-soaked, cynical apathy, watching and cheering for a train-wreck culture. Crash is a fucking joke of a movie. But as least it's not Forrest Gump, Braveheart, Chicago.....

Hey Anonymous (above): I have to disagree that CRASH is better than "...Forrest Gump, Braveheart, Chicago..." I think aesthetically it's worse. It really does feel like a public service announcement from the people who brought you SIX FEET UNDER. The first two movies you mentioned were, I thought, superlative examples of film craft, and ultimately that's what makes a movie stand the test of time -- not what the movie says, but how it says it. That's my main beef with CRASH. There is nothing wrong with its message (though it is rather trite, and I would like to think we're past needing a film that expresses the message so crudely). But the message is expressed so clumsily and histrionically, in such a stacked-deck, silent-movie-melodrama way, that the film's Best Picture win makes official what pessimists have been saying for years: that the academy is more interest in applauding itself for being good liberals than in honoring aesthetically interesting films that people might actually want to watch again in five yeras. Oliver Stone's movies are didactic, too, but visually they're brilliant. You can watch them despite their deficiencies as propaganda in the same way that you can watch Peckinpah despite his racist and sexist tendencies, or enjoy Wagner's music despite his associations with Hitler. This, to me, is the real outrage: the CRASH win sends its own message, on top of the film's message, saying that aesthetics and political relevance are less important than political correctness.

The only best picture nominee that approached artistic greatness while examining relevant themes in a sophisticated way was MUNICH. And that movie was pretty much destroyed from the minute that people began pouncing on it and interpreting it literally, as if it were a documentary, rather than taking it for what it was, an opera about vengeance using people and situations drawn from reality.

Do something about it:

Sign the Petition to recall Crash's win!

http://www.petitiononline.com/crashout/petition.html

Here's another voice for Stewart. I thought he was good and funny. I thought Letterman was find as well. But I can understand why people who take the Oscars seriously would be displeased by those performances. Stewart was definitely mocking the Oscars at the same time he was hosting them. The Hollywood insiders want a Billy Crystal type who makes them feel good about themselves, not to be publicly called out for their own pretentiousness and self-regard. If the media is calling Stewart a bust I suspect it is because a lot of powerful Hollywood insiders were offended by Stewart and don't want him back. My impression from coworkers is that Stewart did pretty well.

nathaniel said:

"Why in the world would you be actively opposed to subdued respectability? For me, Morgan Freeman was one of the few shining lights of the night, indicating what once was (way before the headress mentality) and what could be again."

I am not "actively opposed to subdued respectability," unless you consider typing a blog comment some kind of activism. I did say that I missed the other extreme. Morgan Freeman is great and so is George Clooney and Meryl Streep, etc. It's just that when there is no contrast any more, then obviously the signal to noise ratio is compressed and the affair becomes dull. It used to be the case that when a classy gentleman or woman came up after some lout had made a fool of him or herself, you could appreciate them and feel relieved.


anonymous said:

"I agree with Nathaniel. The Oscars are important whether we like it or not, whether rightfully so."

Oh, says you.


"They are a sign of the culture."

Cinema is actually pretty far removed from being a direct indicator of the culture. Get out in it and see for yourself. Your movie habit is ridiculous.

"Why would you actively cheer for bad taste? . . . "

Again, I don't actively cheer for bad taste. But I suspect that the lack of variation is not due to good taste but to other, less benign factors in society.

"Which is the equivalent of actively cheering for Crash to win... And frankly, the kind of irony-soaked, cynical apathy, watching and cheering for a train-wreck culture."

Oh please, who's the wanker here? Not me, maybe you.

"Crash is a fucking joke of a movie." . . ."

I think Crash was crap.

"But as least it's not Forrest Gump, Braveheart, Chicago....."

I'm no fan of those three either. But now you're trying to argue the merits of which film was less crappy. Maybe that argument is a sign of the culture, too, but I'm not interested.

Everything goes in cycles, as does the conflict between respectability and acting up. You can study the entire list of films made last year and then talk to me about an upsurge of good taste if you still believe that.

Actually, in the state of the nation today, anyone who "acts up" or speaks critical ly of the prevailing redneck , come-to-Jesus, war on everyone else, fascist-leaning, bankrupt the government, conform or else mentality, risks a hell of a lot, and few can stand up to the echo.

I don't believe the pose of subdued respectability. I believe the fear of idiot media, Joan Rivers, fashion Nazis, and red-state reactionary hatred is what's really behind the dullness.

...the word "artist" no longer means "a stubborn or pretentious person," but has instead evolved to mean "a person who sends out prosocial, preferably liberal messages.
I totally agree. I felt the same way. I felt like some films that deserved something last night, ended up taking a back seat.

Jon Stewart's reaction to the 3-6 Mafia winning an Oscar is precisely the kind of nuanced piece of behavior that Paul Haggis and His Co-Writer ignored when they holed up in the Chateau Marmont to bang out Crash, and also the reason why a turd-filled twinkie like Crash did win the award for Best Picture.

Stewart, like most showbiz types, was seemingly befuddled, frightened and entertained by the 3-6 Mafia, as if the three African-American men were zoo animals. When you take into account that most of the people in the Kodak Theatre do not normally come within spitting distance of an African-American unless the African-American is begging for change or the African-American is giving them change at the drive-thru, it makes perfect sense that they would stroke themselves backing a movie that may have been slightly relevant (if still not completely over-bearing) back in 1991. To think that George Clooney's heart would not be racing were he to be left alone in a room with the 3-6 Mafia is to suffer from the same kind of psuedo-liberal myopia that allows for African-Americans to be invited to the dance as long as they dress funky, dance like it's 1899, act like exploitation stereotypes and don't make eye contact with Kate Bosworth. Let's not forget that these are the same people who gave Halle Berry an award for showing her breasts ("It's about time. I mean, why do you think we keep you around?") and acting as if having rough couch sex with Billy Bob is the wormhole into the fifth-dimension of ecstacy.

And can someone please explain to me why they keep trotting out John Travolta as if it's 1978?

A different anonymous - I'm too lazy to register right now, I apologize.

Matt said, "And that movie was pretty much destroyed from the minute that people began pouncing on it and interpreting it literally, as if it were a documentary, rather than taking it for what it was, an opera about vengeance using people and situations drawn from reality."

I don't disagree with you, but Spielberg's film did choose to deal with "people and situations drawn from reality" and it gains in prestige, coverage, "importance" from that decision. While you can't read it in an entirely literal way, it would be wrong to completely disregard the film's context and literal content. If Speilberg wants to make a film about vengeance, he doesn't have to choose to make it about the Israeli - Palestine conflict. But, of course, he wanted to address this conflict. And so the film has to be viewed in light of that. It's not a fantasy. It's not strictly a metaphor. It involves history, and that must be reckoned with. The people judging the film on these terms are not completely wrong-headed.

Dear other anonymous: You write, "The people judging the film on these terms are not completely wrong-headed." I would agree so long as those were not the only terms on which MUNICH was judged. And by and large, those were the only terms employed in the numerous takedown pieces published during the last couple of months.

Steven Spielberg is a powerful man and an important filmmaker, and I am sure he won't lose a minute of sleep over what happened last night. But I still fear that MUNICH, like Oliver Stone's JFK and NIXON, Michael Cimino's THE DEER HUNTER, Coppola's APOCALYPSE NOW and Michael Moore's FAHRENHEIT 9/11 (not a straightfoward documentary as we usually think of it, but closer to a movie equivalent of the first-person, slightly fanciful nonfiction essays Norman Mailer wrote in the 1960s and 1970s) were all subjected to this same limited standard of criticism, and deemed worthless, sorely compromised or dangerous. THE DEER HUNTER won an Oscar anyway, but a lot of people still consider it pernicious because it dares to portray white ethnic conservatives sympathetically and because the North Vietnamese had no historical record of inflicting Russian roulette games on their prisoners; I am still not sure how Cimino's film perservered, perhaps it was a fluke.

This type of just-the-facts reading denies the complexity of movies, which at their most advanced, offer us more than we can get from attending a play, watching a typical network drama or reading a historical text. Stone's JFK, for example, was pilloried in its time for visualizing various conspiracy theories and suggesting how they all could be combined in one master theory. Critics who dismantled the movie on purely factual terms missed Stone's point, which was encoded right there in the movie's style and even explained, at arguably excessive length, by protagonist Jim Garrison. Stone's message -- he always has one -- was not that Cubans, the mob and Lyndon Johnson killed Kennedy, but that the military industrial complex and big business actually have more power over America's progress than voters, and that the cult of secrecy which surrounds the executive branch generally, and JFK's assassination in particular, left Americans no choice but to rummage through rumor and innuendo and hypothesize any scenario they liked. That movie holds up exceptionally well. In fact, the further away from JFK's death we get, the more prescient and timeless its message seems.

Similarly, MUNICH is less a direct examination of the massacre and its aftermath than an epic poem of atrocity and revenge. It's about how vengeance systematically destroys the lives of all who participate in it, even those who seem well-adjusted, and how the understandable desire for justice leaves people open to manipulation by their government. This message, too, will stand the test of time. The movie will survive as a drama and a demonstration of filmmaking skill long after the real event's historical specifics have been forgotten. MUNICH's message -- yes, it has one -- will inform real world discussion of atrocity and vengeance, not because Spielberg got every detail right, but because he made much larger points through his mastery of form.

I'm not saying historical films should not be judged by standards of accuracy. I'm saying that should be one factor among many, and that most of the other factors should take precedence, because we're talking about art, not journalism.

PS -- I realize Moore's movie won best documentary, but I still think it belongs on the list above, because its larger agenda -- showing how cronyism and fearmongering combined to drive the country in a particular direction -- was demonstrated through Moore's filmmaking, which is extraordinary, if often in questionable taste. Almost nobody who wrote about that movie actually wrote about the filmmaking, much less connected it to Moore's intent and then juxtaposed the two to arrive at a verdict of whether the film was good or not. In other words, I think it won the Oscar for the wrong reasons, because it was an election year. That film deserves a much deeper examination than it generally received. I wish I had a repertory house so I could show it on a double bill with JFK and compare certain sequences to better explain what I mean. In discussions like these, words will only take you so far.

Matt, a slightly tangential note but worth pursuing: what in the hell happened to Cimino anyway? He makes a string of masterpieces, then a shockingly underrated great film (Sunchaser--which, by the way, is shamefully still unavailable on DVD) and falls into complete obscurity? Is there some kind of online petition that could force somebody somewhere to give him some money to make another film? I heard his last completed script was about Pizarro and his explorations in South America...dear God I'd love to see that. Please, please, please consider doing an entry on him at some point in the future as I, at least, have a number of things I'd like to say about him. Hell, let's do a damn blog-a-thon!

Hey, Nathaniel--

I'm not participating in any blogathons for a while because I'm too exhausted from this one. (Though I will certainly take part in the upcoming Abel Ferrara blog-a-thon.) That said, I'm probably going to write about THE DEER HUNTER sometimes soon because, frankly, I love that movie and never tire of watching it. If you want to write a general piece on Cimino, I'd encourage you to do so. Do you have a blog? If not, send it to me and I'll post it here . Jeremiah Kipp did a guest post a while back and it was a big success.

Matt, others — I went into a rant over at Dennis' site about last night's orgy of self-congratulation, but the more I think about it, my gut instinct tells me that MUNICH may be the only film we might be talking about 5-10 years from now on last night's Oscar shortlist.

In sort of a non sequitur, one other thought I had last night was that Spike Lee must really be pissed. I don't know how all of you feel about his work, but even in his most uneven movies, I find some interesting ideas and vibrant, visual filmmaking. He's a real moviemaker, if nothing else, and he must be shaking his head at how they could award CRASH the big enchilada and ignore his deeper examinations of race and modern society in DO THE RIGHT THING, BAMBOOZLED, 25th HOUR, GET ON THE BUS, MALCOLM X, even parts of SHE HATE ME. I really feel that his work is going to take on deeper resonance as the years go by, and all the noise about his media personality dissipates and critics focus solely on the work. Of course, a lot of you might disagree. In fact, once we all recover from Altman, I'd suggest Lee as a good blog-a-thon subject. Has anybody seen THE INSIDE MAN yet?

I don't want to step on the Ferrara blogathon, which I believe is scheduled for sometime next month. But Spike Lee seems like a great subject. It would give me a chance to defend HE GOT GAME, which I am slowly falling in love with, eight years after giving it a very mixed review.

Okay. I'll take the bait. First of all, F9/11 was ineligible for the award last year--Born into Brothels won--but I know that these pesky "facts" are not important to the discussion, so I'll let it slide. Still no matter how hard you try, Moore can never be turned into Chris Marker or Ross McElwee, or even Norman Mailer, whose Vietnam-era journalism (and I include Armies of the Night) has not aged well. MM's crude propaganda was interesting for the first ten minutes of the film (Congressional Black Caucus, "was it all a dream?", etc.), but then it became clear that this was not a subjective documentary about an honest person's reaction to the previous five years. It was an insult to the intelligence of any well-informed voter (most of whom were already not voting Republican) and a flat-out insult to anyone whose mind it felt like changing. JFK, because it took place so long after the fact, and because reasonable people could accept that Oswald acted alone and still enjoy Stone's technique, was a great examination of paranoia--mostly because it was made by such a virtuoso nutball, someone with a love-hate relationship to his own paranoia. F9/11, instead, was just a bad campaign commercial. Where's the artistry? Why spoil a defense of so many great films, including Munich, by putting them into the same category as Moore's least-distinguished film?

You're right, Joel. Moore's BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE won Best Documentary, which is where Moore made his rabble-rousing acceptance speech. I've been operating on very little sleep this past few days, so I apologize.

I still think it's possible to muster a formal defense of F 9/11 on the grounds l laid out, but I'm bleary eyed and developing carpal tunnel, so I think I'll butt out for awhile.

You're right about Stone having a love-hate relationship with his own paranoia, though. That self-awareness makes him interesting, and is a saving grace when he's at his most histrionic.

PS -- You say Mailer's cosmic nonfiction hasn't aged well, but I disagree. I've been rereading THE TIME OF OUR TIME pretty regularly over the last year, and I feel a stronger sense of personal connection to that era through Mailer than I do through most straightforward histories.

I'm still having a lot of trouble reconciling the Crash win.

"Hasn't aged well" is one of my least favorite critical expressions. I don't know how it slipped past my linguistic firewall. That said, I always felt there was less to Mailer's first-person/third-person split than people assumed ("He's so vacuous, it must be a brilliant act!"). But, since you're reading him now, and I haven't picked him up in a couple of years, I'd be happy to take your word. Moore, however, is even less aware of himself as a character than Mailer was, so I can't give him credit for doing the same kind of personal-essay reportage. Sorry to hijack the Crash discussion. I thought that a discussion about something else would take our minds off the debacle.

Yeah, no big deal.

People sure are pissed, though. I can't recall anything this intense in my lifetime, can you?

MZS, I can't remember when people were this pissed over a win! People were indifferent to the Chariots of Fire win, and to Lauren Bacall's loss. This seems to have really hit the hornet's nest with a big ass rock!

TLRHB: one other thought I had last night was that Spike Lee must really be pissed.

You weren't the only one who had that thought. I mentioned Spike in my post earlier.

Hollywood seems uncomfortable when non-Whites tell their stories. It's OK if a White person tells a Black story (Cry Freedom), or if a story about Black history is seen through the eyes of Whites (see Glory, and if you're a masochist who wishes to be miseducated, Mississippi Burning), or a straight director tells a gay story. But when the subordinate culture speaks for itself, it's treated almost as if we do not know what we're talking about, and therefore should not be taken seriously.

Spike Lee, like Altman, makes movies that have a unique style, provoke deep thought, offer no easy answers, and, on occasion, are terrible. Also like Altman, I don't think Lee will ever win a competitive Oscar (nor you either, Marty).

When Do the Right Thing came out, people like Jack Kroll and Joe Klein were practically screaming "the darkies are gonna see this and kill de White people!" (Klein's quote, courtesy of Inside Oscar, goes "black teenagers won't find [the film's message] so hard...white people are your enemy.") Here was this angry Black man from Brooklyn by way of Atlanta making statements about race on film. Suddenly, the world was going to end--and the Revolution Was Not Going to be Televised. I went to the theater, and when there was no rioting, I asked if I had missed the revolution these critics were prophesizing.

Where were these same ominous premonitions before Crash opened? If anything, I think Crash is more incendiary. Is Crash more palatable, and therefore more award-worthy, because it was coming from the standard prototype of an Oscar voter?

I'm sure this will be examined further whenever you do the Spike Entry in the near future. (I would love to take a crack at that opening post when you do, MZS!)

Actually, I'm enjoying the outrage. For once, the controversy is over aesthetics, not political issues (Million-Dollar Baby) or questions of biographical accuracy (A Beautiful Mind). The whole Ebert/Foundas thing was fun because they were each forced to argue about Crash as a work of art, not as a political button-pusher. Of course, this would all be better if members of the damn Academy would engage in similar debates...

Odie: I can't wait to see you write about Spike Lee. You should actually do an article for your site. I think your last comment might be the wheelhouse for whatever you do end up writing.

During the Altman montage, from what film were the several shots of what looked like an impressionist painter...?

That was from "Vincent and Theo."

For a capsule essay on the movie, click here. For more information about Robert Altman's movies, click here.

Matt:
So glad you're coming around on HE GOT GAME, which I've adored ever since it came out for it's musical structure, eye-popping shots (though even at his worst, Lee provides plenty of those), and that phenomenal performance from Denzel Washington (for my money, the best of his career---the moment when he opens and closes the hotel room door is genius). The thought of an upcoming Spike Lee blogathan makes me want to get a blog up toot-sweet, just so I can gush about SUMMER OF SAM and FOUR LITTLE GIRLS, two of Lee's best underrated movies, and even BAMBOOZLED, which I remain right in the middle of a pointy, pointy fence about.