March 08, 2006
So Why Did Ang Lee Win Best Director?
It's not a rule by any stretch of the imagination, but USUALLY when a person wins the Best Director Oscar, the movie he/she directed also ends up taking the Best Picture Oscar. So Ang Lee wins best director... but Brokeback Mountain didn't take best picture. What gives?
I've gone on record and said I thought Brokeback was an overrated film... and yet I also said that I had no problems with the fact that Ang Lee took best director. So a Movie Blog reader asked me a very fair question the other day. He asked me "And if the Academy are so infallible when it comes to Crash, why did Brokeback win Best Director?"
Here's my answer to that question. It may not be a very good answer (most of my answers are never any good), but it is how I see it. So here it goes:
Think of it in terms of a sports analogy (John and his bloody sports analogies). You have one coach who has a team made entirely up of all-star players. His team goes on to win the championship. On the other hand, you have a second coach who has a team that finished in dead last in the previous year, but he took them to the championship game with year (and lost). Who wins the "Coach of the Year" award? The guy who won the title with an all star team or the guy with a much less talented team but made it to the finals anyway. USUALLY the award goes to the second coach (in sports anyway).
I personally thought Ang Lee did as good of a job telling the story of Brokeback Mountain as could possibly be done. It wasn't (just in my opinion) nearly as strong of a story as most of the other nominated films, and he didn't have the same calibre of talent working with him as some of the other films either. Make no mistake about it, Brokeback Mountain was a HARD story to tell, and Ang Lee did a great job with it.
So no, Brokeback Mountain was not the best film of the year... but yes... I do think Lee deserved the best director nod. But that's just all my opinion. Your thoughts?
Posted by John Campea at March 8, 2006 10:12 AM
Comments
Posted by: Hamid at March 8, 2006 10:27 AM
What happens if you replace one of the boys with a girl? Would it still be a good story? Are we so not used to the idea of a gay love story that we praise the story because it's original, not good?
Just a few questions.
Posted by: Joel Gustafsson at March 8, 2006 10:35 AM
I agree. Brokeback would be just the standard love movie if it was about hetero-love, which means the story is too weak. In a few years when homo-love movies are all over the place, Brokeback will not be considered as one of the bests. Compare to Crouching Tiger.
I also agree about Crash being the Best Movie, and Ang Lee the Best Director. Why? Cause directing Heath Ledger to his best performance ever can't be an easy task. :)
Posted by: Henrik at March 8, 2006 10:59 AM
"What happens if you replace one of the boys with a girl? Would it still be a good story?"
It wouldn't be the same movie. What would happen if you replaced Capote with Weird Al? What would happen if you replaced an Aids victim with someone with a cold in Philadelphia? What would happen if you replaced a cybernetic robot from the future with a stock broker in Terminator?
The story is the story. If you replace anything with anything then it's a different movie. I don't understand the point of the question.
Posted by: Jay C. at March 8, 2006 12:24 PM
I'm with you on the idea that Brokeback probably didn't deserve Best Picture, but Ang Lee could have deserved Best Director.
First, in recent years the trend of the two awards going together has been falling apart. There were two to three years in a row where it didn't work that way, and I think this year was ripe for it, in fact I predicted it. Any year where one movie isn't a very, very clear front-runner, they tend to seperate the awards.
Secondly, any award for a PERSON tends to become a bit of a "lifetime acheivement" award rather than for that one particular movie or performance. I think along with what you said, this is part of the reason it was given to Ang Lee. He's shown his talent time and again and not won before, so they thought "Oh, Ang Lee, he's such a good director..."
I don't think it's a very telling or even all that interesting thing that he won best director and the film didn't win best picture. I've been following the Oscars for more than a decade, and to me it makes perfect sense. You have to think of the Oscars as a middle school student government election, there is only so much of it to do with who is best for the job and a lot of factors coming in from elsewhere.
As for what would happen if you replaced one of the boys with a girl, yes it COULD still be the same story, the same heartwrenching romance. I'm a big believer that we're not advanced enough in accepting homosexuality until we're willing to look at the relationships OUTSIDE the genders. There is a story at the heart of it, and usually you can replace the genders of half the characters of a film and have it still be as compelling. Could you with this one? I don't know, because I didn't find it that compelling to begin with. I like only certain kinds of romantic stories and this wasn't one of them, no matter how you connect it.
Posted by: Meiran at March 8, 2006 01:14 PM
I loved both "Crash" and "Brokeback Mountain". I thought the acting in both was amazing. I loved "Crash" for making me think, I loved "Brokeback Mountain' for making me feel.
now Joel-- I don't think you can simply say what would happen if you replaced one of the boys for a girl, would it still be as good. Maybe if it was a girl of a different race you could compare-- but I doubt many white on white relationships that are straight have to deal with the disgust or hatred that gay couples/ mixed race couples had to goo through in the time period as "Brokeback Mountain" Maybe I'm biased as a thirty year old gay guy, who couldn't come out until I was 18 and out of high school. I was ridiculed everyday of high school for people just thinking I was guy. I'm not sure I would have made it out alive, if it was known for sure I was gay. The story of "Brokeback Mountain" wouldn't be the same if you simply replaced a guy with a girl. You wouldn't have Ennis (Heath) not wanting to confront his feelings-- his self hate, his denial. Jack and Ennis are two men who have to live a lie because they know that they wouldn't be excepted in the world. I do find it a beautiful sad love story -- well written and acted. The pain I felt watching Michelle Williams character. She gave a wonderful performance. Heath Ledger, who I can't believe how good he was, was amazing and so touching. And this is the guy who gave us a completely different performance than in "The Lords Of Dogtown" in the same year.
And yes, maybe because I still can' get married in this country, or some states legally even have sex, or if I kissed my boyfriend in public I'd get the sh-t kicked out of me (in some areas), or that if I wanted to adopt in most states I couldn't, or that there is guy in Ohio who is running for Senate who want homosexuality punished by death- I feel different than some other viewers. These things may cloud my judgement. But I found the movie to be so moving, filled with so much love. I found it a beautiful movie just to look at, just to listen to. A movie that I'll think about for along time. It's a Romeo and Juliet sort of love story
I understand "Crash" winning--It is a great movie, with a great message as well. It has a large (very large) cast that give wonderful perfromances. This being an award that most voters are actors -- I understand why it won.
just some of my thoughts
Posted by: Colin at March 8, 2006 03:06 PM
Hamid says, "And Spielberg got best director for Saving Private Ryan but lost Best Picture to Shakespeare in Love, and neither of those movies deserved any recognition."
I was just about to make this point, but then it wasnt in the same way that Hamid put it, so just out of interest Hamid, which film that year (1998) should have won Best Picture, if in your opinion, neither SPR or SiL deserved it?
The other nominees for Best Picture in 1998 were:
The Thin Red Line
Life is Beautiful
Elizabeth
Posted by: Simone at March 8, 2006 05:26 PM
Ang Lee won because he was way past due. Remember "Sense and Sensibility", and "Crouching Tiger and Hidden Dragon"? Although I didn't care too much for "Brokeback" (mediocre in my opinion) I would have been more upset if Mr. Lee didn't take home the golden boy. Congrats, Ang!!
Posted by: poodle at March 8, 2006 08:35 PM
Simone: Definitely The Thin Red Line. That was a masterpiece of cinema and a far, far superior World War II movie to Private Ryan.
Crap movies winning Best Pic is not uncommon. We all know the gruesome history of Oscar injustices, like Rocky beating Taxi Drive, Terms of Endearment beating Raging Bull, Dances with Wolves beating Goodfellas and Titanic beating LA Confidential. And while Mel Gibson and Ron Howard have Best Director Oscars, Scorsese has never won it, and Hitchcock and Kubrick never got one either!
Posted by: Hamid at March 9, 2006 07:17 AM
This is not unprecedented. Oliver Stone got best director for Born on the 4th of July but lost Best Pic to Driving Miss Daisy, which was a bland, safe movie. And Spielberg got best director for Saving Private Ryan but lost Best Pic to Shakespeare in Love, and neither of those movies deserved any recognition.