"I Hope Brokeback Doesn't Win"

This is yet another one of those posts inspired by something written by someone else. I respect Connie Lane very much. For my money there are few who have as deep and intuitive understanding and appreciation of cinema.

She's pretty riled by folks rooting against Brokeback.

There seems to be an implicit assumption that if it does win, it will simply be because of the issue - a mere gesture on behalf of the Academy at legitimizing the homosexual lifestyle.

She appears to be pulling for Brokeback, which is fine by me. Not having seen the movie I can't speak fully to its merits or demerits. She has seen it, and explains why she believes it deserves recognition. She goes into further detail about other "controversial" films and their corresponding AMPAS attention. You really should click through and read it, if you have time.

While this is all well and good and fine and dandy...it's what she says at the end that gets me.

Although, I have to say that I'm quite sad that so few people seem to have seen any of the nominated films and that there is a staggeringly low interest in what happens Sunday night. 2005 was a great year for films, and each of the Best Picture nominees is worth a look, no matter what side of their issues you're on.

2005 was a great year. For films. See, that's the thing. We have films and we have movies. There are some years that--my hand to heaven--I swear I feel like Hollywood is conducting some sort of Freshman Seminar. The Seminar part wouldn't be so bad if I didn't also keenly feel the Freshman angle. The being-talked-down-to business that is so excruciating. It seems like whenever filmmakers undertake any issue, whether it's Ang Lee's homosexual cowpokes or Mel Gibson's violently bleeding Jesus, they approach it as though they have a beacon of knowledge to bring the rest of us ignorant monkeys. There is an implicit sense of the audience not being able to fully grasp a situation until Kindly Mr. Celluloid shows us. None of us get how hard unrequited love is until we watch Ennis and the other guy wrestle with it. None of us grasp the suffering of Jesus until Mel paints oozing scabs on an actor. There's a fundamental lack of respect for the audience that unites these pictures, in my opinion. It boils down to this.

Films are created for the filmmakers. Movies are created for the audience.

I don't go in much for films anymore. I've had my life with its ups and downs. I continue to meet interesting people and have full and varied experiences. Thanks to the internet and global connectivity I can have a conversation with the actual people at the heart of any issue. If I want to know about the gay life I can ask an actual gay person. I don't have to pay ten dollars to see a bunch of straight people pantomime the struggles of fake gay people. There are too many lenses there, refracting the light of actual human experience. Not that that's always bad, because you can learn from fiction. But in Film they don't want to let you learn through experience. They want to lecture, to preach.

Movies are different. Movies are where you can go to escape from life and be entertained. Really good movies can also have a lesson, but it doesn't hit you over the head--and the lesson isn't the primary point of the work. I may be able to talk to Catholics and gay people over the internet, but I'll never get the visceral thrill of seeing an elf slide a shield down castle steps. That's the stuff you get in a good movie.

Frankly, I don't care who walks away the victor on Sunday night. As far as I'm concerned, I know who lost already. All of us who crave good escapist entertainment.