Well as I was saying in comments on other blogs "Crash" should not have won. It's basically "Do the Right Thing" meets "Magnolia" except it lacks the realism and ethnicity of the former and talented acting and charm of the later. All around it was a melodramatic piece of overwrought trash. I am however not a supporter of Brokeback mountain either. If this year was truly about political statements, Capote should have won. I actually went to see it, despite the main character being a homosexual which would have usually turned me off. What made me see it was the implied humour of the effeminate man visiting a 50's conservative small town, sort of an odd man out premise. This was how the film originally started, humorous through juxtaposition, however when the film got more serious you saw beyond simply the juxtaposition you realize he truly is internally conflicted and not that different from you and I. The scene with the daughter's friend at the house really shows this. However the Oscars shouldn't be about political statements it should be about good movies and the best movie wasn't even nominated. Of course I am talking about "A History of Violence". A film that is truly artfull in all aspects, its pacing, its acting and its perfectly used shock value. Unlike most movies about violence it neither condones or glorifies it, it simply exists and tragically must be solved through more violence, it isn't simple and it is truly artistic in the way it illustrates this. I was very upset when William Hurt lost out to Clooney, I saw both movies and Hurt deserved it for "A History of Violence".Although, I now have this theory that all really good films never win, I mean think about Scorcese and Kubrick for example they never won Oscars yet they are possibly two of the greatest directors ever. Real good movies often polarize the audiences early on and therefore will never reach unanimous praise at voting time, only long after the awards shows do they truly reach success and only time can wash away the shit like "Crash".
