Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:52 am
Jonah Hill's single funny moment in the movie and they cut it out.Eric wrote:A clip that ought to warm Penelope's heart.
Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board
The internet's oldest Oscar discussion forum.
https://uaadb.com/
Brokeback Mountain
Page 1 of 25
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:47 pm
I agree Sabin. Supporting categories should be (and weren't they intended to be) for character actors who would otherwise not be recognized. The nominations I'm happiest for are the Chris Coopers, the John C Reillys, the Patricia Clarksons. Cooper's win is still one of the very best in that category.
Actors like Gyllenhaal should be forced into their proper category (lead) and if they don't get nominated then so be it. Not everyone deserves one for showing up. This isn't fucking Little League.
Actors like Gyllenhaal should be forced into their proper category (lead) and if they don't get nominated then so be it. Not everyone deserves one for showing up. This isn't fucking Little League.
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:51 pm
But his part simply isn't as large as Travolta's, and if one was going to be supporting, it was clearly him.
No, if one was going to be supporting it was Bruce Willis. Samuel L. Jackson is a fucking lead and I'm so annoyed when this bullshit happens. It robs genuinely talented character actors of a shot at boosting their career opportunities. The leads in 'Pulp Fiction' are Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta, and if John Travolta has slightly more time it doesn't matter. Whether or not it's racism, I couldn't say. More than racism, it's annoying.
The big argument I see when an excellent (or just highly touted) performance is positioned as leading is "Well, it wouldn't be fair if they weren't nominated." THESE ARE THE OSCARS! THEY'RE NEVER FAIR! But you don't have to endorse a lie, you don't have to support the lie just because it works out better for your guy and it gets him into his category of lies. I remember seeing someone on this board post that Ralph Fiennes was supporting because it was about Rob Morrow's quest for the truth. Nothing aginst whomever it was (I forget), but let's learn from that guy. If we are to believe the Oscars, then 28 minutes or so qualifies you as a lead, which means that there really hasn't been a single Oscar-winning performance this decade that qualifies as supporting save for maybe Alan Arkin.
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:45 pm
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:13 pm
BJ, I agree with you on several scores.
Yes, the ideal would have been for both Ledger and Gyllenhaal to be nominated in lead, but that's become pretty much a non-occurrence in the Oscars now. My belief is, Raul Julia's unfathomable omission for Kiss of the Spider Woman (in favor of James Garner/Murphy's Romance?) clued people into the idea that shooting for two nods in the top category was too dicey (though obviously there had been plenty in the decades prior). Especially in the Age of Weinstein, when category-handicapping has reached computerized levels, studios woud rather take the sure bet of designating lead/supporting splits than risk missing one.
And if you're going to do that, your lead choice is going to be the character who's the bigger audience focus -- which often translates to the character who has the strongest conflict. It's possible gay men simply view this differently, but, for most audiences, the guy who's struggling with confusion and self-denial is going to emerge as the focal point more than the guy who just wants to get on with it. I think Lee/McMurtry/Ossanna give us more of Ennis -- and end with him, feeling the effects of Jack's departure -- because they sense that's how the audience views it. I think that was the reasoning behind Ledger lead/Gyllenhaal supporting (especially when Ledger started turning up in critics' voting, while Gyllenhaal didn't).
The cries of racism attached to Samuel Jackson's supporting nod were even more absurd. As you point out, BJ, Jackson disappears for a long stretch of the film; the only comparable segment favoring Jackson is a far briefer chunk at the diner. If you want to say Jackson is BETTER, I won't argue -- I might well have voted for him even over the excellent Landau that year. But his part simply isn't as large as Travolta's, and if one was going to be supporting, it was clearly him.
Yes, the ideal would have been for both Ledger and Gyllenhaal to be nominated in lead, but that's become pretty much a non-occurrence in the Oscars now. My belief is, Raul Julia's unfathomable omission for Kiss of the Spider Woman (in favor of James Garner/Murphy's Romance?) clued people into the idea that shooting for two nods in the top category was too dicey (though obviously there had been plenty in the decades prior). Especially in the Age of Weinstein, when category-handicapping has reached computerized levels, studios woud rather take the sure bet of designating lead/supporting splits than risk missing one.
And if you're going to do that, your lead choice is going to be the character who's the bigger audience focus -- which often translates to the character who has the strongest conflict. It's possible gay men simply view this differently, but, for most audiences, the guy who's struggling with confusion and self-denial is going to emerge as the focal point more than the guy who just wants to get on with it. I think Lee/McMurtry/Ossanna give us more of Ennis -- and end with him, feeling the effects of Jack's departure -- because they sense that's how the audience views it. I think that was the reasoning behind Ledger lead/Gyllenhaal supporting (especially when Ledger started turning up in critics' voting, while Gyllenhaal didn't).
The cries of racism attached to Samuel Jackson's supporting nod were even more absurd. As you point out, BJ, Jackson disappears for a long stretch of the film; the only comparable segment favoring Jackson is a far briefer chunk at the diner. If you want to say Jackson is BETTER, I won't argue -- I might well have voted for him even over the excellent Landau that year. But his part simply isn't as large as Travolta's, and if one was going to be supporting, it was clearly him.
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:35 am
I am in complete agreement with both flipp and Sabin that both Ledger and Gyllenhaal are unquestionably leads, and should have been classified as such.
However, given that one character exits the film before the other, if voters HAVE to classify them separately (which I agree is totally ridiculous, but clearly the Academy's modus operandi as of late, a la Training Day, Notes on a Scandal, Collateral, etc.), who are they going to demote? Not the actor with the emotional final sequence, top or not.
Flipp, I think all of your points regarding straight (and gay) views of gay relationships are right on the money. I just think that in THIS case, simple Oscar politics seem more the cause of blame. (Brokeback's Best Picture loss? Clearly another story.)
For me, it's a bit like citing racism as the factor that demoted Jamie Foxx into support for Collateral, when clearly Foxx's Lead Actor bid for Ray was the major reason for his odd classification for the Mann picture. (And even then, you would have more of an argument because Foxx had the largest role in the film.)
Along similar lines, I never understood the cries of racism regarding Samuel L. Jackson's supporting nomination for Pulp Fiction. His absence from the Travolta/Thurman date sequence made him the obvious choice for supporting billing. Travolta had a significantly larger role -- why should the Academy be criticized when a Jackson/leading, Travolta/supporting slate would have made even less sense?
Again, I'm not defending this ridiculous practice of shoehorning lead performers into supporting, nor am I denying the very troubling ways our culture chooses to define gay relationships, I just think sexual politics weren't as big of a factor...in THIS category THIS time.
However, given that one character exits the film before the other, if voters HAVE to classify them separately (which I agree is totally ridiculous, but clearly the Academy's modus operandi as of late, a la Training Day, Notes on a Scandal, Collateral, etc.), who are they going to demote? Not the actor with the emotional final sequence, top or not.
Flipp, I think all of your points regarding straight (and gay) views of gay relationships are right on the money. I just think that in THIS case, simple Oscar politics seem more the cause of blame. (Brokeback's Best Picture loss? Clearly another story.)
For me, it's a bit like citing racism as the factor that demoted Jamie Foxx into support for Collateral, when clearly Foxx's Lead Actor bid for Ray was the major reason for his odd classification for the Mann picture. (And even then, you would have more of an argument because Foxx had the largest role in the film.)
Along similar lines, I never understood the cries of racism regarding Samuel L. Jackson's supporting nomination for Pulp Fiction. His absence from the Travolta/Thurman date sequence made him the obvious choice for supporting billing. Travolta had a significantly larger role -- why should the Academy be criticized when a Jackson/leading, Travolta/supporting slate would have made even less sense?
Again, I'm not defending this ridiculous practice of shoehorning lead performers into supporting, nor am I denying the very troubling ways our culture chooses to define gay relationships, I just think sexual politics weren't as big of a factor...in THIS category THIS time.
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:32 am
The Original BJ wrote:Oh, come on you guys. Jake Gyllenhaal was in no way supporting by any stretch of the imagination...but if those two weren't going to be classified together (according to today's ridiculous de facto rule that no film can have two leads of the same gender) doesn't it make perfect sense that the one with the smaller role went supporting? Let's not read too much into this...
I think not reading anything into the decision to relegate Jake Gyllenhaal to support is dangerous. It essentially ignores the very grounded-in Dick-and-Jane/Bob-and-Sue relational framework and the sexual politics that would create the sort of mentality where bottom=supporting and top=lead. Both character's stories are covered throughout the film and the audience is allowed to see each of them in their own worlds away from each other. There would be every reason to assign both the lead status.
I don't think that anyone truly believes that Jack Twist was a supporting character in the film. I think the argument this inevitably opens up is this -- what exactly would make viewers/voters/critics/etc actually place his character in the supporting category? Naturally, that opens up another discussion on how straight people (and even gay people, themselves) inevitably view homosexual relationships. In this frame of mind, most would assign the submissive sexual role (bottom) in the male/male relationship the supporting designation, as if a bottom's only purpose is to "support" his top's performance in and out of the sheets.
I actually find this argument fascinating. I've recently reconnected with a very good friend of mine from back in the day. We grew up together across the street from one another from ages 5-18. She was sort of like my "Winnie Cooper", my BFF. I had my first kiss with her and, I suppose, a bit of crush at one point. She now lives in the South and we've been a bit out of touch for the last ten years. Upon learning that I had come out (although, honestly, she always knew I was gay), she actually asked me if I was the "girl" in the relationship. I told her, "Honey, there are no girls in the relationship. That's the whole point." She now wants me to educate her. Although one half of a male couple might assume the more wifely duties (i.e. cooking, cleaning, etc.), I don’t think that typical patriarchal roles can be assigned in such a reductive manner.
Jack gets fucked up the ass by Ennis but there's no reason to assume he had any less power or control in their relationship. After all, it's the memory of that night with him that haunts Ennis for years until he can have him again.
Edited By flipp525 on 1192543905
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:16 am
No. It still doesn't.
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:19 pm
Oh, come on you guys. Jake Gyllenhaal was in no way supporting by any stretch of the imagination...but if those two weren't going to be classified together (according to today's ridiculous de facto rule that no film can have two leads of the same gender) doesn't it make perfect sense that the one with the smaller role went supporting? Let's not read too much into this...
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:14 pm
Jake had a better chance in support. I still think he wasn't too far from winning in that category and being the film's token acting win.
I say he should have been nominated for Best Documentary Short. Come on! He coulda won that in a cake walk and it would've been just as legitimate. I'm still pissed that Felicity Huffman didn't win Best Film Editing.
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:37 pm
Right. Using heterosexual constructs, his character fell into the "feminine" role and he certainly played the love-sick, lovelorn lover between the two. And of course this somehow means his role was less important. Ridiculous, no?flipp525 wrote:Jake had a better chance in support. I still think he wasn't too far from winning in that category and being the film's token acting win. But, yeah, being the bottom does probably have something to do with it.
I love Heath Ledger's quiet, devastating, nuanced turn (and still can't believe Hoffman's affected, superficial performance is the one award bodies always seem to go for) but Gyllenhaal's anxious, desperate lover is equally important to the film. The scene where he talks about the leash he's on is one of the most heartbreaking moments on film and does more to sell the emotional content of the doomed love story than anything else.
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:47 am
Well, physically you are.flipp525 wrote:Jake had a better chance in support. I still think he wasn't too far from winning in that category and being the film's token acting win. But, yeah, being the bottom does probably have something to do with it. I just love the idea that I'm "supporting" a top's performance when I have sex.
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:30 am
Jake had a better chance in support. I still think he wasn't too far from winning in that category and being the film's token acting win. But, yeah, being the bottom does probably have something to do with it. I just love the idea that I'm "supporting" a top's performance when I have sex.
Edited By flipp525 on 1192453631
Edited By flipp525 on 1192453631
Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:25 pm
Oh and I love how they basically decided Jake Gyllenhaal was "supporting" just because his character was the bottom in the relationship. Seriously, I really believe that's what happened and it says so much about gender and sexual politics in the U.S.
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:33 pm
Damien wrote:Why not?
I was being half silly. But since homophobes usually say you'll be "influenced" if you watch boys kissing, my point was that I wouldn't be kissing boys because Brokeback Mountain is so timid and sterile in terms of gay kissing/sex. I liked the film a lot, but how it became THE BIG GAY FILM is beyond me.
Edited By Akash on 1192170297