2006 Oscar Nods

[sethsez]

He was, for supprting actor. He lost to George Clooney, though.

[Klonoa]

He was, for supprting actor. He lost to George Clooney, though.

oops, I missed the first half of the Oscars.

That was a great performance, possibly performance of a lifetime seriously.

[Mr-K]

What did you guys think of John Stewart? Everyone I talked to thought he bombed. I thought he did alright though. As for the winners, I didn't have anything invested in this, because I didn't see any of the nominees, except for one: Munich, and I am glad that it was snubbed.

I thought Stewart did great, and so did most everyone that I talked to. I mean, it was like the Oscars written by the Daily Show staff.

And again, I'll agree with the Diff arguement on Crash, it seemed really phony at the beginning but I think it sort of whipped itself into shape at the end.

[Drewbacca]

the thing about crash was that it felt totally unnecessary to me. It doesn't draw any conclusions about racism, it just created characters that embodied racial stereotypes and put them in a movie and the dialogue just wrote itself.

The thing here about racial stereotypes is that the movie didn't really use a lot of them. The mexican wasn't an hombre scum bag, the two thug lifes were given time to explain their actions and the cops both evolved on screen as the movie went on (in opposite directions, almost). The conclusion it drew was that under the right circumstances we are all capable of racism and almost all of it stems from fear, sometimes unfounded and sometimes justified.

It also raised the point that just because people are white doesn't mean they are fun to hang out with in coffee shops. Bullocks character was empty, and the real reason of her anger wasn't racism but general anger over the course her life had taken with a husband that didn't care about her. Her best friend was her maid.

Crash is a movie that acknowledges racism, but doesn't analyze it or draw conclusions about it. I also found it interesting that the viewer would have to be familiar with racial stereotypes to understand the motivations of the characters, but if the audience is already familiar with racism then this movie is useless.

How so? The black guys were car thieves and their motive for stealing cars was money. The motive for the arab chap was revenge over what he thought was negligence that caused his diner to get trashed.

After I saw Crash my reaction was "....okay?", because honestly nothing happened in the movie.

A lot happened in the movie, and all of it said something about racism or human nature.

The main arguement about Crash from industry folk was never that it was a bad movie (although some people who were damage campaigning for Brokeback Mountain went so far as to claim it was the worst movie of the entire year, which is laughable). The problem here is that all of the movies nominated for best picture were progressive, and the reason Crash won wasn't based on the fact that Brokeback Mountain starred homosexuals. I know nobody here has made that conclusion but I thought I'd point out what kind of flawed logic has come to the surface in backlash of Crash winning.

Crash winning best picture is not Russel Crow winning best male actor for Gladiator. It's probably a bit of an upset because of how favored Brokeback Mountain was, but that is all.

I thought Stewart did great, and so did most everyone that I talked to. I mean, it was like the Oscars written by the Daily Show staff.

He did a pretty good job. Some of his zingers hit their marks, some didn't really and others hit the nail on the head so he did a good job.

[avatar]

Andrew summed up my feelings on why Crash is a good movie and why it's getting so much hate. Bravo!

[rectal_area]

Do you honestly think that this movie was a detailed analysis of racism instead of just going "hey this is racism, sup"? And I refer to the stereotypes like the persistently angry asian woman that does nothing in the movie, the uncle tom character and also his wife. The viewer has to be familiar with stereotypes like the angry asian woman, the uncle tom, and the upper class black woman to understand why they act like they do. Plus, the movie just EXPLAINS everything instead of actually making the viewer reach that conclusion themselves. The whole "maybe you should be afraid of black people because they ARE criminals sometimes" thing was explained by the characters talking about it, and the white woman's whole character development was summed up in her tirade over the phone. The worth of this movie as an analysis of racism really depends on what you think of it in the first place, I guess, because to me the point this movie was trying to make sounded like captain obvious flying off into the distance.

And Crash was not a BAD movie, it just wasn't the best movie of the year. I was "meh" when I saw it, and didn't think it was best picture material, but the way that it whored the whole "controversial racism movie" angle the same way brokeback mountain hyped the gay romance thing really soured my memory of it.

[Drewbacca]

Do you honestly think that this movie was a detailed analysis of racism instead of just going "hey this is racism, sup"?

In spite of everything you said I think this is the reason you're not enjoying it. It wasn't a detailed analysis of racism, it was a case study that was meant to show you how racism festers, why and without pointing fingers. Other movies use racism as a vehicle to move a plot, here it just exists and is showcased as existing.

American History X was a great movie, and you seem to think every movie should present racism in a way that's more forthright. I disagree.