Page 1 / 2 - Home

Then Brokeback Mountain loses to Crash in what, almost everyone agrees, is one of the—if not the —most shocking upset ever. Is it unreasonable that some might ask if racism had been a factor?

This example is not an overstatement of the abuse that has been hurled at Brokeback Mountain, nor have its accolades been exaggerated. Merely substitute "gay male relationship" into the analogy provided above and you will have an accurate picture of the scathing climate Brokeback Mountain has had to endure.

Consider another scenario. Imagine the gay themes of Brokeback Mountain were received with benign acceptance and treated with quiet respect during its run in the theaters. Reviews were mixed and it did so-so at the box-office. Meanwhile, the issues of race relations in Crash were the subject of daily derision, culminating in an announcement by a prominent Academy member he would not be viewing the movie because it was about “colored people.”

Then, suppose that leading up to the Oscars, Crash received more "Best" awards, not only among all pictures in 2005, but among all movies in history.

Don't you think there might have been a tiny tempest if, under those circumstances, Brokeback Mountain had then won "Best Picture" over Crash? Wouldn't questions of racism within the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences be asked legitimately? Accusations of unfairness within the Academy's voting procedure and the uproar would continue until heads rolled and changes occurred. Spike Lee and the NAACP might well be in the forefront of the campaign.

But Brokeback Mountain is a tale of the love between two male ranch hands. Mr. Curtis--and who knows how many other Academy members--flouted the long accepted conventions of their own guild by dismissing Brokeback Mountain without ever screening it. Is there really a problem with that? Or are those homosexuals just "sore losers," who are "pushing an agenda?"

Homophobia--yes, there's that "h" word--is still so ingrained in Hollywood and within American culture that disdain for gay relationships is accepted as "normal" and "natural". So much so, that the Tony Curtises of this world express it as if by right, feeling no shame and fearing no censure from their colleagues or the public.

In his column entitled "The Fury of the 'Crash'-lash" Roger Ebert concludes by writing: "The nature of the attacks on Crash by the supporters of Brokeback Mountain seem to proceed from the other position: Brokeback is better not only because of its artistry but because of its subject matter, and those who disagree hate homosexuals. Its supporters could vote for it in good conscience, vote for it and feel they had made a progressive move, vote for it and not feel that there was any stain on their liberal credentials for shunning what Crash had to offer."

Let us overlook the fact that Ebert succumbs to the slippery temptation to misrepresent our point, and then finds fault with that misconstruing of our position. What he seems to be suggesting is that "supporters of Brokeback Mountain" are "attacking" Crash because we failed in our attempts to turn the Oscar for "Best Picture" into a competition for "Worthiest Oppressed Minority".

I, and those who agree with me, will freely admit to being Brokeback Mountain supporters, yet let us please speak for ourselves. Few of us have argued Brokeback Mountain deserved the Oscar because it is about gay love. That has nothing to do with it.

What's done is done. Crash won this year's Best Picture Oscar and there is no taking that back. Nor should it be. But given the facts outlined above, is it really asking too much to admit that homophobia may very well have played a part in that outcome?