The Oscars

Last updated on: March 4, 2006 at 4:41 pm by Fred Clark

29 Comments

The Oscars 2006-03-04T16:41:43-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

As usual, the Academy Awards arrive with me having not seen many of the nominated films.

Saw 'em: Crash; Good Night, and Good Luck; Junebug; Pride & Prejudice; Walk the Line

Didn't see 'em: Brokeback Mountain; Capote; Cinderella Man; The Constant Gardener; A History of Violence; Hustle & Flow; Mrs. Henderson Presents; Munich; North Country; The Squid and the Whale; Syriana; Transamerica

But even though I missed so many of these, I've read enough about them to disagree with John Horn and Susan King of the Los Angeles Times, who referred to this year's best picture nominees as "five overtly political message movies."

I'll grant that Good Night, and Good Luck is "overtly political," what with one of the key characters being a bona fide politician — Sen. Joe McCarthy, playing himself in archival news footage. Like Munich and Capote, it's also, as they say nowadays,* "based on actual events." Clooney and Spielberg both chose to tell stories from another time because those stories speak to our time — and specifically to political questions of our time. So, yes, these are "overtly political," if not exclusively political, films.

But Capote? Again, I didn't see it, but I don't remember the murder of the Clutter family being the subject of a partisan political dispute. And it's not like you can make a unique oddball genius like Truman Capote stand as an Everyman symbol for some larger political agenda.

I haven't yet seen Brokeback Mountain because it's a big, sweeping romantic tragedy. I have to get pretty psyched up before watching a two-hankie movie, even one that earns such critical acclaim.

I've seen Ang Lee's The Wedding Banquet three or four times and I'd happily watch it again because I know it's a romantic comedy and that watching it will make me happy. I'm told that Brokeback, on the other hand, is a romantic tragedy and that watching it will make me sad. I'm not suggesting that all stories ought to have happy endings but when the question is "Do you want to feel happy or sad?" I tend, more often, to pick happy. (Roxanne expresses a similar reluctance to subjecting herself to what is advertised as a painful story.)

The theme of star-crossed lovers can certainly be "overtly political" — just look at Romeo and Juliet. But I'm pretty sure that Brokeback doesn't end with two grieving families reconciling in a belated, "glooming peace." It's mainly, from what I'm told, just a love story.

Horn and King insist that this love story is "overtly political" because the two people in love both happen to be the same gender. But they didn't fall in love as a "political" act. No two people ever have. Not Romeo and Juliet, not Tony and Maria, and not Jack and Ennis.

Falling in love is, by definition, a personal and not a political act. The idea that "the personal is political" arose on the political left, but seems nowadays to be more embraced by political conservatives, who seem to mean something rather different.

Which brings us to Crash.

I understand why Horn and King would call Crash a "political message movie." It's about racism and prejudice, and these are seen as "political" subjects. But they are not exclusively political subjects, and Crash scarcely even hints at the realm of politics. Roger Ebert notes that its reliance on coincidence owes a debt to Charles Dickens. So, too, does its "politics" — which is explicitly reformist. Paul Haggis' movie is, as George Orwell wrote of Dickens, "always preaching a sermon," and like Dickens' sermons, it is primarily a moral, and not a political, appeal.

Here is a rather large chunk of Orwell's essay on Dickens, much of which, I think, also applies to Crash:

His radicalism is of the vaguest kind, and yet one always knows that it is there. That is the difference between being a moralist and a politician. He has no constructive suggestions, not even a clear grasp of the nature of the society he is attacking, only an emotional perception that something is wrong, all he can finally say is, "Behave decently" …

The truth is that Dickens's criticism of society is almost exclusively moral. … There is no clear sign that he wants the existing order to be overthrown, or that he believes it would make very much difference if it were overthrown. For in reality his target is not so much society as "human nature." …. His whole "message" is one that at first glance looks like an enormous platitude: If men would behave decently the world would be decent.

It seems that in every attack Dickens makes upon society he is always pointing to a change of spirit rather than a change of structure. It is hopeless to try and pin him down to any definite remedy, still more to any political doctrine. His approach is always along the moral plane, and his attitude is sufficiently summed up in that remark about Strong's school being as different from Creakle's "as good is from evil." Two things can be very much alike and yet abysmally different. Heaven and Hell are in the same place. Useless to change institutions without a "change of heart" — that, essentially, is what he is always saying.??… Two viewpoints are always tenable. The one, how can you improve human nature until you have changed the system? The other, what is the use of changing the system before you have improved human nature? … Dickens, who had not the vision to see that private property is an obstructive nuisance, had the vision to see that. "If men would behave decently the world would be decent" is not such a platitude as it sounds.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

* Call anything a "true story" now and you unleash the nitpickers who attack the film for any artistic license: because the dialogue was — gasp — crafted by screenwriters and not taken from a direct historical transcript, or because the real Hurricane Carter wasn't as good looking as Denzel, or because it was Glorfindel and not Arwen who really confronted the Black Riders at Rivendell.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

March 3, 2006

Random 10

Next Post

March 4, 2006 More from Orwell on Dickens

Recent Comments

29 Comments | Leave a Comment

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does James say is the implanted word able to do?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Save your souls Heal your body Judge the nations Defeat your enemies