原文:
Why 'Crash' won, why 'Brokeback' lost and how the academy chose to play it safe.

[i]Breaking no ground [/i]

March 5, 2006 Sometimes you win by losing, and nothing has proved what a powerful, taboo-breaking, necessary film Brokeback Mountain was more than its loss Sunday night to Crash in the Oscar best picture category.

Despite all the magazine covers it graced, despite all the red-state theaters it made good money in, despite (or maybe because of) all the jokes late-night talk show hosts made about it, you could not take the pulse of the industry without realizing that this film made a number of people distinctly uncomfortable.

More than any other of the nominated films, Brokeback Mountain was the one people told me they really didn't feel like seeing, didn't really get, didn't understand the fuss over. Did I really like it, they wanted to know. Yes, I really did.

In the privacy of the voting booth, as many political candidates who've led in polls only to lose elections have found out, people are free to act out the unspoken fears and unconscious prejudices that they would never breathe to another soul, or, likely, acknowledge to themselves. And at least this year, that acting out doomed Brokeback Mountain.

For Hollywood, as a whole laundry list of people announced from the podium Sunday night and a lengthy montage of clips tried to emphasize, is a liberal place, a place that prides itself on its progressive agenda. If this were a year when voters had no other palatable options, they might have taken a deep breath and voted for Brokeback. This year, however, Crash was poised to be the spoiler.

I do not for one minute question the sincerity and integrity of the people who made Crash, and I do not question their commitment to wanting a more equal society. But I do question the film they've made. It may be true, as producer Cathy Schulman said in accepting the Oscar for best picture, that this was one of the most breathtaking and stunning maverick years in American history, but Crash is not an example of that.

I don't care how much trouble Crash had getting financing or getting people on board, the reality of this film, the reason it won the best picture Oscar, is that it is, at its core, a standard Hollywood movie, as manipulative and unrealistic as the day is long. And something more.

For Crash's biggest asset is its ability to give people a carload of those standard Hollywood satisfactions but make them think they are seeing something groundbreaking and daring. It is, in some ways, a feel-good film about racism, a film you could see and feel like a better person, a film that could make you believe that you had done your moral duty and examined your soul when in fact you were just getting your buttons pushed and your preconceptions reconfirmed.

So for people who were discomfited by Brokeback Mountain but wanted to be able to look themselves in the mirror and feel like they were good, productive liberals, Crash provided the perfect safe harbor. They 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 Brokeback had to offer. And that's exactly what they did.

Brokeback, it is worth noting, was in some ways the tamest of the discomforting films available to Oscar voters in various categories. Steven Spielberg's Munich; the Palestinian Territories' Paradise Now, one of the best foreign language nominees; and the documentary nominee Darwin's Nightmare offered scenarios that truly shook up people's normal ways of seeing the world. None of them won a thing.

Hollywood, of course, is under no obligation to be a progressive force in the world. It is in the business of entertainment, in the business of making the most dollars it can. Yes, on Oscar night, it likes to pat itself on the back for the good it does in the world, but as Sunday night's ceremony proved, it is easier to congratulate yourself for a job well done in the past than actually do that job in the present.

=====================================================
翻譯:
有時候你通過失?而獲勝，再?有什麼比BBM在?斯卡上的失利更能證明它是一部多麼?而有力、破除禁忌的影片。

盡管所有的雜志都以它做封面，盡管它在保守的州取得了很好的票房，盡管（也可能是正因為）那些晚間?口秀不停地拿它開玩笑，你不得不承認，很多人還是明顯地對BBM感到了不舒服，而這些表?，恰恰很好的體?了?影工業的脈動。

在所有被提名的影片裡，BBM是很多人都拒?看的影片，他們不去看，也不理解為什麼它為什麼會成為話?。他?想知道我是不是真的喜歡。是的，我喜歡。

和許多在民意調查裡?先，?在投票中失利的政治人物一樣，人們?向於將出局送?那些難以言喻的恐懼和偏見，這些恐懼和偏見，可能是他們永遠也無法體會的，也可能是他?不願承認的。而今年，BBM出局了。

對好萊烏而言，它聲稱自己是一個自由開放進步的地方。如果今年?有其他更合口味的選擇，人?可能會深吸一口氣，投BBM一票。但是今年有了Crash?個攪局者。

對於選擇Crash的人，我不懷疑他們的真誠或正直，我也不懷疑他?對一個更平等的社會的期待。但我對於他?選擇的電影有很深的疑問。可能該片制片人Cathy Schulman在獲獎時說的是對的，這屆?斯卡是“是美國歷史上最離經叛道的一年。”但是，Crash不在其列。

我不關心Crash花了多財力和人力來為?斯卡拉選票，這部片子的實質，也是為什麼它能?拿最佳影片，是因為，本質上講，這是一部好??標準的電影。一部刻意經?，不符實際的片子。而且更甚。

crash最大的資本是它?了觀眾巨大的好??套式的滿足感，?同時讓他們覺得自己看到了一部具有巔覆意味的影片。從某種意義上說，這部片子讓你感覺自己是個好人，讓你覺得好像自己履行了道德義務，深入探討了自己的靈魂，但實際上，你只是getting your buttons pushed (不知道怎麼翻譯才好)，其實你只是看到了你想看的東西。

所以，對於那些被bbm弄得不舒服的，但想在照?子的時候感覺自己是個進步開明的好人的人，Crash為他們提供了安全的港灣。他們可以心平氣和的投上一票，還感覺自己是進步的，感覺自己被?上了開放的標簽。他?也正是麼做的。

事實上，BBM是本屆Oscar上最不張揚的一部挑戰傳統觀念的電影。Steven Spielberg的《慕尼黑》，最佳外語片提名的《天堂此時》，和獲最佳?錄片的《Darwin's Nightmare》同樣震撼了人們看這個世界慣有的習慣。但以上片子?有一部獲獎。

當然' 好??從?不是一個承載進步力量的地方。它是?樂商業，是??的行業。?斯卡之夜表彰了你過去的工作，但它不開拓未來。

轉自http://post.baidu.com/f?kz=87034343