Back in 2006 I was a contributor to Static, a monthly arts and culture magazine published in Mankato, Minnesota. In the February 2006 issue I wrote the following column in response to the Oscar nominations. At that time Brokeback Mountain was nominated for several awards and was regarded as a breakthrough for diversity in Hollywood. The backlash against the 2016 Academy Award nominations and Halle Berry’s recent comments on her 2002 Oscar win made me want to revisit and re-share the column I wrote a decade ago.
The original column is reprinted below as it appeared in 2006:
Comin’ Round the Mountain
Static magazine, February 2006On January 16th, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association awarded Brokeback Mountain a number of Golden Globes, including Best Picture (Drama), Best Director, and Best Screenplay. In the week following the show, Brokeback’s box office surged past other films in much wider releases. With the combination of critical recognition and financial success, Brokeback’s place among nominees—and winners—at the 2006 Academy Awards is all but assured. While Brokeback Mountain deserves everything that it has coming to it, the amount of critical praise for this film feels like overcompensation on Hollywood’s part.
It is no secret that the award season is largely about politics. Consider the Best Picture awards of the past few years. 2005 Best Picture winner Million Dollar Baby, a film that paled in quality to many other nominees, was awarded to Clint Eastwood after his 2004 nominee, the superior Mystic River, was passed over for The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. The award for The Return of the King, the satisfying but somewhat clunky finale to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, appeared as compensation for the previous two installments, especially The Two Towers, and Peter Jackson’s accomplishment with the series as a whole. None of the best picture nominees of the last three years were terrible films and one should resist the conspiracy theorist’s temptation to account for this with insidious plans made by powerful figures sitting around a boardroom table. But nonetheless, these patterns exist.
In 2002 the Academy gave three awards to African Americans: Denzel Washington received a Best Actor statuette for Training Day, Halle Berry was awarded Best Actress for Monster’s Ball, and Sidney Poitier was given an honorary Oscar “For his extraordinary performances and unique presence on the screen and for representing the industry with dignity, style and intelligence.” Halle Berry’s acceptance speech revealed something about the underlying agenda of the award. A teary-eyed Berry proclaimed that she accepted the Oscar “for every nameless, faceless woman of color that now has a chance because this door tonight has been opened.” The awards were not merely for these actor’s performances; they were public displays of self-conscious diversity appreciation. To put it another way, the 2002 ceremony was a way for the Academy to say, “See, we don’t have a problem with black people. We’re giving them awards!”
The real measure of whether Hollywood’s door of has been opened to minorities is in the product. And in the years since Berry, Washington, and Poitier were given awards little has changed in the industry. African Americans continue to be underrepresented in Hollywood films and their roles continue to be split between a few wise mentor figures (Morgan Freeman, Laurence Fishburne) and a lot of gangsta rapping idiots (almost any film featuring a black musician). While occasionally a film may contradict this element or play with the stereotypes, such as 2005’s Hustle and Flow, it is never enough to turn the tide.
Now, in 2006, Hollywood is patting itself on the back again by recognizing Brokeback Mountain, showering it with praise and awards. For the most part the praise of this film is deserved, although I do believe that other films released in 2005 (namely Munich, Crash, and Capote) were better. And, to be fair, Brokeback Mountain does represent some level of progress. The film does not rely on the flaming, Bird Cage-like stereotypes and, aside from the fate of Jake Gyllenhaal’s character, the film rises above most conventions associated with gay love stories. The cinematography is gorgeous and the performances are solid. This is a well-made film and its positive reception by critics and audiences is encouraging.
However, the enthusiasm for Brokeback Mountain is eerily reminiscent of the Academy’s 2002’s handout to African Americans. Despite its characterization as a liberal hotbed, Hollywood, or at least its product, does have issues with homosexuality. The past twenty-five years have seen dramatic shifts in the public regard for the gay community but it remains an estranged other. Many films and other mass media stories featuring homosexual characters still rely on stereotyped characterizations; consider The Bird Cage, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, In and Out, and Will and Grace. These are not the negative, predatory characterizations of homosexuals that dominated the culture in the past; instead they are comic fools. And while Hollywood’s regard for the subject is keeping in step with American culture, to see Brokeback Mountain as representing a major turn in Hollywood’s relationship with the homosexual community is premature. Without a significant change in their output, whatever recognition the Academy might bestow on Brokeback Mountain may ultimately come off as an act of unwarranted and undeserved self-congratulation. But then again, that’s what the award circuit is all about.