GABE DURAM
Staff Writer
I’ve spilled some satirical ink this year about the awful state of modern filmmaking, and on the whole I believe our country’s entertainment is in a trite, mindless place. Yet the Academy’s choice of five exceptional films as the year’s Best Picture nominees gives me hope.
I’m aware that not all of Pepperdine feels this way. In Brian Chatwin’s Feb. 2 diatribe, “Hailed films cater to left,” Chatwin expressed his distaste for the liberal themes in Hollywood films, set off after seeing George Clooney’s “Good Night and Good Luck.” In his article Chatwin writes that he feels bombarded and that Clooney hit him “over the head with his pro-liberal media” and was upset “because the movies are so bad.”
However, the only thing that resembles an argument for the poor quality of the films is Chatwin’s observation that “Good Night, and Good Luck” and “Brokeback Mountain” have not made much money.
Because the films were not as profitable as “The Chronicles of Narnia” or “The Passion of the Christ,” Chatwin concludes that the liberal films’ glowing reviews, such as those in The New York Times, are merely “pandering” and “a product of the Hollywood machine.”
Are we to believe that those who feel differently than Chatwin about these films are either lying to the public or lying to themselves? Should I second-guess my own appreciation of “Brokeback Mountain” although I can point to its superb acting and gorgeous score while Chatwin deals only in generalities?
If a film’s box office gross is a measure of its quality, then “Shrek 2,” “Star Wars: Episode I” and “Titanic” are some of the greatest films ever made.
Let us, then, ignore the money-making suppositions and approach these films as culturally relevant works of art.
Filmmakers like George Clooney and Ang Lee (Best Director, “Brokeback”) may be arguing points that much of America chooses not to support, but they are among the few in mainstream Hollywood who make movies that put conviction before profit. Yet, remarkably, theirs are the films that have been honored by the Academy this year.
I argue that “Brokeback” is not so much a piece of liberal propaganda as it is a human tragedy. The two men in the film fall in love, then make horrible mistakes and alienate family and friends to be together. It isn’t an idealization of a homosexual lifestyle. It’s a star-crossed lovers tale that could only end badly. And it was picked to win Best Picture.
Yet “Crash” took the Oscar, and in this way it was a fight between one intolerance film and another. “Crash” is so careful to point out each character’s potential for racial discrimination that every audience member must also look for that potential in their own hearts. That is an admiral, though uncomfortable, weight to put on an audience.
My own award (“Gabe’s Choice 2006”) goes to “Munich,” another difficult, even painful, theme-heavy Best Picture contender. The film sticks it to every cool, slick assassin movie by portraying a man’s anguish when he discovers the heavy cost of committing murder, even justified murder. It deals with revenge, faith, the soul and loyalty so poignantly that “E.T.,” “Saving Private Ryan,” and even “Schindler’s List” feel like Spielberg’s training so that he could make a film this good.
To return to Chatwin’s argument, it is interesting that he mentions films like “The Chronicles of Narnia” and “The Passion of the Christ.” These films are admirable as well, not because the public wants nothing but conservative films as Chatwin suggests, but for the same reason that the Best Picture nominees are admiral.
For all of its let’s-make-a-“Lord of the Rings”-war-scene nonsense, “Narnia” is a subversive Christian allegory with the Christianity intact, which was a bold, risky move for filmmakers — the right move, whether it was a financial success or not.
Even more impressively, Mel Gibson fronted his own money to make the overtly reverent “The Passion,” spoken in first-century Aramaic. Who could predict that would sell? The man was acting on the courage of his convictions. Still, there were a lot of people who felt hit over the head with a film designed for the audience to empathize with and even worship Jesus.
My point is: That’s OK. More than OK. See “The Passion,” see “Good Night,” see “Brokeback,” heck, even see wacky films like “Fahrenheit 9/11” and agree with all of them or none of them. But whatever you do, don’t just see the films and read the books that confirm your biases. Stretch yourself, wrestle with the themes that make you uncomfortable and sometimes change your mind. When art stops challenging the status quo, it will die.
Occasionally, amidst the sequels, remakes, and carefully market-tested crap that comes to theatres every week, films emerge that keep the arrhythmic heart of Hollywood beating a little longer.
Let’s go see them.
03-16-2006