« Ski Dubai, from the outside | Main | Caught my eye »
Why *Brokeback Mountain* did not win Best Picture
Let's see how few words I can explain it in...
Hollywood controls system, not fixed but rigged to favor picture with greatest elasticity of profits with respect to favorable publicity. Too many people won't see BBM, plus fear that Hollywood looks out of touch, Crash!
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 6, 2006 at 07:45 AM in Film | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c66b253ef00e5508359858833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why *Brokeback Mountain* did not win Best Picture:
» Your Oscar predictions for 2006 from Daniel W. Drezner
Continuing an annual tradition here at danieldrezner.com since 2003, let's get right to our Independent Spirit Academy Award predictions for this Sunday night's event. In contrast to last year, I'm pleased to report that my lovely wife and I were... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 6, 2006 12:04:04 PM
» Social Problem! from Left Center Left
It was strange seeing my dissertation on the postwar social problem film being reenacted on the Oscar stage last night. Sure, the Academy has always had a soft spot for the message film. But last night it felt like the [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 6, 2006 12:46:06 PM
Comments
Crah was terrible.
Posted by: joshg at Mar 6, 2006 7:56:45 AM
This would have been a very impressive post if it had appeared 24 hours earlier :-).
Posted by: tom at Mar 6, 2006 8:12:43 AM
I don't know why all the reports are noting an upset because Crash beat Broekback Mt. for Best Picture. The Best Picture was very crowded with excellent films, and many critics favored Crash over Brokeback even before last night. For instance, Roger Ebert listed it as his third favorite film of the year (Crash being #1).
As for the other categories, Philip Seymour Hoffman deserved Best Actor many times over Heath Ledger, even though Ledger was outstanding. Hoffman is showing himself to be the greatest character actor of my generation (gen X), and the Capote character was much more complex a part than Ennis. It covered much of the same repressive self-hatred, but had humor and sparkling brilliance, while Ennis was a more monotone character. I don't think any other actor could've hit Capote like Hoffman did. He's a chameleon.
I would've preferred Michelle Williams over Rachel Weisz for Best Supporting Actress, as her performance was brilliant and tragic. But no one can say Jake Gyllenhal deserved to win over Clooney. Ang Lee rightly won for Best Director, as he was the genius behind making Brokeback so great. But to say that Brokeback lost for reasons unrelated to Crash's artistic merits is silly (to me). Crash was phenomenal.
The only upset I saw was Batman Begins being completely overlooked for Best Director or Best PIcture nominations, but that's just me.
Posted by: scott cunningham at Mar 6, 2006 8:16:37 AM
Besides, to Tyler's point - more people saw BBM than Crash. BBM actually did reasonably well at the domestic box office ($78m last I checked vs. Crash's more modest $53m).
Posted by: scott cunningham at Mar 6, 2006 8:21:30 AM
That more people saw BBM than Crash doesn't change the relative elasticity of demand for the two movies.
I think Crash won because of its innovative Oscar-marketing campaign, which was to send millions of dollars of free stuff to the mass of Oscar voters who aren't used to getting nice free stuff. In a year without a clearly dominant picture, and with first-past-the-post voting, this was enough to win it. An economist would further note that it's the picture with the highest elasticity that can afford to spend the most on this sort of marketing campaign, so Tyler's right in a way, but is leaving out the intermediate step.
Posted by: Ted at Mar 6, 2006 8:43:03 AM
Crash's win was very similar to Shakespeare in Love's upset a few years ago. People in Hollywood vote for movies they can relate to. So the story of modern-day Los Angeles beat out the film set in 1960s Wyoming.
Posted by: Ted Craig at Mar 6, 2006 9:00:54 AM
Okay, that's true. My point about profits isn't relevant to Cowen's argument. But, why would the future profits, and the respective elasticities of a movie, be a criteria voters use at all? Aren't votes for Best Picture cast by all members of the Academy - actresses, screenwriters, directors, etc.? Why would they care about the profits that Lions Gate will get from a win? It's such a decentralized process that I can't believe that argument is credible.
Ted's argument that the voters were paid off, more or less, is more realistic, but how is that an intermediate step in Cowen's point? (apologies if it's obvious).
Posted by: scott cunningham at Mar 6, 2006 9:25:02 AM
Hm. I think I see the point you're making Ted. I need to keep mulling it over. I have taken my economist hat off because I preferred Crash to BBM (though I loved BBM). My sense has always been that the Oscars did a better job of aggregating preferences because of how many voters there were, but I admit I know nothing about voting theory. BTW, what's first-past-the-post voting?
Posted by: scott cunningham at Mar 6, 2006 9:32:30 AM
Wait voters can relate to modern day LA, can not relate to 1960s Wyoming, can relate to Elizabethan England?
Posted by: joshg at Mar 6, 2006 10:05:44 AM
"BTW, what's first-past-the-post voting?"
Standard old "show which gets the most number of votes wins", regardless of if it gets, say, 21% in a five-way race and was nobody's second place choice. (Not that I'm saying that was true with Crash.)
Racism wins Oscars. Racism + Los Angeles is a good formula for an Oscar.
Posted by: John Thacker at Mar 6, 2006 10:07:56 AM
Note that many voters have a stake in the result, or they are friends of people who have a stake in the result. Apply Gary Becker's model of pressure group influence, and you get a value-maximizing result. It would be easy for the Academy to set up a group of 20 stern critics who vote only on merit, but they don't. Ask yourself why not.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Mar 6, 2006 10:14:21 AM
...downloading the becker paper now...
Posted by: scott cunningham at Mar 6, 2006 10:24:31 AM
Wait voters can relate to modern day LA, can not relate to 1960s Wyoming, can relate to Elizabethan England?
Have you seen Shakespeare in Love? Elizabethan England was a stand-in for Hollywood.
Posted by: Ted Craig at Mar 6, 2006 11:16:16 AM
"Crash's win was very similar to Shakespeare in Love's upset a few years ago. People in Hollywood vote for movies they can relate to. So the story of modern-day Los Angeles beat out the film set in 1960s Wyoming."
And people could relate to Victorian England more than they could relate to the Second World War?
But anyway, I didn't see all of the movies nominated this year. Hell, I love movies, but I just never see enough of them. That aside, I am very glad Reese Witherspoon won. I think her win last night gives more weight to my prediction that she will be the most successful actress of my generation, as she can do both comedy and drama well. Besides that, she's charming and very, very hot.
Posted by: Brian at Mar 6, 2006 12:17:25 PM
I didn't see any of the films and I only saw the last five minutes of the
Oscars. Seeing Crash win didn't come as much of a surprise because, as
Tyler pointed out, Hollywood is still a very conservative town and top
honors given to a homosexual film is still taboo.
Posted by: Chris Bolts at Mar 6, 2006 1:44:08 PM
And here's the behavioral reality of the voting process, although admittedly small sample size.
From Samuel Jackson:
He tells Fox News reporter Bill McCuddy, "The maid has watched them (the nominees), the cook's probably watched a lot of them, the nanny has, too. And they go by and put their check marks down on the ballot because they know you're not going to do it. And then the assistant goes by -- 'Oh, it's time for the ballot to go in. Oh, he hasn't filled this in. (Checking boxes) I like this, I like this,' and they send it in.
"I generally go down the ballot and look and see if any of my friends are nominated and I vote for them. Then I leave the ballot there for my wife to vote for all the other films that she watched that I knew I wasn't gonna watch, like the chick flicks or the flicks that I thought were gonna put me to sleep. I trust her opinion. And then we send the ballot in."
He's tried to deny this now after upsetting some in the Academy, but it's still probably true.
Posted by: mark at Mar 6, 2006 2:01:38 PM
Wait voters can relate to modern day LA, can not relate to 1960s Wyoming, can relate to Elizabethan England?
Yes. Did you see "Shakespeare"? My first comment upon leaving the theater was "I've never seen a picture so thoroughly pitched at the 'Academy' before." It was all about actors and writers being so good at their craft that their passion overcomes all barriers, even sorts out their peronsal lives, while propelling them to immortality. What Hollywood type doesn't relate to that?
Brokeback, however, was set far, far away from Hollywood. The Thanksgiving scene, with the with white-painted brick and the NFL game, was so dead-on with my own experience it gave me the creeps. Moreover, the characters' uncritical and complete acceptance of their culture's homophobia is pretty alien for your average Hollywood type.
Posted by: tylers at Mar 6, 2006 2:10:38 PM
"Yes. Did you see "Shakespeare"?"
Yes, I did, although it was several years ago. Now, while I can't really agree or disagree with your characterizations, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, so what you said makes sense.
Posted by: Brian at Mar 6, 2006 3:04:40 PM
Black America sees Crash as their movie. My guess is not one black or Hispanic member of the Academy voted for BBM. The last thing the minority members of the Academy were going to do is vote for a movie about two white, gay sheepherders that was directed by a Chinese immigrant. The results are a results more of demographics and market segments than of economics.
Posted by: superdestroyer at Mar 6, 2006 3:07:48 PM
There should be an easy way to test the theory that Hollywood voters vote for what relates to them. Find a list of Oscar nominees and winners, and pick out the films that are about writers, actors, LA, California, etc. This will be subjective at the margins, but there should be some clear-cut "in" and "out." Sideways, LA Story, Adaptation, Crash, Shrek 2, Bowfinger, and Shakespeare in Love all seem to fit the bill; Braveheart, Driving Miss Daisy, Gangs of New York, and Dances With Wolves are out. Do that for a few years over the major categories, and I think Best Picture gets extra weight.
How does the balance come out? There must be some years without any, but in years where there is a film where writers, actors, and artists are the heroes, how often does it win? Bonus points: try to identify your own confirmation bias by how you classify films.
Posted by: Zubon at Mar 6, 2006 3:17:57 PM
It's funny that everyone assumes that Brokeback Mountain was even in 2nd place. What evidence is there that this is the case?
I was a bit surprised that everyone thought that Brokeback Mountain was so likely to win (and voted with my $ on TradeSports.) My impression after seeming BM was, "If the other man had been another woman, nobody would have looked twice at this movie." It was less inspiring than dozens of other Westerns or Love Stories, and at least a few Western Love Stories. I assumed that most of the bettors were betting based on the hype, rather than having seen the film.
Although Anne Hathaway certainly was cute -- she's grown up a LOT in the past few years since "The Princess Diaries" and "Ella Enchanted."
Posted by: ModalHubby at Mar 6, 2006 3:23:34 PM
The implicit notion, in much of the above, that "Hollywood" and "homosexuals" are not intersecting sets, is pretty funny.
Posted by: Anderson at Mar 6, 2006 4:01:37 PM
"Black America sees Crash as their movie."
Any evidence for that assertion, superdestroyer?
Posted by: Dave B. at Mar 6, 2006 4:48:43 PM
Some movie I've never heard of* would surely top Crash for greater elasticity of profits with respect to favorable publicity. While the Academy presumably is limited to picking one of the nominees (though think of the effects of violating this rule on said elasticity), it would oddly inefficient for the Academy to adopt this rule for picking a winner but not the nominees.
* Sadly, I cannot give an example.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop at Mar 6, 2006 4:53:42 PM
I just don't understand how 'Crash' even got nominated. What was so amazing about this film? Am I the only one that thought the dialogue was god-awful and contrived?
Posted by: milo at Mar 6, 2006 4:54:01 PM
