Here are excerpts from an interesting article in the NYT about Mel’s chances at the Oscars this year considering his drunken, anti-semitic tirade last summer:
New York Times
Published: December 5, 2006
By SHARON WAXMAN
LOS ANGELES, — With some early reviews lauding the audacity and innovation of Mel Gibson’s bloody Mayan epic, “Apocalypto,” Hollywood’s tight-knit community of Oscar voters may find itself facing a difficult dilemma in the coming weeks: Will they consider the film for an Academy Award?
Many people in Hollywood swore — both publicly and privately — that they would not work with him again or see his movies.
Most critics have yet to weigh in on “Apocalypto,” but the excitement of those who have — like that among journalists who lingered to debate the film after a screening ended in Los Angeles last week — has been palpable.
“ ‘Apocalypto’ is a remarkable film,” Todd McCarthy wrote in Variety. “The picture provides a trip to a place one’s never been before, offering hitherto unseen sights of exceptional vividness and power.”
Peter Travers wrote in Rolling Stone, “Say what you will about Gibson, he’s a filmmaker right down to his nerve endings.”
And yet, can the 5,830 voting members of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences — an organization that like broader Hollywood, includes many people who are Jewish — ignore a film that may well be considered by critics to be among the best of the year?
Murray Weissman, who has worked on Oscar campaigns for many years and is working for the Weinstein Company on its hopefuls this year, said some voters would not see the film on principle.
“There is still a lot of resentment out there among the Academy members, certainly the Jewish group of them, over the incident,” he said. “There are a lot of people who are very unforgiving. I have run into some who say they will not see any more Mel Gibson movies.”
Yet, Mr. Weissman added, those who saw the movie and believed it deserving would vote for it. “The movie academy is of full of professionals; they will respect a good movie,” he said. “If the guy made a classic film and it’s absolutely brilliant — hey, I’m Jewish — I’d probably embrace it. But going in, I’m shocked and dismayed at his behavior.”
The problem posed by Mr. Gibson touches on an age-old question of whether an artist’s personal behavior ought to be a factor in judging his or her work.
Disney has taken a low-key approach to the Oscars, awaiting a general sense from critics and influential voices in Hollywood. The film was not on a list of screenings for Oscar consideration sent to Academy members, and no screenings are scheduled with question-and-answer sessions featuring Mr. Gibson, as has become the custom for movies vying for Oscar consideration.
But as the film has been gathering critical support, executives at the studio have begun to refer to “Apocalypto” as their “Million Dollar Baby,” the small movie directed by Clint Eastwood that came from behind two years ago to win best picture at the Oscars. And the studio is planning to send out “screeners,” DVDs sent to Academy members.
But in addition to the other issues, the film’s sheer violence — which includes decapitation and hearts ripped from the chests of human sacrifice victims — could turn off some voters, whatever their feelings toward the director.
“Once the reviews come out and it’s perceived to be a foreign language film with that kind of violence, you will have trouble getting people to actually go see it,” said one seasoned Oscar campaigner, who declined to speak for attribution because of business ties to Disney.
“There will be a degree of resistance, And Mel would be the first one to say, ‘I anticipate a degree of ambivalence,’ he knows that,” said Peter Bart, the editor of Variety . “The violence is an issue. But that’s the way he is. That’s the way he sees the world.”
I know that’s a lot of words for this normally concise web site, but what do you think? Should Mel’s film be looked at more critically because of his feelings towards Jews; and will it be? Or should Apocalypto just be a piece of art and looked at as such, regardless of who put it on the canvas?
My opinion lies with the latter. As the full article states, Gibson is not the first (nor probably the last) film maker out there with some more than questionable history (ala Roman Polanski and his win of best director for 1999’s The Pianist).
The Academy of Motions Pictures Arts and Sciences announced Thursday that Ellen DeGeneres has been tapped to host next year’s Oscars. Ellen has hosted the Emmy’s twice and the Grammy’s twice, so she has the experience and in my opinion, the wit, charm and humor to pull it off well.
So there you have it, Oscars 2006 ends with a shocking upset: Jack Nicholson announces “Crash” as best picture of the year and surprisingly beats out “Brokeback Mountain.” Let me be the first (actually about the 153rd) person on the net to say, “hell…YES!” I was so excited when I saw that. It cost me 10 points on my Oscar ballot, but I do not care. Brokeback Mountain is quite possibly the most overrated film of all time and Crash was #2 on my best films of the year list (behind Cinderella Man). So again, CRASH wins big at the Oscars and I am ecstatic!
If I remember correctly, last year they made a few of the “less important” winners give their speeches from the their seat in the theater to save time. They also had all the nominees already on stage for some of the categories so as to save the time of them walking up to the stage. They got rid of that garbage this year but added a new twist. They play crappy music over the person giving their acceptance speech. What the crap is that!? Let them speak for God sake without noise in the background. They’ve worked their whole lives for this moment and you, the academy, feel it’s necessary to play a violin over their voice while they thank their dead grandmother? Show some respect for the love of everything good and holy.
And now, because you can’t find it anywhere else on the net, here are all the results…