
There were few souls brave enough to bet against Brokeback Mountain winning Best Picture in 2006. Those who did were teased incessantly and seen as rather senile. For most it was a done deal. Ang Lee’s film had inspired an endless spiral of important moral discussion and celebrity parody. Everyone in Hollywood was busy ramming the film’s importance down people’s throats and every critic seemed more than happy to take the bait.
Brokeback Mountain had tightened its grip on popular culture in a devastatingly rapid fashion and on its road to inevitable Oscar glory had become the most honoured movie in history. In the months of January and February you would be hard pressed to find a film organisation that dared to think otherwise. And certainly if Brokeback Mountain was going to somehow be defeated in the Best Picture category then it wouldn’t be as a result of the incredibly low budget picture Crash which had received uneven reviews and surprised many by even being nominated in this category in the first place.
And yet on Sunday March 5th 2006, almost 39 million viewers watched in shock as the ultimate underdog triumphed over the gigantic favourite. David had slain Goliath and for a moment it was as if the world had stopped still as Paul Haggis and co took to the stage.
For now however let’s rewind the clocks back a year as we analyse how one of the biggest shocks in Academy Award history transpired.
Crash initially premiered at the 2004 Toronto Film Festival but didn’t hit theatres until May 6th, 2005 making it ineligible for that year’s Oscar spoils. Certainly a film with such an awkward release date appeared to have missed the boat as far as important critical awards were concerned but this didn’t appear to be an issue anyway as Crash did not exactly receive the overwhelming positive response that one might expect from a future Best Picture winner. Instead its reviews were rather wide-ranging in regards to quality and the critics who had enjoyed the film weren’t going out of their way to praise the multi-narrative drama. On Rotten Tomatoes the film earnt a solid 76% score which wasn’t exactly a great indicator for film awards success. To put it into perspective every Best Picture winner since Crash has received an RT rating that at least dipped into the 90% region.
Whats more of the eight reviews that had written by top critics three had been labelled as negative. Time Out’s Geoff Andrews had mocked the film’s “melodramatic implausability” and in his New York Times Review A.O. Scott also struggled to see past the elaborate contrivances that result in a range of ethnic types being brought together through a thematic plot device. Although he admitted the film was powerful in places and praised Haggis’ daring, he came to the conclusion that Crash crucially lacked a “credible narrative or psychological motive.”

Crash had performed well commerically going on to make ten times its budget in the States but by the time the end of year awards were announced the film had already been stacked on DVD shelves for a number of weeks. As a film lacking the necesarry buzz that comes from gaining a theatrical release close to the Oscar balloting, it was assumed that the film would be very much left on the shelf in regards to awards buzz also.
Certainly the end of year awards confirmed this. When Premiere Magazine and Entertainment Weekly both compiled a list of critics 2005 choices Crash was a mile behind the front-runner Brokeback Mountain. One critic who had stood up for Crash was Roger Ebert who positioned the film number one in his annual top ten list. Many people lambaseted Ebert for this decision and insisted that he had lost touch with the profession that he had been dedicated to for years. So much for having an opinion!
By a complete contrast, it would have been nearly impossible for Brokeback Mountain to receive anymore positive hype than it did upon its release in Mid-December.

The film which depicted the complicated sexual affair between two homosexual cowboys was showered with praise in the months that followed winning three of the big four American critics awards (Good Night and Good Luck won the other), and prevailing at the Producer’s, Director’s and Writer’s Guild Awards. Throughout January and February the film won more film honours than Schindler’s List and Forrest Gump combined and it seemed to all extent and purposes that Brokeback Mountain was pretty much Arsenal’s 2003/2004 premiership side i.e. unbeatable.
Meanwhile Crash could not even garner a Best Film nomination at the Golden Globes. Only once had a film not nominated for the Globes gone on to win Best Picture and that only occurred because in 1973 people were confused as to which category The Sting belonged in.
Things were not looking at all good for Crash but Lionsgate Theatrical President Tom Ortenberg had an unforseen trick up his sleeves. Rather than relfecting miserably on the fact that Crash was a year old picture lacking in hype, he cunningly used the film’s positon as a DVD as an advantage.
Although Steven Spielberg was adamant that no screeners be sent out for Schindler’s List it is common practice for producers of Oscar nominated films to send out in the region of 10,000, screeners to important critical organisations. Anymore than this however is not only expensive and exhausting but also comes at the risk of piracy which is a big threat when a number of the films are still running in theatres.
Given that their film had already been out in stores for months on end however Lionsgate suddenly realised that there was no harm in sending out as many screeners as possible.

In fact they thought, how about we just send screeners to everybody. And with this in mind, they did. It was a $4 million transaction but Lionsgate performed a landmark feat of sending out no less than 130,000 screeners which included every single member of the Writer’s and Director’s Guild. Although the film didn’t win either prize this innovative tactic had launched them back into the race and there was no longer any concern about whether a film that had been released on DVD in September 2005 could stay in the public conscience until early March of the follwing year.
Although Crash’s marketing campaign had every Hollywood tongue waggling and every watercooler drowned in excitement, Brokeback Mountain was still the heavy favourite. As February 2006 arrived, every Oscar analyst in sight was hedging their bets on Ang Lee’s film. No-one it seemed had caught wind of the cruel dramatic foreshadowing when in 1998 the apparently insurmountable Saving Private Ryan had lost to Shakespeare in Love in part thanks to an expensive marketing campaign. Surely however Brokeback’s form was just too solid for such a shock to occur again?

And so Oscar night arrived. The 2006 ceremony took place at the Kodak Theatre and had been moved to March owing to the Winter Olympics that were taking place in late February. The move did little for ratings however as an estimated 38.9 viewers made it the third least watched Oscar event of all time. This may have been due to the seeming inevitability of the major prize or because this was seen as the year of the Indie, with very few Box Office hits nominated. All Best Picture nominated films were story driven and artistic in tone with Brokeback Mountain and Crash competing alongside Steven Spielberg’s Munich, Bennett Miller’s Capote and George Clooney’s political, black and white drama Good Night and Good Luck. In a rather rare occurrence all five Best Director contenders saw their films nominated for Best Picture.
On the night itself awards were very evenly split amongst the contenders and no single picture dominated. King Kong triumphed with a few technical prizes, Memoirs of a Geisha swooped up the art awards and Crash and Brokeback both shared writing honours although Ang Lee crucially took home the Best Director award. As soon as the Taiwanese filmmaker made his way to the podium there was an even greater feeling of predictability amongst those in attendance and people watching on their screens at home. Best Picture and Best Director honours are very rarely split as it is, not least with Brokeback Mountain’s incredible awards form heading into the big night.
Then out of nowhere it happened.

In spite of the fact that it was lacking crucial awards in directing and acting categories, that it was made for just $6 million, that it was a film-festival acqusition, that three Oscars would make it the least dominant winner since Rocky – Crash had won Best Picture. Heads must have exploded and hearts momentarily stopped beating. Legs no doubt shaking, the Crash squad headed to the stage and before he knew it Paul Haggis was thanking the Academy for “embracing our film about love, and about tolerance, about truth.” It was amazing that he was able to be so composed because it would have taken an extremely confident man to sleep comfortably the night before in thinking that such a feat was possible.
And so after all the shock had died down talk about Brokeback Mountain became all the range again. Although this time it wasn’t how Brokeback Mountain was going to prevail at the Oscars but rather how on earth Brokeback Mountain didn’t triumph at the Academy. Although all five nominated films were perfectly solid efforts some reporters began defending Ang Lee’s film as it was their own mother who had been robbed of Oscar glory.

Kenneth Turan writing for The Los Angeles Times went on a bitter tirade in which he audaciously claimed that prejudice had clouded voters judgement. Writing passionately as if he had all the evidence in his hands, Turan claimed that ““you could not take the pulse out of the industry without realizing that this film made people distinctly uncomfortable.” He had no qualms about leaving his point ambigious by continuing to shine a big, bright light on his persepective:
“In the privacy of the voting booth… people are free to act out their 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.’
Some people were inclined to agree with Turan and thought that Crash was the politically friendly alternative for voters who felt uneasy with Brokeback Mountain’s subject matter. This way they could still feel good about the fact that they had rewarded a film that dealt with important racial prejudices.
Other camps argued that the film’s setting of Los Angeles was hugely beneficial with it being the home of the majority of Academy voters and apparently lending weight to this opinion was the fact that previous Best Picture winner Million Dollar Baby had been set in ‘their city.’ Further arguments were made about Academy voters being too old and not up to date with the new, politically and moraly savvier generation. One argument that received little support however was that voters just happened to think Crash was the better film. This conclusive theory would have left no room for precious newspaper inches and we all know how much Hollywood loves a good debate.

A number of gay activists didn’t believe that the subject matter had anything to do with Brokeback Mountain being snubbed with Joe Solomnese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign coming forward to claim that both films dealt with “tough issues like indifference and intolerance.” Backing up Joe’s words were campaigners who all shared the sentiment that an Oscar win would have paled in comparison to the important, mature message that Brokeback Mountain made about the nature of homosexual relations that had helped to inspire a number of socially important debates.
Crash evoked the achievements of previous shock Best Picture winners such as Shakespeare in Love and Chariots of Fire and stands as proof that nothing is ever one hundred percent when it comes to the Academy.
Thank-you for reading.
Want to write about the stuff you're passionate about and have your work read by an audience of over 10 million a month? Click here to become a contributor.








25 Comments
Really interesting article, although I’m now even more certain that King’s Speech will win Best Picture over the far superior Social Network and Black Swan.
Damn.
Thanks Chris – glad you enjoyed reading. I gave Black Swan **** 3/4 in my tragically geeky review book. I would love for it to win but don’t think that it has any chance at all. Social Network seems to be the only other film that stands a chance besides King’s Speech so fingers crossed I guess.
Yeah, even though I loved Black Swan I never really thought it had much of a chance. And I think I ultimatly preferred Social Network to it anyway.
King’s Speech really does seem like the Crash of this year: safe, makes the academy feel good about themselves, and not nearly as iconic as the film it’s up against.
I know everyone looks at it like Brokeback vs Crash, I’ve always thought Munich was the best picture there. Either way though, Crash winning is nonsense. ALthough TKS is better than it.
The Social Network is heartless. It is a good film, but it is not inspiring. The lead character is like “Howard Hughes” in The Aviator and ampas is just not going to give oscars to the portrayal of those kinds of personalities. I prefer The King’s Speech. And Brokeback Mountain should have won.
Also, I have to disagree with Chariots of Fire and Shakespeare in Love being as shocking or “a complete shock” as you write. There were indicators that those films could win. Chariots of Fire won one of the Golden Globes best picture prizes (for Foreign Film-some odd category rules that year) and Reds was not a foregone conclusion as many thought it portrayed a positive side of “communism.” Shakespeare in Love had the most nominations that year and it had won a significant amount of Best Film prizes from critics. The Golden Globes Best Picture categories went to both Shakespeare AND Ryan, so there was evidence of strong support for it. I don’t think it was a shocker at all.
Unless you factor in homophobia, there is no real good explanation why Brokeback Mountain lost that year. It broke EVERY rule that has been used to prognosticate oscars for the previous 77 years. And it was the year a gay themed film was dominating. You do the math!
THank you.
Hi Martin, thanks for your comment. Understand your point about Golden Globes but winning Golden Globe for Best Film in the Musical/Comedic category as Shakespeare in Love did is by no means a strong indicator of Oscar success. The film lost to Saving Private Ryan in almost every major awards precursor to the Oscars and it was a huge shock when it prevailed in the Best Picture category.
Also it is just plain stupid to argue that homophobia is the only possible reason why Brokeback Mountain lost. You can argue that it is the case but there is no evidence to support it as a fact. Brokeback Mountain was up against four good films and it lost to one of them. The film is far from a masterpiece anyway so I don’t know why everyone got so upset about it.
Laurent, you wrote: “…but winning Golden Globe for Best Film in the Musical/Comedic category as Shakespeare in Love did is by no means a strong indicator of Oscar success” and I will argue that you are incorrect. One of the indicators of predicting a Best picture win has been that it has won “either” of the Best Film categories at the Golden Globes (though not recently). Are you saying Chicago’s win meant nothing then? Or Annie Hall? I am not saying that it is the ONLY factor, but it IS a factor and means that Saving Private Ryan not winning was NOT a huge shock as you seem to think. Another indicator is that most of the time, the film with the most nominations wins. Shakespeare in Love had the most nominations that year. It also won the BAFTA award that year as well as the SAG ensemble and some critics organizations Best Picture. (There were decidedly a lot fewer of those than there are now.)
You write: “The film lost to Saving Private Ryan in almost every major awards precursor to the Oscars and it was a huge shock when it prevailed in the Best Picture category.” It’s only a shock if you disregard it had the most nominations that year, it won the SAG ensemble (over Ryan), the WGA award (over Ryan), etc. Neilsen used to put out a publication at oscar time that you could use to predict what would win. They used a series of upsides and downsides based on trends. Both Ryan and Shakespeare were 50/50. It cannot be said this was a huge shock. A surprise maybe. But there was a lot of support for both films.
On the other hand, there was no support for crash to win. You write: “it is just plain stupid to argue that homophobia is the only possible reason why Brokeback Mountain lost.” I DID NOT write that it was the only possible reason. What I wrote was that it’s the only reason that makes sense based on 77 years of what everyone had used to predict what wins the best picture oscar. And your assertion that “there is no evidence to support it (homophobia) as a fact” simply is not true. There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence. There were reports written before the oscars in the L.A. papers by columnists like Nikki Finke and Tom O’Neil about ampas members who were distinctly uncomfortable with watching the film, much less voting it for their top honor. AMPAS member Tony Curtis went on the air on Fox news and denounced the film when asked about it. (And if that seems minor, imagine if someone denounced crash because it was about blacks or Munich because it was about Jews — and said they wouldn’t even see it as voting members of ampas.) Many actors have said over the years since they STILL haven’t seen it. Mark Wahlberg said so recently and he was even up for one of the roles. Ernest Borgnine made his feelings known the night of these same oscars. Robert Duvall, Gene Hackman, Sarah Jessica Parker and Samuel L. Jackson were reported not to have seen it, either back then. This is important because they are voting members. And, like I said before, all of the rules for oscar prognostication were thrown out the window that year when a GAY film was the likely winner? There is enough circumstantial evidence to point to “homophobia” as the deciding factor that year. THere was no — it’s gonna be L.A. Conifdential or Titanic. Shakespeare in Love or Saving Private Ryan. Social Network or King’s Speech. Hurt Locker or Avatar. It was going to be Brokeback Mountain hands down. If it WAS a shock it didn’t win, as you have written, then you have to ask WHY it was a shock it didn’t win. Why did ampas not do as expected when they always do what is expected? Homophobia is the likely answer.
Your summation that “one argument that received little support however was that voters just happened to think Crash was the better film,” is pretty light on evidence itself. Who thinks that? The evidence you cite in the opening paragraphs of your article shows that few thought that and far fewer than thought the other three films in the category were better.
You also write: “The film is far from a masterpiece anyway so I don’t know why everyone got so upset about it.” Brokeback Mountain is still being hailed as a masterpiece, so your opinion is of little value here. Each and every year since it came out critics write about its loss as one of the most egregious best picture losses ever. The Autry Museum in Los Angeles just had a 5th Anniversary celebration of the film, there has been several books written about it and one from a USC professor just came out, there is a ballet company performance based on the film being performed in San Francisco this summer, there is an opera version in the works as well a stage musical, there are university lectures every year as well as film studies about BBM, there is a forum group with thousands of members that have gatherings all over the world dedicated to this film (one in Germany is coming up), there is a whole album of music out inspired by the film and this is just the tip of the iceberg. The film continues to inspire those who finally see it. Maybe your opinion of it not being a masterpiece discounts the thousands of articles written about it, but after five years at least, it has stood the test of time and interest that crash hasn’t managed to achieve ever since it won. As Kenneth Turan wrote, “Sometimes you win by losing.”
Social Network is better than King’s Speech? Are you a 12 year old girl?
Just because it has big names like Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher attached to it (I love Fight Club and the West Wing), does not make it brilliant.
While these individuals have been brilliant on other projects, The Social Network was bland, unimaginative, and the exact opposite of thought provoking – probably everything that Facebook is :)
Long live The King…’s Speech!
Seeing as King’s Speech is a lot more accessible than Social Network it would most likely be preferred by the majority of twelve year old females so even though I understand that you were being glib your comment/insult doesn’t really work.
Social Network and Black Swan were my favourite films of 2010 and both were a lot more visually engaging than The King’s Speech. Lots of directors could have made The King’s Speech more cinematic, Hooper didn’t so for him to win Best Director would annoy me far more than his film winning Best Picture.
I’d love to know what in the King’s Speech was not bland, unimaginative and the exact opposite of though provoking. Truly one of the dullest contender’s for the prize in a long time (having finally seen all 10, it is the only one that I am shocked is up there). It’s a soulless awards grabbing exercise, with one beautiful central performance surrounded by several bland ones, some horrible cinematography, and generally inept direction. A safe, fluffy, heartless, boring picture. At least Shakespeare in Love was charming and engaging.
The Kings Speech is more accessible to 12 year old girls than Social Network? University Campus, the new Spiderman actor, Justin Timberlake, and the biggest internet/social phenomenon of our time ‘tag me, tag me’– how is a movie about a stuttering man more appealing to 12 year old girls? (I guess one snide comments deserves another :)
Colin Firth has more acting ability in his left fist than Jesse Eisenberg and the rest of Social Network’s cast (Andrew Garfield excluded) – see King’s Speech where he’s standing in a room, moving his hands next to him uncomfortably, subtle nuances that convey authenticity.
Helena Bonham Carter, as subtle as her performance was, actually delivers an amazing performance, so good that you only realize it afterwards. So the film was set in boring rooms, and didn’t focus on cinematic tricks like Fincher (I’m getting tired of his dark shadows and the wind blowing through willow trees).
I am honestly dumbstruck at the praise The Social Network is getting, I think it is the most overrated film of 2010, but hey, that’s just my opinion, and it seems there are plenty people who disagree. Just to add – since Brokeback and Ali’s snub, I don’t value the opinion of Oscar judges – the awards itself is ‘soulless’ :)
After ‘Leo’ starred in Titanic, do you think he didn’t develop a loyal tween fan following no matter what film he starred in (those tweens are all grown up now, so it no longer applies post-90′s). I think a cast of young actors would be far more appealing to the youth than an aging Geoffrey Rush and creepy Helena Bonham Carter (Harry Potter is bigger than its cast).
Oh yes, the betrayal, that’s what The Social Network was about, the apparent theft of an idea and consequent lock-jawed attempt to claim everything about it…yawn, never seen that before, how original! Backstabbing? by the youth of the 21st century? nooo!
I really want to understand how this is appealing, I think if you had the exact same film, mood, cinematography and all, but removed Fincher and Sorkin it would be nowhere near as popular. Anyways, after he butchered Benjamin Button I’m surprised people still pay attention to his work (unfair comment, I know).
But on the accessibility and ‘fluffy, well worked sentimentality’ I’d like to see any 12 year old appreciate Firth’s expletive rant and f-bomb littered speech when trying to overcome crippling condition (made even worse by the demands of a publicly visible King).
12 year olds aside – I loved Kings Speech, briefly enjoyed Social Network but changed my opinion after thinking about it a bit more. I loved your article though, I don’t think enough can be said about how the Oscars robbed Brokeback of the award it so deserved (my first bluray purchase too).
It’s irrelevant who stars in the film, The Social Network with its adult themed betrayal is simply nowhere near as accessible as the fluffy, well worked sentimentality at the heart of The King’s Speech. Families have attended the latter film, Social Network is a lot darker.
That’s why I was saying your 12 year old comment makes no sense.
@Greg – glad you enjoyed the article. I will hopefully be doing a couple more Biggest Oscar Shocks pieces before the big night arrives.
Are you from the States? The only reason I ask is because I understand that The King’s Speech has an R Rating in the US whereas in the UK the film has been attended by a string of families which probably includes a number of females in the aforementioned age range. Although The King’s Speech deals with a crippling condition and does so admirably it still has a warmer feel than the darker atmosphere at the heart of The Social Network and even though the latter film has a number of popular stars I don’t think many young people would be interested in sitting through the film.
My point has nothing to do with the quality of the two films, I’m just implying that The King’s Speech is a lot more accessible. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing either – Shawshank Redemption is an accessible film and is one of the greatest pictures of the nineties.
I wholeheartedly agree about Benjamin Button and knew going in that it would take a lot for me to like a film written by Eric “Life is like a box of chocolates” Roth.
@Laurent. I’m from Cape Town, South Africa :)
There is no doubt that in the UK The King’s Speech is going to be (or already is) massive, and rightly so. I think the same would apply for The Social Network in the USA. They’re both distinctly representative of their respective countries (English Monarchy and American greed).
At the end of the day, The King’s Speech is most likely more accessible to a general audience, which as you say, is a good thing, and definitely lighter in mood, but I still think the youth (not just 12yr olds :) would be more attracted to The Social Network (just my opinion). I also don’t think that Kings Speech or Social Network are the top 2 films of 2010. While Colin Firth’s performance was brilliant, the film as a whole was just good. I also honestly believe that Social Network has to be the most overrated film in years and that the buzz is partly because of the popularity of its subject matter. If not in the foreign film category, I think Girl with the Dragon Tattoo would be most desserving.
Looking forward to those other Oscar articles.
Ridiculous. Speaking from personal experience, the younger/more cinematically illiterate people I know refused to see “that Facebook movie”, and yet loved King’s Speech.
Social Network is our generations “Network”. The fact that it is about a social networking phenomenon specific to our generation is only relevant if you are completely inept at enjoying a film beyond what you construe from the poster. I find it hard to believe that anybody who has genuinely watched the film could find nothing more to say about it other than it’s about Facebook. But if we want to talk subject matter, I hardly think King’s Speech wins the debate. The “crippling” debilitation he suffers is trivial at best. First world problems much? What people are lapping up is the triumph over the odds and the saccharine friendship formed. The stutter is in theory only just more than a Macguffin, and it is one of the main failures of the film that it does not address it as such.
must be me. I never saw anything like heath ledger’s performance before or since in all my life.
This is not a criticism – and I’ve had this debate too many times to get into again – but I would say that Brokeback Mountain is not about ‘two homosexual cowboys.’ It’s about a homosexual relationship, but I would say that Ledger’s character in particular is bisexual. He doesn’t necessarily prefer Gyllenhaal because he’s male; he prefers him because he is in love with him.
I would also tend to agree with those who said the movie losing best pic was NOT because of homophobia, which seemed like a knee-jerk response. If it had won, many who disliked it would say it only won because of political correctness. Can’t please everyone.
I’m glad to see someone finally stated the obvious. The author of the short story the movie is mostly based on has always stated that the characters in the story cannot be labeled straight or gay or bisexual. They are people falling in and out of love with other people.
Personally, I thought Brokeback Mountain was a well done film. I especially enjoyed the cinematography and the acting of Ledger and Gyllenhaal. As far as shock that Crash won, it might be high. But I haven’t always associated this “upset” as a travesty as much as some other years decisions.
“Everyone in Hollywood was busy ramming the film’s importance down people’s throats”.
Wait…what?
What exactly don’t you understand?
The idea of ramming anything down someone’s throat in an article about Brokeback Mountain amuses. Some say it’s a gift, most don’t.
I can’t believe some people writing above still are arguing about whether the characters are gay or not. It’s a sign that people see what they want to see. Unless you can quote the source, I have never read anything that stated Annie Proulx said the characters were not gay. In her comments at the 5th Anniversary screening of BBM, Diana Ossana wondered why so many people refuse to see the obvious and stated “Duh. Yes. They’re gay.” And to Adam: There is ample evidence, both anecdotal and circumstantial, that homophobia is indeed the culprit in BBM’s oscar loss for Best Picture. It has been written about and documented. It’s hardly a knee jerk response. Those who don’t want to acknowledge that are similar to the “are they gay” contingent, or the “prove that you’re born gay” people. Some just can’t see the forest for the trees.
Well its not as if Hollywood is progressive on race, either.
I tried to sign up to your RSS however it doesnt appear to be working. Ill come back later.