I haven't seen any of the five films the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences nominated for Best Picture. Not a lot of people have. This year's nominees have drastically underperformed at the box office vis-a-vis past nominees. Critics seem to like them. Movie goers don't--at least compared to past nominees.

Brokeback Mountain, taking in a domestic gross of $73 million, is the top earner of this year's nominees, followed by Crash ($53 million), Munich ($46 million), Good Night, and Good Luck ($30 million), and Capote ($22 million). Good Night, and Good Luck and Munich have been the recipients of negative word-of-mouth. Aside from this common reason for lackluster box-office performance, there is a peculiar reason that explains the poor performance: heavy-handed political messages--anti-anti-Communism, homosexuality, etc.--that surround the Best Picture nominees keep people away. Ironically, the same thing that repulses movie goers (politics over entertainment), attracts critics.

Take politics out of the story of several recent Best Picture nominees (The Cider House Rules, The Insider), and all you have is a boring, bad movie. Put the politics back in, and you have a boring, bad movie with a left-wing bent. That's apparently all it takes to get nominated. Your movie can stink, but if your politics don't--at least according to the critics--you might find yourself vying for an Oscar. Just don't expect big ticket sales. (And perhaps defenders of such low-budget flicks as Capote, Brokeback Mountain, and Crash can justifiably say that the makers of those movies weren't expecting to put up big numbers).

My sense is that this politics-over-quality phenomenon occured with this year's nominees. But since I haven't seen any of the films yet, I can only offer a guess (and an uneducated one at that). For all I know, Brokeback Mountain, or Crash, or Munich is a great film. It's just that so many of the nominees in recent years haven't been great films, but rather average (Million Dollar Baby, The Green Mile) or bad (Gosford Park) films that happen to have a political theme. Occassionally, politicized movies will deserve the praise heaped upon them (American Beauty, Mystic River). But more often than not, the critical praise stems from ideological solidarity and not actual quality. The easiest way to get critics to call a bad movie good is to slip in numerous genuflections to left-wing idols.

This year's nominees, by all accounts, are especially political. They are also, by historical standards, especially weak comercially. Consider that of the Best Picture Award winners of the past twenty years, all but four have eclipsed the $100 million mark. None of this year's nominees has reached that mark, and even with a generous post-Oscar boost, none likely will. In fact, one has to go all the way back to 1987's The Last Emperor to find a Best Picture winner that made less money at the box office than any of the five films nominated this year. In other words, if the Best Picture award were handed out today, the winner would rank 19th at best, and 20th at worst, for its gross domestic take out of the last 20 Best Picture winners.

Granted, a comparison between Best Picture winners and Best Picture nominees is a contrast between two different things. But so is comparing the inflated box-office receipts from 2006 to movies made in the '80s and '90s.

This year's nominees, as is the case with most movies, will all make money. But the point is that even after this year's winner receives its post-Oscar bounce, and even though this year's winner will benefit from inflated ticket prices, this year's winner will be one of biggest commercial "flops"--relatively speaking--of Best Picture winners of the last two decades. And the public's distate will be reflected in future rebellions against what movies the critics tell them to see.

I liked Gosford Park. I thought it was funny, well plotted, well acted, and served as a fine recreation of 1930s English country rich folk life. I don't recall anything very political about it. It was slowly paced, so I am sure it bored many to tears. Maggie Smith was very funny.

They're coming out with a sequel to Bareback Mountain soon.

Saddlesore Pass will be in the theaters in June.

If Marx put together a film about "English country rich folk life," Gosford Park would be it. I was bored, but to each his own.

I liked Munich. It was well worth the $7.

On a related note, Hollyweird is making a sequel to The Dark Crystal? WTF!??!

Jim Henson was a genius. He died. Let his genius die with him. The post-Henson muppet movies really weren't up to par, and neither will be this Dark Crystal sequel.

Nevertheless, I hope that something better comes along.

Dan,
you may disagree with Marx about where man is going with regard to his government, but people really do typically impose upon servants to a disgusting extent, even today. Perhaps Altman has done so with his own. I do see what you mean, but at least the servants weren't all secretly reading The Communist Manifesto.

"Impose upon his servants..." Webster--I agree with you that there are some real good things about Gosford Park, but is this really all the Marxism you saw in it? First, every character's identity and motivation was determined by their place in the class system. Second, the plot and the plot-resolution is clearly driven by this class-centrist view. Third, what about all the stuff about the murdered capitalist (who treats his servants badly) frequently sexually misusing all of his female factory workers and servants, frequently getting them knocked up, and sending his frequent offspring to orphanages?

I don't dislike the movie for these reasons (I have others), but I think this movie goes beyond merely showing a man who imposes upon his servants too much.

Skeptic,
I didn't notice that class drove every character's motivation in the movie. I do think there were characters whose motivations had no relationship to their class. The old man's young wife wanted money and sex with a young man. Most of the characters seemed to want in on the old man's money, and avarice is a sin most of us are guilty of at one time or another. Altman suggests that there was little moving from one class to another in that society, and for all I know he was right. In those circumstances motives, like much else, will be hemmed in by class.

As for the extreme nature of the rich old man's sins, I am intimately acquainted with at least 2 rich families, and they are quite apt to take any and all liberties with a selfishness that rapacious does not even begin to describe. Even with their own offspring. I am happily married to the sweetest and kindest woman I've ever met, and she is the unfortunate daughter of some pretty terrible people. Perhaps all of this has warped my own blue collar upbringing.

The sequel to Brokeback Mountain is going to be...Brokeback Mountain 2 starring....Charlize Theron and Kate Moss....wow that's a real twist....cowgirl lesbians instead of homosexual cowboys. (yawn) Seriously though, I do pray this is just a stupid rumour...

Hey how about kudos to the remake of War of the Worlds? Sure it was gorier and scarier than the original but at least with Speilberg at the helm they didn't insert a stupid sex scene into the movie....I mean come on there's more to doing a remake than thinking "Hey wouldn't it be cool if the hero had sex with someone....they never would have done that in the original!"
Keeping my fingers crossed for the Transformers movie he is heading up!