I too am very proud of her and she should be proud of her works as well. Regarding your question - Although I haven't seen any discussion why she was not shown on TV, my take is that she would prefer not to be shown given that she is a very private person.
I don't think that she asked not to be shown. Otherwise Diana O. would not have spoken about her.
I think what happened was that they didn't want to look like they were pandering to the "gay agenda" that conservatives have been accused Hollywood of doing.
I don't think they "votes" were even counted!
The best analisis of the loss I read on the Huffington Post. By a poster. Here it is:
I liked both movies. I read Brokeback Mountain a few years ago -- and for those of you not in the know, it was written by a straight woman. It's a slow simple story -- and part of its beauty is in what is not said really being as important as what is said. For those of you who thought it was boring, perhaps you should stay home and play video games. Deep thought is not for those who need bombs and car chases and excitment every second.
This whole argument of Crash vs. Brokeback Mountain has nothing to do with homophobia or which movie was better (they were both great), or which movie the academy members could most relate to. The whole thing comes down to a "rigged voting system" when it suits the academy and this year it suited them. Does anybody truly believe that "It's Hard Out Here Being a Pimp" was really the best song? Is it even a song that should have been nominated at all? Ugh! I think not. Look, the academy and its members have taken so much shit over the last few years for not recognizing "more people of color" or "historically unrepresented minorities". Academy members are being force fed all this PC stuff so the only thing they can do is cave into the pressure from those who feel "our community is not being recognized!" Right, as if the thing that is really holding these "communities" back, wheather it's gay, black, latino, muslim, christian or whatever is hinged on winning Academy Awards. We all know the worst thing you can accuse the academy of is not being tolerant or "inclusive." It's like all these groups are threatening Hollywood with the dreaded "B" word... bigot.
So the reality has now arrived: truly mediocre, and often bad, acheivments in film and music are being recognized as "brilliance" so that people can feel good about "representing my peeps" and along the way becoming some sort of cultural icon, as if what they have acheived in film is comparable to the contributions to humanity made by Martin Luther King Jr, Cesar Chavez, Yoyo Ma, Kiri Takanowa, Paul Williams (the architect)and all those drag queens who fought so hard during the Stonewall riots.
Now what is truly excellent has to compete with the truly mediocre. Everone needs to be pleased and represented these days or there will be a law suit or a boycott pending. It's such a bunch of bullshit and it's really, really sad.
Someone from the black community now has to win something every year (It's Hard Out Here....) Someone from the gay community has to win (BB Mountain 3 awards, and let's not forget that "the Industry" is heavily gay). The Asian community has recently been aggravated about lack of representation on screen and nominations so Memories of A Geisha took three Oscars.
Everything this year at the Oscars was nice and safe and fair and dull. An awards show designed and dedicated to offending nobody.
I think the awards for Best Song, Best Make-up and Best Visual Effects were much more contaversial that Best Movie. Who on Earth would give King Kong a nomination for anything? On second thought, who would give George Clooney an Oscar for acting?
Posted by: louisxix on March 12, 2006 at 08:00pm
As you can see the "votes" were STRATEGICALLY "given" so it's an IMPOSSIBILITY that they were REAL votes.
And the Associate Press - part of this whole conspiracy to keep the conservative discourse going - finishes their "article" on AP with the following:
Calls by the Associated Press to Proulx's Wyoming home and her literary agent, Elizabeth Darhansoff, were not immediately returned Tuesday.
Did they wait more than "immediate" seconds in order to publish that traparently bashing article on her?
They answer the question, don't they?
