Oscar voters sometimes vote on films they chose not to see

It was expected to be a very close contest between "Gravity" and "12 Years a Slave" for the Best Picture Oscar.   "12 Years a Slave" won, and it was widely believed that the vote was very close, although the count is never released by the independent accounting firm that compiles the votes from Academy members.

Since that vote, a news story has circulated quoting several voting members who said they voted for the film without actually having watched it.   They cited reasons of repugnance at watching the depiction of  citing reasons such as not liking to watch suchviolence or the inhumane and immoral treatment of fellow human beings.  Some critics implied that they either should have watched it, or else not voted in that category.  I have mixed feelings about that.  I also decided not to see the film, because I did not want to experience that cruel treatment of human beings;  but I also read enough to convince me that it was a great film that I would have voted for.  In contrast, "Gravity" was a marvel of technical sophistication and suspense, but not a great film.

In this case, it seems that those members voted for the film and also would have voted for it if they had seen it.   So I see no problem there.

On the other hand, in 2005 the vote for Best Picture was also assumed to be very close when "Crash" suprisingly won over "Brokeback Mountain."    Again, several voting members (some quite notable) said they had refused to see "Brokeback Mountain" because of the homosexual content -- and they voted against it for that same reason.

This film, more than anything I have seen before, is likely to change people's minds to a more empathic feeling for gay people and, specifically, their forming stable, long-term relationships.   That capacity to change attitudes is part of what made it a great film.    My article on "The Significance of 'Brokeback Mountain'" has just been published in the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health (2014, issue #1).   My thesis is that the film's ability to engender empathy in the audience is what made it so significant.


So, to have people vote against it out of negative feelings, without giving it a chance to change their attitudes, seems wrong.   Of course, I know you can't have rules that say you can vote without seeing the film if you're going to vote for it, but not if you're going to vote against it.  But "Brokeback Mountain" should have won in 2005.

Ralph