Oscars should be neutral

I love the Oscars.\nAs a kid, it was the only other school night besides Election Day I was allowed to stay up past bed time. Women in beautiful gowns and gorgeous men in tuxes parade down a red carpet, and little gold men are held by those who make us laugh and cry for $9-a-pop, 20 times a year.\nBut this year, I'm a bit nervous. The show will be more political than ever, and even worse, it will be more liberal than ever. For starters, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences named Jon Stewart as the official Oscars host. Yuck. Unlike my college student peers, I don't find Stewart or his faux news show amusing. The show will most likely be filled with his notorious Bush bashing, and I just don't know how much more of that I can take.\nThe liberalism doesn't stop with Stewart, or even start with him, for that matter. For a few years now, the acceptance speeches and host banter have become increasingly political, like Chris Rock's opening monologue comparing the president's job with managing a Gap store and Sean Penn's comment that "If there's one thing that actors know, other than there weren't any WMDs ..." You get the picture.\nPerhaps my biggest problem with this year's show is the overall Hollywood attitude that 2005 American cinema should be honored for one reason: "to change the way people think," as director Ang Lee said. You know, the attitude that films cannot be valued individually and that they must have "progressive" political implications.\nFor example, "Good Night, and Good Luck" is a fantastic film about brave news men who take on McCarthyism. But somehow, Hollywood must hint at its applicable status to today's politics; that somehow McCarthy embodies 21st-century Americans who believe it's unpatriotic to criticize government. Actually, it's about George Clooney's admiration for his father's peers and the complicated political situation of their time, not ours.\nLikewise, "Brokeback Mountain" is a film about two gay lovers who, though married to women, continue a sexual relationship. Since when does every movie containing a gay individual need to be labeled "political"? I would see this movie if it weren't hyped up (even by its Golden Globe-winning director) as a way to "educate" and "open minds." Why must Hollywood continually seek to "open the minds" of people who hold conservative views? If I walk out of that movie still opposed to gay marriage, does that mean Ang Lee and Co. failed? By just reading a description or watching the trailer, I wouldn't get an ideological vibe from the film. Hollywood adds that unfortunate stigma, and celebrates it with the Oscars.\nThe awards should go to the best movies of the year, not the ones that best fit Hollywood's political agenda. Sometimes they fit both categories, but this year the potential nominations just seem too intentional. Hollywood would do better if it just made the movies and left us, the viewing public, alone. That's when the thinking really begins.