Have you seen MILK?
I haven't. Any cop?
Yes. It's a very good film about a very relevant subject and American hero.
So if Hollywood gives an Oscar to Sean Penn in Milk it's because he's playing an important Gay figure and they're only giving it to him because of Political Correctness. But if they don't give the Best Picture award to Brokeback Mountain it's because the central characters are gay, and they obviously made that decision because they're too homophobic. They can't win, basically.
Exactly.
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN didn't fail to nab the Best Picture because Hollywood doesn't like gay films that manage to break into the mainstream. BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN failed to nab the main prize as it is a gay film that the general audience didn't pay money to go and see. The Academy Awards are about honouring talent and talent that makes HollywoodLand money. MILK is also quite subtly anti-California (the political establishment anyway) and certainly makes wry parallels to now and the hateful likes of Prop 8 and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
MILK was the better film than SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE without a doubt (though the latter is a great, great film - if a slightly safer retread of CITY OF GOD). But SLUMDOG is less of a hot potato politically and Hollywood is in the business of making cash. MILK will not set the box office alight. But an underdog film about someone making money is obviously going to do better and break into the consciousness of many generations the world over. Hollywood rewards at the Oscars what makes it money - THE FUGITIVE, TITANIC, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, THE DARK KNIGHT, FORREST GUMP...).
Also, there was a VERY big campaign surrounding Celador's best advert for their best selling show whereas MILK was never going to crack everyone's eggs. So artistically the Academy can rightfully honour Sean Penn, but businesswise it cannot give it Best Picture. It's not right, but it shows that maybe Hollywood - which is run by non PC gays (!) - can only mirror society's wallets.