The Annual Academy Awards - General Discussion

[slowpoked]

19 hours ago, ThatsDarling said:

More recently, I would argue that Alfre Woodard should have been nominated and won for Clemency (a small, brilliant film that deserved a passion push like To Leslie received this year)

Now if there’s someone who needs and deserves the “overdue Oscar” narrative, it’s definitely Ms. Woodard.

3 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

I haven't ever seen any of Lawrence's award-winning performances, but her acting has been questionable enough in the movies I have seen that I'm skeptical she could have ever won anything except a Razzie without Weinstein's backing.

Well, to be fair, there’s really only one “award-winning performance”, if we’re talking about the Oscars, for SLP. She did win other GGs, SAG and BAFTA for American Hustle, I believe. Those are really the only two movies where she’s been recognized critically, in terms of actually winning.

Winter Bone remains her best work, though no one really had a chance against Natalie Portman that year. I also liked her understated supporting performance in Like Crazy. 

I think her performance in SLP was ok enough for an Oscar nom, but certainly way overrated for an Oscar win. Especially when juxtaposed with Emannuelle’s heartbreaking performance in Amour. 

[kittykat]

On 1/30/2023 at 8:25 AM, libgirl2 said:

Ugh! That year! Cate Blanchett should have won for Elizabeth. And time has shown what a much better actress she is. As for Shakespeare in Love. Cute movie, interesting but it was not even close to best picture which should have been Saving Private Ryan. You want to talk about Oscars being "bought". 

I'm always the SiL defender on movie threads because I love that film especially its playful screenplay with it's barrage of memorable quotes and it's benefitted from multiple rewatches. Yes I know, Weinstein, and I accept that the movie is always going to bear that stain, but I feel like it also receives backlash because it's technically a comedy and certain sophisticated types can't reconcile a comedy winning over a gritty but prestigious war film.

It's not that I don't love Saving Private Ryan but I'm also THAT person who thought The Thin Red Line was the better WW2 film.  With Life is Beautiful and Elizabeth rounding out the list not to mention all the films that missed the BP cut (Affliction, Gods and Monsters, A Simple Plan, The Truman Show) 1998 was a crazy good year for movies.

On 1/28/2023 at 2:14 PM, slowpoked said:

Can’t speak for Ana as I have not seen Blonde yet. But I have seen The Fabelmans and while I love, love Michelle W. (IMO, she should have already won for Blue Valentine, but Natalie Portman had the narrative  locked down that year), her role is really more supporting than lead. So if I had a vote, I would have voted Deadwyler over Michelle

Michelle definitely had buzz with her nom for Brokeback Mountain, I felt that loss was less about narrative and more about voters believing it was "not her time.". Personally My Week With Marilyn is incredibly underrated and far better than Blonde so I'm more perturbed about her not winning there.

[libgirl2]

1 hour ago, slowpoked said:

Now if there’s someone who needs and deserves the “overdue Oscar” narrative, it’s definitely Ms. Woodard.

Well, to be fair, there’s really only one “award-winning performance”, if we’re talking about the Oscars, for SLP. She did win other GGs, SAG and BAFTA for American Hustle, I believe. Those are really the only two movies where she’s been recognized critically, in terms of actually winning.

Winter Bone remains her best work, though no one really had a chance against Natalie Portman that year. I also liked her understated supporting performance in Like Crazy. 

I think her performance in SLP was ok enough for an Oscar nom, but certainly way overrated for an Oscar win. Especially when juxtaposed with Emannuelle’s heartbreaking performance in Amour. 

I really thought she was quite good in American Hustle. 

[MicheleinPhilly]

Ugh. I've been reading this whole thread and confusing JLo and JLaw and American Hustle and Hustlers and I was so confused. Derp. 👵

[truthaboutluv]

Quote

I'm always the SiL defender on movie threads because I love that film especially its playful screenplay with it's barrage of memorable quotes and it's benefitted from multiple rewatches. Yes I know, Weinstein, and I accept that the movie is always going to bear that stain, but I feel like it also receives backlash because it's technically a comedy and certain sophisticated types can't reconcile a comedy winning over a gritty but prestigious war film.

I will actually back you up on the Best Picture win. I completely agree that there is perhaps an unintended bias against comedy films and maybe even action films when it comes to the Oscars.

I remember one critic late last year, as the Awards Season was ramping up, in talking about why Top Gun: Maverick is more than deserving of a Best Picture nomination, noted that a great film doesn't always have to be filled with "DRAMATIC ACTING!!! TEARS, PAIN, ETC." His tone makes me imagine this in all caps, lol. But I did see his point. 

And so in the decades long debate over Shakespeare In Love and Saving Private Ryan, honestly, I wasn't too upset by SIL's win because honestly, I did genuinely love that movie. And Saving Private Ryan, though certainly a well-made film and dramatic, was it really THAT unique to all the other million war films that's been made?

It's like All Quiet On The Western Front, which is getting all this love this year. Yes, I haven't watched it, but I will as it's easily accessible being on Netflix. However honestly, I'm not jumping in excitement to watch it. Because again, will it really be THAT different than all the other war films we've seen? 

What I will say is where the voters fucked up that year and well Weinstein's hands were all over that, were the wins for Paltrow (lol, no) and Dame Judi Dench (again, no). I don't care how amazing an actress Judi Dench is, that 10 minute performance did not warrant a win. And Paltrow and her nasally fake British accent was at best serviceable in SIL. 

[Bruinsfan]

I didn't mind those so much, because I really did think Paltrow's performance was a worthy one, and I absolutely love Dame Judi Dench (even if hers may not have been). I too was more than fine with Shakespeare in Love beating out Saving Private Ryan, though Gods and Monsters and What Dreams May Come were the movies which impressed me most that year.

[libgirl2]

1 hour ago, truthaboutluv said:

I will actually back you up on the Best Picture win. I completely agree that there is perhaps an unintended bias against comedy films and maybe even action films when it comes to the Oscars.

I remember one critic late last year, as the Awards Season was ramping up, in talking about why Top Gun: Maverick is more than deserving of a Best Picture nomination, noted that a great film doesn't always have to be filled with "DRAMATIC ACTING!!! TEARS, PAIN, ETC." His tone makes me imagine this in all caps, lol. But I did see his point. 

And so in the decades long debate over Shakespeare In Love and Saving Private Ryan, honestly, I wasn't too upset by SIL's win because honestly, I did genuinely love that movie. And Saving Private Ryan, though certainly a well-made film and dramatic, was it really THAT unique to all the other million war films that's been made?

It's like All Quiet On The Western Front, which is getting all this love this year. Yes, I haven't watched it, but I will as it's easily accessible being on Netflix. However honestly, I'm not jumping in excitement to watch it. Because again, will it really be THAT different than all the other war films we've seen? 

What I will say is where the voters fucked up that year and well Weinstein's hands were all over that, were the wins for Paltrow (lol, no) and Dame Judi Dench (again, no). I don't care how amazing an actress Judi Dench is, that 10 minute performance did not warrant a win. And Paltrow and her nasally fake British accent was at best serviceable in SIL. 

I have seen All Quiet On The Western Front and it was fine but no where near the original silent version. It is pretty gritty though with those scenes in the trenches. That is tough to watch. I actually preferred 1917. SPR made me weep and rarely has a war movie made me done that. 

1 hour ago, Bruinsfan said:

I didn't mind those so much, because I really did think Paltrow's performance was a worthy one, and I absolutely love Dame Judi Dench (even if hers may not have been). I too was more than fine with Shakespeare in Love beating out Saving Private Ryan, though Gods and Monsters and What Dreams May Come were the movies which impressed me most that year.

I did love Gods and Monsters and I would have been thrilled if it won. Didn't it win original screenplay? 

[ProudMary]

2 hours ago, libgirl2 said:

I did love Gods and Monsters and I would have been thrilled if it won. Didn't it win original screenplay? 

Adapted, but yes.

[FilmTVGeek80]

Count me among those who loathed Shakespeare in Love winning over Saving Private Ryan. Still to this day, my teeth clench when that movie is mentioned (Feel the same about Crash winning over Brokeback Mountain.) I’m not a comedy snob and have thought many comedies were award-worthy, but SiL was not one of them. I’ve probably only seen a handful or do war movies, and I can’t say SPR was the most unique movie ever, but I don’t think a movie needs to be to win BP. I thought it was technically superb with beautiful acting and an incredibly emotionally affecting story.

[NUguy514]

Saving Private Ryan was twenty minutes of the most amazing film I’ve ever seen followed by 150 minutes of trite and stereotypical dialogue spoken by cardboard cutouts masquerading as characters.  If a script is shitty, the movie loses me, and SPR’s script is really bad.

On the other hand, Shakespeare in Love has a phenomenal script, thanks to Marc Norman and living genius Tom Stoppard.  Team SiL all the way.

[libgirl2]

13 hours ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

Count me among those who loathed Shakespeare in Love winning over Saving Private Ryan. Still to this day, my teeth clench when that movie is mentioned (Feel the same about Crash winning over Brokeback Mountain.) I’m not a comedy snob and have thought many comedies were award-worthy, but SiL was not one of them. I’ve probably only seen a handful or do war movies, and I can’t say SPR was the most unique movie ever, but I don’t think a movie needs to be to win BP. I thought it was technically superb with beautiful acting and an incredibly emotionally affecting story.

I didn't hate SiL but all these years later, I don't really give it much thought. I have not watched SPR again just because it was too emotionally grueling, just like Schindler's List. I can't do that one again. I remember that year, Roberto Benigni won best actor. I did think he was very good and I also liked Life is Beautiful (another one that made me cry), but I really wanted Tom Hanks to win too. Why not a tie? 

[slowpoked]

On 2/1/2023 at 12:35 PM, kittykat said:

not to mention all the films that missed the BP cut (Affliction, Gods and Monsters, A Simple Plan, The Truman Show) 1998 was a crazy good year for movies.

Oh gosh, The Truman Show! I still consider it criminal to this day that Jim Carrey was NOT nominated for that movie, and the movie missing out on BP as well. Certainly one of the more innovative, creative movies during its time.

Hard to think about how that stretch of The Truman Show - Man on the Moon - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind didn't produce a single nom for Jim. It was like he was the male Cameron Diaz (My Best Friend's Wedding - Vanilla Sky - Gangs of New York).

Edited February 3, 2023 by slowpoked

[ProudMary]

2 hours ago, slowpoked said:

Oh gosh, The Truman Show! I still consider it criminal to this day that Jim Carrey was NOT nominated for that movie, and the movie missing out on BP as well. Certainly one of the more innovative, creative movies during it's time.

Hard to think about how that stretch of The Truman Show - Man on the Moon - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind didn't produce a single nom for Jim. It was like he was the male Cameron Diaz (My Best Friend's Wedding - Vanilla Sky - Gangs of New York).

Up front, let me say that I've never been a big fan of Jim Carrey's comedy, and I pretty much avoided films in which he appeared, but also during the stretch of films you've mentioned, I did see him in a seemingly forgotten movie drama called "The Majestic." I was blown away by how good he was in that and surprised that he got no awards consideration for his performance. 

[kittykat]

On 2/2/2023 at 9:16 AM, libgirl2 said:

On 2/2/2023 at 7:53 AM, truthaboutluv said:

Expand  

I have seen All Quiet On The Western Front and it was fine but no where near the original silent version. It is pretty gritty though with those scenes in the trenches. That is tough to watch. I actually preferred 1917. SPR made me weep and rarely has a war movie made me done that. 

My main gripe with the new All Quiet is how much it deters from the source material.  I was waiting for certain scenes and characters that didn't happen. I mean the movie is fine and definitely follows the old War is Hell vibe I would compare it more to Thin Red Line since the tone of both films clearly were antiwar.  I do agree that 1917 is the better film.

18 hours ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

Still to this day, my teeth clench when that movie is mentioned (Feel the same about Crash winning over Brokeback Mountain.)

Holy hell the less said about Crashtastrophe the better.  That and Green Book were my biggest WTF moments.

But yes to add to everyone's arguments the Oscars still ignore comedic performances for nominations.  Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow and Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids are the two most recent ones I can think of and those were over 10 years ago.  I mean how many times have the Golden Globe winners for best picture and actors in the comedy category have been ignored at the Oscars?  The last winning performance I can think of is Marisa Tomei and I still remember the unwarranted uproar over that.

[slowpoked]

2 hours ago, ProudMary said:

Up front, let me say that I've never been a big fan of Jim Carrey's comedy, and I pretty much avoided films in which he appeared, but also during the stretch of films you've mentioned, I did see him in a seemingly forgotten movie drama called "The Majestic." I was blown away by how good he was in that and surprised that he got no awards consideration for his performance. 

Jim Carrey's amazing when he does "straight" acting. I'm also not very fond of his slapstick comedy. I hope the Oscar ship hasn't sailed for him yet, he's really a very gifted actor with the right material. 

 

13 minutes ago, kittykat said:

Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow and Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids are the two most recent ones I can think of and those were over 10 years ago. 

Comedy's really getting shafted, even if it's generally accepted that it's much harder to make people laugh than cry. For Best Actress, for the last 20 years or so, you'd have to go back to 2010 for Anette Benning for The Kids Are All Right for a lead actress nomination, if you even consider that  movie a comedy. There's sprinkling here and there of Meryl Streep (2009 Julie and Julia), Elliot Page (2008 Juno), Laura Linney (2008 Savages), Meryl again (Devil Wears Prada, 2006), Diane Keaton (2003 Something's Gotta Give) and a personal favorite comedic performance, Renee Zellweger for Bridget Jones' Diary (2001). In fact, the latter is probably the only nomination for a lead actress for the old school rom-com in that same 20+ period, unless you consider Something's Gotta Give as a rom-com.

[libgirl2]

11 minutes ago, slowpoked said:

Jim Carrey's amazing when he does "straight" acting. I'm also not very fond of his slapstick comedy. I hope the Oscar ship hasn't sailed for him yet, he's really a very gifted actor with the right material. 

 

 

Yes, I'm not a big fan of his comedy but I like him in serious roles. He is a good actor. 

[slowpoked]

So it's official. The Academy's investigation is done. As expected, Andrea keeps her nomination, but there will be changes to the process after this year's Oscars. Their direct statement:

Quote

“Based on concerns that surfaced last week around the TO LESLIE awards campaign, the Academy began a review into the film’s campaigning tactics. The Academy has determined the activity in question does not rise to the level that the film’s nomination should be rescinded. However, we did discover social media and outreach campaigning tactics that caused concern. These tactics are being addressed with the responsible parties directly.

“The purpose of the Academy’s campaign regulations is to ensure a fair and ethical awards process—these are core values of the Academy. Given this review, it is apparent that components of the regulations must be clarified to help create a better framework for respectful, inclusive, and unbiased campaigning. These changes will be made after this awards cycle and will be shared with our membership. The Academy strives to create an environment where votes are based solely on the artistic and technical merits of the eligible films and achievements.”

https://deadline.com/2023/01/oscars-andrea-riseborough-to-leslie-nomimation-not-revoked-1235245893/

 

And my God, this commentary from The Cut, I mean, are we now completely whitewashing Asian Michelle Yeoh and Cuban Ana de Armas because their skin tone isn't dark enough as Viola's?! Seriously?!

Quote

The fact that the category is overwhelmingly white, coupled with Riseborough’s surprise nomination, had some fans accusing the actor of taking Davis’s or Deadwyler’s spot. 

https://www.thecut.com/2023/02/andrea-riseboroughs-oscar-nomination-controversy-explained.html

What an irresponsible piece of writing!!!

The New Yorker's piece on the controversy is the most nuanced, balanced take I've read so far, which doesn't see it as Andrea vs. Davis/Deadwyler, which is what this controversy has basically been reduced to:

Quote

To me, the category is a mess. I didn’t expect Davis to be nominated because “The Woman King,” though a historical drama, is also an action film and very much an ensemble piece. But I was shocked by the failure to nominate Deadwyler, who is extraordinary in “Till.” On the other hand, even more surprising (at least to me) than the nomination of Riseborough is that of Ana de Armas, for “Blonde.” (That said, the Academy does love its bio-pic impersonations, and hers is the only one nominated in the category.) Not surprising but disappointing was the category fraud of Michelle Williams’s nomination, for “The Fabelmans,” for what is more of a supporting role, albeit an important one.

The acting branch’s shortsightedness goes far beyond the sway of a single questionable campaign.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/the-mostly-disheartening-outliers-on-this-years-oscar-slate

Edited February 3, 2023 by slowpoked

[TakomaSnark]

Viola Davis is officially EGOT.

 

 

[blackwing]

On 2/3/2023 at 2:58 PM, kittykat said:

But yes to add to everyone's arguments the Oscars still ignore comedic performances for nominations.  Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow and Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids are the two most recent ones I can think of and those were over 10 years ago.  I mean how many times have the Golden Globe winners for best picture and actors in the comedy category have been ignored at the Oscars?  The last winning performance I can think of is Marisa Tomei and I still remember the unwarranted uproar over that.

I guess it depends on how you define comedy, whether you mean traditional "laugh out loud" slapstick comedy, or whether dramas with comedic roles, or romantic comedies, or comedy-dramas, or black comedies also qualify.  Because there's been more than a few comedic or comedic-esque roles that I would think qualify.  Olivia Colman in "The Favourite", Alison Janney in "I Tonya", Penelope Cruz in "Vicky Cristina Barcelona", etc.

I too am curious about what happens when the GG Drama and GG Comedy winners face each other at the Oscars.  The problem is that nowadays, it's dubious to me exactly what the GG consider a comedy.  Colin Farrell in "Banshees", his role had a lot of comedic elements and some of the conversations were downright funny, but this is one of those films that fall into that comedy-drama or black comedy categories.

[slowpoked]

This article is mostly about how another country hasn't broken through the Oscars international film category yet, but it still touches on the expensive campaigning required to even gain a traction on getting attention. In light of the "changes" that the Academy promised they will be making after this year's "controversy," I wonder if said changes will affect $$$ spent (probably not, but hope springs eternal).

Quote

But once they arrived in Los Angeles to campaign for their film, Hollywood slapped them with a bitter reality check.

“That money was nothing. We were just laughing at ourselves,” she said. “We were bringing with us a lot of pamaypay (Philippine hand-held fans) to give away to those who would attend our screenings and dinners. We heard in another venue, I would not mention which country, they were giving expensive watches and wallets. That film made it to the top five,” she said.

Quote

A 2016 Variety report said major studios shell out up to $10 million to woo Oscar voters. Alonso’s war chest in 2011 – around $18,200 when converted – did not stand a chance.

“No matter how many dinners we have, P10,000 (~$182) per plate, that won’t suffice for any film coming from our country to even make a small mark in the Oscar buzz,” Alonso said. 

https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/house-inquiry-why-philippines-film-yet-win-nominated-oscars-january-2023/

[Vermicious Knid]

The Oscar nominee that says a lot just with its title

Quote

 

“My Year of Dicks,” which is streaming on Vimeo, has emerged, against the odds, as one of the most talked-about films at this year’s Oscars. Not only will much be riding on whether Ribon and Gunnarsdóttir can win on March 12, but perhaps even more eagerly awaited will be seeing which presenter, at the most dignified of awards shows, gets to utter the film’s name for an audience of millions, on live television.

“Do you think they’ll bleep it?” anxiously wonders Ribon...

“My Year of Dicks” began as a television project for FX Networks, but the filmmakers ultimately decided to try their luck on the festival circuit. Since the Walt Disney Co. owns FX, “My Year of Dicks” technically counts, ironically enough, as one of Disney’s Oscar nods, alongside the likes of “Avatar: The Way of Water” and “Turning Red.”

 

[ProudMary]

The new AMPAS President, Janet Yang, briefly addressed "The Slap" at Monday's luncheon for Oscar nominees, among other topics. There are several good photos from the Nominees' Luncheon within the article. 

Oscars' Response to Smith Slap Inadequate, Academy Head Says

[ProudMary]

Also, The Oscars' YouTube account has a video up for the Class Photo of ALL the nominees, above and below the line. I haven't watched it yet as it's 25+ minutes of introductions, but just in case people are interested, here it is.

95th Oscars' Nominees Luncheon: Class Photo

[MicheleinPhilly]

Tom Cruise seriously needs to lay off the spray tan. OOF. 

[blackwing]

If Angela Bassett wins, I hope she opens her acceptance speech with "I did the thing!"

[ProudMary]

https://www.oscars.org/oscars/2023-oscars-video-promotion

 

[truthaboutluv]

An early anonymous Oscar ballot article (Oscar voting starts this Thursday). 

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/awards/story/2023-02-27/super-secret-oscar-ballots-from-three-academy-voters

The interesting insights to come out of it are one, if we go by these three, seems to be a lot of love for Tár, Supporting Actress is expectedly all over the place, though surprised to see neither singled out Kerry Condon, and the only two names mentioned for Lead Actor were Colin and Austin. 

[slowpoked]

2 hours ago, truthaboutluv said:

An early anonymous Oscar ballot article (Oscar voting starts this Thursday). 

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/awards/story/2023-02-27/super-secret-oscar-ballots-from-three-academy-voters

The interesting insights to come out of it are one, if we go by these three, seems to be a lot of love for Tár, Supporting Actress is expectedly all over the place, though surprised to see neither singled out Kerry Condon, and the only two names mentioned for Lead Actor were Colin and Austin. 

I'm thinking about what you posted in the SAG thread, and while I still think EEAAO is the clear frontrunner at this point for BP, it's possible there can be an upset by Women Talking, if it's solidly in the 2-3 range in the preferential ballots, and EEAAO has some fluky lower rankings because, admittedly, some voters may just not get it at the first time and wouldn't be so interested or keen in watching it again for the 2nd time just to fully grasp it. Part of EEAAO's charm is its weirdness, even the cast has directly referenced it, and while that can drum up interest to watch the movie, it might also be a repellant to some, since some voters do watch a lot of movies in a small amount of time, and they may skip or gloss over the movie because "it's weird and I won't fully get it till I watch the 2nd or 3rd time? Who has time to rewatch again?!"

[ProudMary]

2 hours ago, slowpoked said:

I'm thinking about what you posted in the SAG thread, and while I still think EEAAO is the clear frontrunner at this point for BP, it's possible there can be an upset by Women Talking, if it's solidly in the 2-3 range in the preferential ballots, and EEAAO has some fluky lower rankings because, admittedly, some voters may just not get it at the first time and wouldn't be so interested or keen in watching it again for the 2nd time just to fully grasp it. Part of EEAAO's charm is its weirdness, even the cast has directly referenced it, and while that can drum up interest to watch the movie, it might also be a repellant to some, since some voters do watch a lot of movies in a small amount of time, and they may skip or gloss over the movie because "it's weird and I won't fully get it till I watch the 2nd or 3rd time? Who has time to rewatch again?!"

Not impossible, but doubtful. I think the Academy's consolation prize for Women Talking, and even more specifically for Sarah Polley, who should have been nominated for Best Director, will be winning the Oscar for Adapted Screenplay. As always, just my opinion.

[ProudMary]

From the SAG Awards thread:

4 hours ago, truthaboutluv said:

Oh for sure. All Quiet is a lock for Best International and the heavy favorite in Cinematography. There's even the very real possibility of its winning Sound. However many believe that Top Gun is still the favorite there, with All Quiet maybe a strong second. So yes, they're certainly not going home empty handed. 

On the flipside, yes sadly, Banshees may be looking at The Favorite type situation where were it not for Olivia Colman's surprise win, would have been 0/10 that night. I still think with the Supporting Actress so up in the air, Kerry Condon has a very strong chance of winning Supporting Actress. 

The Supporting categories in particular is where we've seen many winners who maybe only won one major award or hell sometimes nothing (hello Marcia Gay Harden) in the lead-up to the Oscars. So Condon's definitely in the mix. I'm also still holding out hope for Original Screenplay.

Yes, I know they weren't nominated for WGA, but WGA has done some wonky shit in the past that didn't repeat at the Oscars. The most recent example I can think of is when Eighth Grade won Original Screenplay at WGA and wasn't even nominated for the Oscars and Can You Ever Forgive Me? won Adapted Screenplay at WGA and BlacKKKlansman won the Oscar. 

eta: So here's a crazy stat I just recently learned. Many often talk about SAG being super important as an indicator because it's actors voting for actors and the Acting branch is the largest branch of the Academy. Very true. 

However, SAG voters total something like 130,000 versus the Acting branch of the Academy, which is like 1,300 total. That means there's A WHOLE LOT of SAG voters who aren't members of the Academy.

And if you think about it, it makes sense. Someone can earn their SAG card for a small walk on role on a television show and that automatically makes them a SAG voter. Not the case for becoming a member of the Academy.

I think you've hit the nail on the head as to why the Oscars are the most prestigious of the film awards.

The Golden Globes are still, even after their bid to be more inclusive, just a small group of Hollywood Foreign Press Association members with an excuse to have a party with the cool kids.

The Critics Choice Awards are a step up in quality but the voters are film critics, not the people who make the films. Again, there's no overlap with the Academy's voting base. 

Now we get to the individual guilds and their awards. We tend to pay the most attention to the awards given by the Producers Guild, the Directors Guild, the Writers Guild and the Screen Actors Guild (now merged with the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists), as they're considered the above-the-line awards, but there are also the guilds for cinematographers, film editors, costume designers, production designers, hair stylists and make-up artists, musicians, sound engineers and more. They all give their own awards AND each guild gets to vote for the Oscar nominees for their own specialties, so actors nominate actors, editors nominate editors, costume designers nominate costume designers, etc. After the nominees are announced, ALL Academy members get to vote in ALL the categories. 

That's why the Academy Awards are unique and can give us big surprises on Oscar night, some glorious and some head-scratching. There's nothing else like them!

I think I've only watched 3 Super Bowls in my entire life, but I've been glued to my seat for the Oscars every year since I was a kid!

[Vermicious Knid]

NPR ranks the original song nominees for 2023. I have to agree with their assessment that Diane Warren's past six nominated songs could have been written by ChatGPT.

[BetterButter]

 

[ProudMary]

13 hours ago, Vermicious Knid said:

NPR ranks the original song nominees for 2023. I have to agree with their assessment that Diane Warren's past six nominated songs could have been written by ChatGPT.

IMO, none of her many nominated songs have merited an Oscar.

[libgirl2]

20 hours ago, ProudMary said:

IMO, none of her many nominated songs have merited an Oscar.

I always thought they all sounded the same. I'm just not a fan. 

[wonderwoman]

the oscar sausage factory in all its gory glory…

free link from the ny times.

ny times oscar blood sport

Edited March 8, 2023 by wonderwoman

[slowpoked]

56 minutes ago, wonderwoman said:

the oscar sausage factory in all its gory glory…

free link from the ny times.

ny times oscar blood sport

This quote is certainly telling:

Quote

Despite all the new academy regulations, Lundberg believes the appetite for Weinstein’s tactics is as insatiable as ever. “Here’s the thing,” she said. “Everybody hates Harvey, and he’s in jail, and he should be. He’s a criminal and he raped people. But people liked his results, and they still want them.” Lundberg continued: “People are desperate to win awards. And we’ve guided it here because we’ve rewarded it with money and prestige. So what happens when people want something that’s limited? Do the math. It causes all sorts of behavior, and people lose where the line is.”

I'm still glad for Andrea she got nominated (I do think it's a great performance, watched it on a plane, but I don't think it's the best performance of the year) not only because it shows that in some situations David can still win against Goliath, but moreso because it exposed the hypocrisy of the old boys network in Hollywood, and it's oddly satisfying in a way to see them get beaten when they think they're invincible just because of all the money these bigwigs have. Hopefully this controversy can spur some changes for next year. I doubt it will be significant, but I hope something still changes. More than just inclusivity in race and gender, they also need to work in inclusivity for small movies.

[truthaboutluv]

3 hours ago, slowpoked said:

I'm still glad for Andrea she got nominated (I do think it's a great performance, watched it on a plane, but I don't think it's the best performance of the year) not only because it shows that in some situations David can still win against Goliath, but moreso because it exposed the hypocrisy of the old boys network in Hollywood, and it's oddly satisfying in a way to see them get beaten when they think they're invincible just because of all the money these bigwigs have.

That's one way of looking at it. The flipside is that what it also showed is that one just needs to get enough of white Hollywood on their bandwagon and they can get a nomination over two women of color, even with studios backing the latter. Because personally, I'd be more impressed by this if I ever see it happen for a Danielle Deadwyler for example. 

Like say Till was a small movie that had no big studio backing and the Frances Fishers and Kate Winslet and Cate Blanchett and company all rallied very, very vocally for her to have gotten a nomination, I might have been slightly more impressed by "taking on the big guys in Hollywood." 

It also doesn't help that I saw To Leslie and I enjoyed the film well enough for what it was but saw nothing so impressive in that performance that warranted all this drama and saga and ridiculous hyperbolic statements like Kate Winslet's, " the greatest performance by an actress ever." Yeah, sure... 

So anonymous Oscar ballots are all rolling in and so far it's told us nothing other than Everything Everywhere is winning Best Picture (no shit) and other than Supporting Actor for Ke Huy Quan, the acting races are all close or a total toss up in the case of Supporting Actress.

The ballots do seem to suggest a momentum swing in Michelle Yeoh's favor for Actress but call me stubborn, I'm not buying it. I just don't think Cate's losing. For me, so much of the rationale I see online, particularly regarding Actor and Actress is the narrative - Cate already has two Oscars, this may be Michelle's best chance, first Asian Lead Actress, etc. And for Actor the apparent comeback narrative for Brendan Fraser. 

But I maintain that recent history would suggest that the Academy doesn't really go for narratives as much as some think or would like. Because once again, if they did, Glenn Close would have an Oscar and I cannot imagine a more dramatic narrative than being deceased (and I'm not in any way being facetious. Chadwick's death is still such an awful thing). 

So I may end up with egg on my face come Sunday night and I'm okay with that, will take my mea culpa but I've believed Cate Blanchett and Austin Butler are winning Lead Actress and Actor and I'm sticking with that. In the case of Austin, he's been so underestimated and dismissed so many times throughout this season and every time he's proven people wrong.

When the awards season race started, many of these predictors said he was a maybe to even get nominated. These same people said a Brendan Fraser sweep was a lock. Yeah that didn't happen. Then it was that it was solidly between Brendan and Colin Farrell. I remember one guy on Goldderby or one of those dismissively going, "oh the nomination was the win" for Austin when Oscar noms were announced because he apparently had zero chance of winning. BAFTA was supposedly a foregone conclusion for Colin Farrell they all said. And that didn't happen. 

Edited March 9, 2023 by truthaboutluv

[Vermicious Knid]

 

Brutally honest Oscar ballot in THR. This is a member of the Academy's short films and feature animation branch. The whole thing is an interesting read. He/she/they is very turned off by the campaign for Andrea Riseborough. 

Quote

I’d heard about Andrea Riseborough and To Leslie before the nominations, only because I kept seeing Academy members who were in that little camp posting about it on social media. That didn’t bother me at the time because it felt like it was going nowhere. Then when she got nominated, I thought about it some more. The performance is great — not the greatest of all time, as Kate Winslet lied to me, but great — but the way she was sort of muscled-in felt very Mafia-ish, like the people with the power decided that this should happen, so it did.

They're deeply considering who or what best embodies the category, which is nice to see, like for Best Original Screenplay.

Quote

 

The Fabelmans script was fine. I really liked the Banshees, Tár and Triangle of Sadness scripts. But this one is Everything Everywhere by a mile. I couldn’t have come up with that concept in a million years. The term is “original screenplay,” and if you can’t call Everything Everywhere the most original of this group, then nothing means anything.

 

Also, this made me guffaw:

Quote

Ke Huy Quan was just fantastic in Everything Everywhere and his story makes you hopeful and reminds you that it’s never really over in Hollywood unless you’re dead or Will Smith. There are few things that I want to see more than him standing up there with an Oscar.

[slowpoked]

10 hours ago, Vermicious Knid said:

 

Brutally honest Oscar ballot in THR. This is a member of the Academy's short films and feature animation branch. The whole thing is an interesting read. He/she/they is very turned off by the campaign for Andrea Riseborough. 

 

Thanks, I read it and it's a very good ballot. You could see the voter actually made an effort to be as objective as possible. Ever since the controversy, I've thought Andrea will have zero shot at winning at all. I'm not surprised that while there's a sliver in the industry that that was happy because it looked like they took on the big guys, there's also a cohort where the whole thing left a bitter taste in their mouths.

Quote

Cate gets lost in Lydia Tár — it’s such an incredible performance — but to see what Michelle, a woman who’s so overdue, did in her movie, with the action and the fighting and the emotion? I had to pick Michelle. Tie goes to the person who hasn’t won over the person who already has two.

This is what I see will be happening in the Best Actress race. A lot of people will see it as a "tie," and so far, during the circuit, it has been. And the pendulum will swing ever so slightly towards the woman who has had a great body of work over her 40+ years of acting and who finally gets her chance on the big stage. Plus, the story of how an Asian woman finally wins the lead role after 90+ years since the last one nominated (and even then that Asian woman had a complex history about hiding her heritage) will be too great to ignore.

One thing that sort of perplexed me this season was how Colin Farrell just lost all momentum after seeming to have it early on. He was very excellent in Banshees. I really thought he would have won SAG. I mean, if we're just going by the "body of work," he's miles ahead of Brendan Fraser on that one. The "overdue" narrative on Brendan baffles me - it's not like he's Leonardo DiCaprio who's been overlooked consistently. Among the three performances I've watched - Austin, Colin and Brendan's - I was so moved by Colin's, and it's the performance I wanted to watch again. Banshees was just a very well-acted movie, and I'm glad all four actors got nominations.

[ProudMary]

1 hour ago, slowpoked said:

One thing that sort of perplexed me this season was how Colin Farrell just lost all momentum after seeming to have it early on. He was very excellent in Banshees. I really thought he would have won SAG. I mean, if we're just going by the "body of work," he's miles ahead of Brendan Fraser on that one. The "overdue" narrative on Brendan baffles me - it's not like he's Leonardo DiCaprio who's been overlooked consistently. Among the three performances I've watched - Austin, Colin and Brendan's - I was so moved by Colin's, and it's the performance I wanted to watch again. Banshees was just a very well-acted movie, and I'm glad all four actors got nominations

As info, I've only seen Banshees and Elvis, not The Whale. I've seen several clips from that film.

I've always liked Brendan Fraser and early on as his path to an Oscar began, I was pulling for him, especially when you tie in his personal narrative. Colin Farrell seemed to be his main competition. When I finally saw Banshees, you can clearly see why. He's brilliant in this understated role, unfortunately the kind of performance often overlooked by the Academy. They like shiny objects. Fraser and Butler have the stereotypical Oscar-bait roles; Fraser, a character with a physical or mental impairment of some type (See, Anthony Hopkins, Joaquin Phoenix, Julianne Moore, Eddie Redmayne, et.al.); Butler, a biopic and even more specifically, a musical biopic (See Jamie Foxx, Marion Cotillard, Rami Malik, Renee Zellwager, et.al.) 

I really thought that Farrell would have won the BAFTA, as they showed so much love for the film in other categories. It's upsetting that his run seems to have lost so much steam. Sadly, that loss was most likely the death knell for his Oscar campaign.  While I would be happy for Fraser or Butler, I am harboring a secret hope that the race is SO close between those two, that Colin Farrell might just be able to sneak up the middle and steal a win. Stranger things have happened on Oscar night.

[truthaboutluv]

4 hours ago, ProudMary said:

I really thought that Farrell would have won the BAFTA, as they showed so much love for the film in other categories.

And that's what solidified for me that Austin is likely winning the Oscar. As you said, there's no question the British Academy voters loved Banshees (they loved All Quiet a little more) - it swept the Supporting Acting categories, won Original Screenplay, and Best British Film. 

I'm sure the voters were aware the Actor race was close and this would have been the best opportunity to award one of their own legendary actors for a film they clearly loved. And instead they went for an American guy playing an American icon. 

I know many have been swayed by SAG and it happening right before Oscar voting to argue that the momentum is with Brendan Fraser. However, until that envelope is opened and I'm proven wrong, I think Austin's winning. And again this isn't based off personal taste of who I want to win. I'm basing it off how many of these races have shaped up in the past. 

But on a personal note, lovely as Brendan Fraser appears to be, honestly, I hated The Whale and wasn't that impressed with his performance. It all felt very manipulative. Like I was supposed to be moved and so emotionally affected and instead, I wasn't because I felt like I was being manipulated.

Honestly the only character I genuinely enjoyed in the film was Hong Chau's and am very happy that she got a nomination. She was the only one I found believable throughout the film. 

Edited March 10, 2023 by truthaboutluv

[slowpoked]

EW's four anonymous Oscar ballots. 

https://ew.com/awards/oscars/2023-oscars-secret-ballot-academy-awards-voters-share-juicy-picks/

TL;DR summary:

Picture - EEAAO wins 3/4

Director - Daniels wins 3/4

Actress - Michelle Yeoh sweeps

Actor - Brendan wins, but Colin and Austin each get a vote

Supporting Actor - Surprisingly not a KHQ sweep. KHQ wins but equal love for the two Banshees' guys.

Supporting Actress - the most competitive category it seems, right from the start of this season. Angela wins, but Kerry and Stephanie gets a vote each.

Edited March 11, 2023 by slowpoked

[yowsah1]

1 hour ago, slowpoked said:

EW's four anonymous Oscar ballots. 

https://ew.com/awards/oscars/2023-oscars-secret-ballot-academy-awards-voters-share-juicy-picks/

TL;DR summary:

Picture - EEAAO wins 3/4

Director - Daniels wins 3/4

Actress - Michelle Yeoh sweeps

Actor - Brendan wins, but Colin and Austin each get a vote

Supporting Actor - Surprisingly not a KYQ sweep. KHQ wins but equal love for the two Banshees' guys.

Supporting Actress - the most competitive category it seems, right from the start of this season. Angela wins, but Kerry and Stephanie gets a vote each.

Color me highly skeptical of a EEAAO win.  I'd be thrilled if it happens, but the Academy has a long history of showing a wild bias against blockbuster films.  ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT has picked up a lot of momentum recently, I will not be at all suprised if it is the "surprise" winner.  I think the EEAAO guys have a much better shot at Best Director, mainly because ALL QUIET wasn't nominated there.  Normally I'd say that traditional bellwether Best Cinematography will decide it, but ALL QUIET is the leading contender there - and EEAAO isn't even nominated.

Weird that Jamie Lee Curtis got no love from those voters, especially in light of her SAG win. 

I'm kind of stunned at the TAR hate all four of the voters have.  To hear the reviews tell it, Cate Blanchett was a shoo-in for Best Actress, this was the performance of the century, etc. etc.  Just goes to show you that Critic's Darlings and Oscar winners are two different things.

Edited March 11, 2023 by yowsah1

[Vermicious Knid]

'The Actor' says nasty things about Black women and that they weren't nominated because they just weren't good, and everyone should shut up about representation because the ceremony had more Black presenters last year. Wow. Just, wow. 

[truthaboutluv]

9 hours ago, Vermicious Knid said:

'The Actor' says nasty things about Black women and that they weren't nominated because they just weren't good, and everyone should shut up about representation because the ceremony had more Black presenters last year. Wow. Just, wow. 

Frankly the actor sounded bitter asf. I'm guessing he's one of those bitter that he's never had that "big role" to get him an Oscar nomination. The racially offensive comments were also tinged with a whole lot of misogyny. He seemed particularly pressed by how beloved and respected Cate Blanchett is. 

 

9 hours ago, yowsah1 said:

Color me highly skeptical of a EEAAO win.  I'd be thrilled if it happens, but the Academy has a long history of showing a wild bias against blockbuster films.  ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT has picked up a lot of momentum recently, I will not be at all suprised if it is the "surprise" winner.

Anything is possible of course, plus there is the oddity that All Quiet and Everything Everywhere have only really competed against each other at BAFTA because All Quiet missed out on almost all, if not all, the Guilds. So we really haven't been able to truly gauge their strength against each other outside of BAFTA and it's clear BAFTA didn't love Everything Everywhere the way the other Guilds have. 

That said, I don't actually understand the skepticism against Everything Everywhere winning. First of all, is it really that much of a "blockbuster?" Sure it did great commercially when you factor how much it cost to make and in many ways it has the indie film vibe. So without question it was commercially successful but blockbuster seems a stretch to me.

No, the blockbuster argument can be made against Top Gun: Maverick, which is actually exactly why many despite rooting for it during the awards season, worried it wouldn't win. Because it's an action-film blockbuster. How many times are Oscars awarding that type of film Best Picture. 

Again, anything is possible until they open the envelope but as I said in another comment, many have been waiting for solid number two to come up during award season to challenge Everything Everywhere and it hasn't happened. Many said Top Gun was a strong possibility for the upset at PGA, which uses the same preferential ballot at the Oscars and it didn't happen. Some said DGA would not be able to resist awarding Spielberg for such a personal film and the Daniels won there.

Again, the only voting bloc clearly not as in love with Everything Everywhere, was BAFTA. The film successfully showed up across all the Guilds. I just can't see it losing Best Picture at this point. Although honestly I'm not as in love with it as others so it's not my personal choice but I think this one is a lock. That said, I don't think it's going to have the insane sweep some think it will. I've seen predictors believing it'll win every category it's nominated in, which is like 10 or 11. Don't see that happening. 

 

9 hours ago, yowsah1 said:

I'm kind of stunned at the TAR hate all four of the voters have.  To hear the reviews tell it, Cate Blanchett was a shoo-in for Best Actress, this was the performance of the century, etc. etc.  Just goes to show you that Critic's Darlings and Oscar winners are two different things.

A couple of things. Cate wasn't just a critic's darling, she's also swept every award except for SAG. So there is clearly significant industry love for her performance from I imagine many of the same people who are voting members of the Academy. 

The first few anonymous ballots released showed the opposite in terms of the reaction to Tar. Many had the voters picking Todd Field for Best Director and ranking Tar very high in the Best Picture ballot. 

Anonymous ballots are interesting and yes, sometimes have hinted at upsets on Oscar night. Many anonymous ballots the year Anthony Hopkins won had the voters stating how they all knew Chadwick was winning but they loved Anthony so much so they threw him a vote. My guess is that many had that same line of thought and sure enough, he won. 

However, there are other times where they've proven meaningless, like last year, where per the anonymous ballots, Penelope Cruz was the clear favorite to win Best Actress. There's been I believe a total of 24 or 25 anonymous ballots revealed across various publications. That's a miniscule sample size of an Academy of over 9,000 members.

In my opinion, all the proof that the overall Academy decidedly does not share these views about Cate's performance and the film, is all the nominations Tar received and they were all in significant, top of the line categories - Director, Editing, Picture, Cinematography and Screenplay. On the flipside, a big factor concerning many about Brendan Fraser's chances is that based on the nominations The Whale didn't get, it suggests the Academy didn't really love the film. 

Edited March 11, 2023 by truthaboutluv

[slowpoked]

9 hours ago, yowsah1 said:

Color me highly skeptical of a EEAAO win.  I'd be thrilled if it happens, but the Academy has a long history of showing a wild bias against blockbuster films.

At this point, where it has swept all guild awards and everything else except BAFTA, it's hard to bet against EEAAO. I'm with @truthaboutluvon this. Anyone else winning would be a huge upset, and maybe one that wouldn't be taken on too kindly.

I don't think EEAAO is a blockbuster - it made money sure, but not blockbuster in a way of Avatar or Top Gun. It's earnings was mostly through strong word-of-mouth that carried it long in the theatres, not the big numbers out of its opening weekend.

9 hours ago, Vermicious Knid said:

'The Actor' says nasty things about Black women and that they weren't nominated because they just weren't good, and everyone should shut up about representation because the ceremony had more Black presenters last year. Wow. Just, wow. 

Yeah, that was one big pile of misogynistic, and at times, racist shit. It was like, hey black people, you were thrown some crumbs last year, shut up about it this year! I'm surprised he didn't even invoke Will's win last year to even further his point. Then again, this was anonymous, so he felt comfortable. What gets me in his rant is his endless complaints about Viola, then admitting that he didn't even watch the movie at all!!!

And tbf to Viola, I may be wrong, but did she and her director really complain up a storm? I thought that was more Danielle and the Till director. I know people were complaining on behalf of Viola, but I haven't seen anything from Viola directly. Viola has always been a gracious colleague towards her peers. It was Danielle who was conjuring up an endless bitch face through the entire SAG.

[ShadowHunter]

13 hours ago, Vermicious Knid said:

'The Actor' says nasty things about Black women and that they weren't nominated because they just weren't good, and everyone should shut up about representation because the ceremony had more Black presenters last year. Wow. Just, wow. 

This was rough and nasty. This person is very high and mighty because they can hide. This honestly sounds more like a Twitter Troll.  Still looking forward to the show tomorrow. Grabbed a small can of Pringles and a box of Candy.

[ProudMary]

I was just checking the TV listings for tomorrow's coverage of the Oscars. ABC's pre-show coverage begins at 1:00 p.m. Eastern, with a break between 5:30-6:30 p.m. for National, then Local news coverage. I don't recall ABC ever having started their pre-show coverage SEVEN hours prior to the event. That's a Super Bowl level of pre-gaming for them! 

OTOH, E!'s continuous coverage, which in some years has started as early as 12 Noon, begins tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. Eastern, with their 7-8:00 p.m. hour listed as Red Carpet Rundown, indicating that ABC has Red Carpet exclusivity for the final hour prior to the show's 8:00 p.m. kickoff.

I'm so psyched for tomorrow. 😄

[truthaboutluv]

2 hours ago, ProudMary said:

I don't recall ABC ever having started their pre-show coverage SEVEN hours prior to the event. That's a Super Bowl level of pre-gaming for them! 

They've done it the last few years. It's just a whole bunch of talking about the nominees. And it's not like there's typically anything that interesting airing at that time, except for sports. 

[MicheleinPhilly]

17 hours ago, Vermicious Knid said:

'The Actor' says nasty things about Black women and that they weren't nominated because they just weren't good, and everyone should shut up about representation because the ceremony had more Black presenters last year. Wow. Just, wow. 

Just absolutely gross. What a miserable little prick.