The Annual Academy Awards - General Discussion

[KaveDweller]

8 hours ago, sadiegirl said:

Kimmel's part in this bothered me.  I agree Horowitz took charge when the people whose job it was did not, but being told it was nice of him to agree to transfer the award to the correct recipient sounds like he was doing the Moonlight people a favor.  Again, that's all on Kimmel.  Horowitz was the only one up there doing what needed to be done.  The producers and accountants dropped the ball. 

He said on his show last night that his first thought was how the host was going to have to come out and handle things.....and then it hit him that he was the host.

5 hours ago, Inquisitionist said:

From the article: 

How did the PwC guy not realize that he still had one envelope in his briefcase?  While Beatty was fumbling around on stage, was Mr. PwC Chairman still busy ogling Emma Stone backstage?  What a clusterf*ck.

Well he would have had 12 envelopes left in his briefcase if there are doubles of everything. But I don't get why he didn't see the word "best picture" on one of them.

I read in one summary that after it happened the two accountants were trying to get to each other to confirm the right winner or something. Which seems weird, since part of their job is to memorize the winners. And it's not like this was a category at risk of being forgotten like the name of the sound editor or something. Then apparently they wanted to have the correct envelope (I guess so they could hold it up and show it like they did).

But they should have rushed out as soon as "La La Land" was said, and just said that was wrong and they were getting the correct envelope.

[Gemma Violet]

I would have liked whoever announced the mistake to just say, "There's been a mistake.  La La Land did not win.  Let's get everyone off the stage and start over."  And THEN make the announcement that Moonlight won.  Then they would have had their special moment.  

[Inquisitionist]

20 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

Well he would have had 12 envelopes left in his briefcase if there are doubles of everything. But I don't get why he didn't see the word "best picture" on one of them.

Well, that's a quality control disaster.  As soon as a category has been announced, its duplicate envelope should be discarded or at least moved out of the briefcase.

I've read several places that the change in envelope design (small gold lettering on red paper) made it difficult to read the category printed on the outside.  This could explain why Warren also was befuddled after opening the envelope.

[Luciano]

8 hours ago, sadiegirl said:

And again, I don't understand why the two people who should have known immediately that the wrong card had been read, did not run out on stage and stop things before the LLL people even got out of their seats.  That's completely on them. 

I don't know about the other accountant, but I'm guessing the one that made the mistake, Brian Cullinan, was busy having his whole life flash before his eyes.

[Pink ranger]

9 hours ago, DearEvette said:

 

 

Finally, there is this interesting article in  Cosmo  that puts a little spin on optics of what went down that I hadn't even considered. 

Since the Oscars are so political and given the what is going on with diversity and racial politics & the reasons people like to give for Cheeto's election win, this line in the article kinda stood out to me:

It speaks to the anxiety that some whites have around the issues of diversity.  The feelings that POC are coming in to 'take' what is normally theirs, things they didn't rightfully deserve and are only granted because of 'PC' policies.  And to see a sort of visual representation of that on stage is really a rather interesting take.

While it's sad that Moonlight didn't get to fully enjoy their moment. I don't think that the sympathy displayed to La La land was because they think that " Black people stole their award" but because they where publicly humiliated and essentially lost twice because for a minute they though that they won. Had Moonlight had a whole white cast and creative team, the reaction would have been exactly the same. 

[Chas411]

I can't believe PWC named and shamed Brian Cullinan. I know it would have gotten out and he's probably getting fired but I just think it makes PWC seem even worse to just publicly throw him under the bus like that. It was human error. It's not like he did it on purpose. Yeah it caused upset and was awful but fuck sake... It wasn't that bad. No need to alienate the dude even further.

[bannana]

12 minutes ago, Chas411 said:

I can't believe PWC named and shamed Brian Cullinan. I know it would have gotten out and he's probably getting fired but I just think it makes PWC seem even worse to just publicly throw him under the bus like that. It was human error. It's not like he did it on purpose. Yeah it caused upset and was awful but fuck sake... It wasn't that bad. No need to alienate the dude even further.

He's a senior partner so not getting fired.  He had one job to do all night.  I read in pre interviews where he said they don't even go to the bathroom during the whole show, to ensure that they are always present and paying attention.  His job, and his colleague's, is to ensure the proper envelope is handed out.  And if there is a snafu, to correct it immediately.  PWC gets paid a lot for the election tabulation and this part, as well they do other work for the Academy.  He also does a lot of media pre Oscars, so more positive publicity for PWC.  So for him to flub the biggest part of the job, well, yeah should get called out.  Especially after they were blaming Warren and Faye and Jimmy.

And, in interviews prior, he indicated that the protocol for what happens if there is an error is not clear, but PWC are now saying they have a protocol and I believe that involves BC going straight to the microphone and correcting things rather than let them play out as they did.  They are the auditors!  That is their job.  I have worked in a similar (not a big deal like this though) environment, and I know the auditor, no matter who made the error, would have been the first one to the podium to officially correct it.

[slowpoked]

1 hour ago, Chas411 said:

I can't believe PWC named and shamed Brian Cullinan. I know it would have gotten out and he's probably getting fired but I just think it makes PWC seem even worse to just publicly throw him under the bus like that. It was human error. It's not like he did it on purpose. Yeah it caused upset and was awful but fuck sake... It wasn't that bad. No need to alienate the dude even further.

Well, yeah, his name would have gotten out anyway, because everyone will want to know who screwed up, and saying "PWC" is not just a sufficient answer for everyone, but yes, PWC seemed to be distancing itself from him, saying he didn't act fast enough. Then there's this:

http://people.com/awards/brian-cullinan-asked-not-to-tweet-during-oscars-ceremony/

I feel bad for the partner but at the same time, not so much. The reason why they send partners to do this job is to avoid what happened during the Oscars, and in the very rare case that it happened, that he would immediately be able to fix it. They don't send bright-eyed interns because those people can easily be starstruck and distracted and be tweeting. Partners are supposed to have the aura of "been there, done that" and so nothing should faze them. They get the benefits of hobnobbing with the Hollywood stars, so they get the "hard" job of making sure the Oscars run smoothly in terms of the correct winners being announced.

And I read somewhere, forgot where, but only those two partners know who the winners are, inside PWC. It's an audit engagement that is held very close to the vest - not even the staff/managers working on the actual engagement would know the results, to avoid leaks, etc. And like KaveDweller said, the award is freaking Best Picture, not Best Sound Editor. That is something that should already be etched on the minds of both of them. The second Faye Dunaway said LLL, one or both of them should have been screaming bloody murder and stopping the process.

I wonder if there are negotiations going on for him to be quietly bought out, if more stories about his screwups come out.

Edited March 1, 2017 by slowpoked

[weathered1]

In terms of this casting a pall on Moonlight's moment, according to Mahershala Ali, it really did. I saw a clip of him where he was saying that he felt terrible for the LLL people, and while he was pleased that Moonlight was recognized like that, he found it impossible to take joy in the moment because of what happened. (That was the gist of his statement.) That was an extremely classy response from him, but it made me feel even worse for all involved. 

About Horowitz: I think it's incredibly admirable that he stepped up, took control of the situation and tried his best to fix such a huge, inexcusable mistake - a mistake not at all of his making and one that likely filled him with a mixture of disappointment, frustration, embarrassment, and anger. To refer to him as being a hero, though, seems like a bit much to me. 

[bannana]

9 minutes ago, slowpoked said:

Well, yeah, his name would have gotten out anyway, because everyone will want to know who screwed up, and saying "PWC" is not just a sufficient answer for everyone, but yes, PWC seemed to be distancing itself from him, saying he didn't act fast enough. Then there's this:

http://people.com/awards/brian-cullinan-asked-not-to-tweet-during-oscars-ceremony/

I feel bad for the partner but at the same time, not so much. The reason why they send partners to do this job is to avoid what happened during the Oscars, and in the very rare case that it happened, that he would immediately be able to fix it. They don't send bright-eyed interns because those people can easily be starstruck and distracted and be tweeting. Partners are supposed to have the aura of "been there, done that" and so nothing should faze them. They get the benefits of hobnobbing with the Hollywood stars, so they get the "hard" job of making sure the Oscars run smoothly in terms of the correct winners being announced.

And I read somewhere, forgot where, but only those two partners know who the winners are, inside PWC. It's an audit engagement that is held very close to the vest - not even the staff/managers working on the actual engagement would know the results, to avoid leaks, etc. And like KaveDweller said, the award is freaking Best Picture, not Best Sound Editor. That is something that should already be etched on the minds of both of them. The minute the lady announcer said LLL, one or both of them should have been screaming bloody murder and stopping the process.

I wonder if there are negotiations going on for him to be quietly bought out, if more stories about his screwups come out.

Yes, it is bad enough he didn't do part one of his job properly, but as soon as he heard LLL he should have raced to the microphone and taken over.  Still not great but not the clusterfuck they had on stage.  Apparently the colleague also fell down here, because she could have walked to the mike immediately as well, which is implied in their statement.

[Constantinople]

8 hours ago, Artsda said:

Gary the tourist and his fiancee met in jail. 

He served 20 yrs and was released 3 days before Oscars. http://www.celebuzz.com/2017-02-28/oscars-gary-from-chicago-prison-sex-offender/. 

Was he there to give Casey Affleck moral support?

[DearEvette]

36 minutes ago, Pink ranger said:

While it's sad that Moonlight didn't get to fully enjoy their moment. I don't think that the sympathy displayed to La La land was because they think that " Black people stole their award" but because they where publicly humiliated and essentially lost twice because for a minute they though that they won. Had Moonlight had a whole white cast and creative team, the reaction would have been exactly the same. 

I agree and disagree with this.

I agree that if this had happened to any other film -- say, Arrival -- the sympathy to all involved & awkwardness of the sheer blunder of the moment would have been the exact same.

But I disagree that Moonlight being a film by and about black and queer folk does not on some level play into some of the emotions and conversations surrounding all of this.  The  triumph of a tiny film that looks at a slice of black experience and the LGBTQ experience was legitimized by this award from an industry that is incredibly white has a much deeper meaning to many than just a win of an award.  It resonates with a lot of what is happening around the world and a lot of the agitating discussions about the importance of inclusion and representation.  Of course some people are cynically saying Moonlight's win is an appeasement to the criticism the Oscars received last year.  The only reason those voices aren't louder, imo, is because everyone is still too titillated by the fuck up.

[phoenics]

8 hours ago, Artsda said:

Gary the tourist and his fiancee met in jail. 

He served 20 yrs and was released 3 days before Oscars. http://www.celebuzz.com/2017-02-28/oscars-gary-from-chicago-prison-sex-offender/. 

Why does the press do this?  They do this everytime a black person gets some modicum of fame.  It's racist and I'm sick of it.

[CherryMalotte]

*sigh*

If only it was 2012 and the winner was actually Zero Dark Thirty, instead of Argo....or 2005 and the winner was Munich, instead of Crash.  Maybe even 1998 and the winner was Saving Private Ryan instead of Shakespere In Love.  So many possibilities.  Gear up the wayback machine Mr Peabody and move over Sherman!

[phoenics]

47 minutes ago, bannana said:

Yes, it is bad enough he didn't do part one of his job properly, but as soon as he heard LLL he should have raced to the microphone and taken over.  Still not great but not the clusterfuck they had on stage.  Apparently the colleague also fell down here, because she could have walked to the mike immediately as well, which is implied in their statement.

The problem is that they are on opposite sides of the stage.  That's why there are two sets of cards - the presenters don't always come from one side of the stage.  According to what I read, the partner realized the mistake before Faye read the card and immediately told the stage hands, and then had to go find the other partner to confer.  He had to go FIND her backstage because they are on opposite sides.  Apparently they didn't have mics to talk to each other.

I THINK the "confer" part was where he messed up the protocol - and he should have simply gone onstage to make sure they had the right envelope, since presumably HE still had the best picture one.  This was on him, tbh.  The sucky part though is that this will probably affect the other partner - who actually did nothing wrong.  I'm mad about that - she'll probably be taken off her engagement with The Academy for optics.

Although she should have rushed the stage as soon as La La Land was called and said that it was a mistake.  They didn't react fast enough.

Edited March 1, 2017 by phoenics

[pennben]

I agree. Before it was confirmed to be him, I was actually hoping it was the big boss that screwed up not her, as I feared she'd be cut loose quickly if it had been her. I think you are right that both, at a minumum, have to be taken off the account. I read somewhere that initially PWC didn't want to put out a statement.....can't imagine ticking off a client even more like that right after the screw up, when a statement was inevitably going to have to be made.  And then the first statement was still passive in what went wrong (something like 'Beatty was handed the wrong envelope' as opposed to 'our representative handed him the wrong envelope'). I think that's why they had to put out the more detailed statement spelling out all the mistakes (and calling out Cullinan by name and indicating fault on the part of the other rep as well). I'm sure by that point the client was pissed off enough to demand that. 

Edited March 1, 2017 by pennben

[TheOtherOne]

Interesting report of what it was like to be in the theater as it was going down.

From the sound of it, even if they'd done a do-over to try to give Moonlight its moment, there was no going back. It was so bizarre and no one was paying attention (and some of the audience had already left) that the moment was gone.

JH: And certainly, in the theater, and I don’t know how it played out on TV, and this to me is the tragedy upon tragedy: I could not hear what Barry Jenkins was saying. I’m sure he gave a lovely acceptance speech. Nobody was listening to Barry Jenkins. Everybody was talking to each other, basically saying, what the fuck just happened? I mean it was a din in the theater. The other thing that happened is that as soon as La La Land was announced as Best Picture winner, where I was sitting, everybody left. They went up to go to the Governor’s Ball. They wanted to get into the party. They didn’t even see what happened. Dozens, scores of people left and didn’t even see the whole drama unfold. And they certainly didn’t hear Barry Jenkins’s speech.

[phoenics]

Damn!

[Inquisitionist]

Quote

she'll probably be taken off her engagement with The Academy for optics.

If PwC doesn't lose this engagement, I'll be gobsmacked. 

Quote

It was human error. It's not like he did it on purpose.

It was a stupid, avoidable error that happened because he wasn't paying attention to what was probably his most important professional obligation of the year.  I have zero sympathy.  If he weren't a partner, he'd have been fired already.

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, weathered1 said:

About Horowitz: I think it's incredibly admirable that he stepped up, took control of the situation and tried his best to fix such a huge, inexcusable mistake - a mistake not at all of his making and one that likely filled him with a mixture of disappointment, frustration, embarrassment, and anger. To refer to him as being a hero, though, seems like a bit much to me. 

Exactly.  There have been a few good reports on his actions but a lot of the think pieces seem to either take the 'heroic' POV or the 'what else was he going to do?/anyone would have done that' POV. 

In reality, it's somewhere in the middle.  It's not heroic.  But the poise and what he said also ain't nothing. 

[KaveDweller]

I find it amusing that Cullinan deleted his Tweet like he thought that would prevent people from knowing it happened. I think every article I've seen has mentioned the Tweet and the fact that it was deleted. Which sounds even worse than if he'd just left the Tweet up.

21 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

Exactly.  There have been a few good reports on his actions but a lot of the think pieces seem to either take the 'heroic' POV or the 'what else was he going to do?/anyone would have done that' POV. 

In reality, it's somewhere in the middle.  It's not heroic.  But the poise and what he said also ain't nothing. 

It's not quite what anyone would have done, since there was the other producer who was all, "we lost, by the way" and turned away from the microphone. Horowitz and the third producer could have done that and waited for someone else on the stage to announce what was going on.  It looked like the stage manager was pushing Warren Beatty too, but Beatty wasn't being too forceful about getting to the mic.

I agree that "hero" is a bit over the top though. 

[bannana]

1 minute ago, KaveDweller said:

I find it amusing that Cullinan deleted his Tweet like he thought that would prevent people from knowing it happened. I think every article I've seen has mentioned the Tweet and the fact that it was deleted. Which sounds even worse than if he'd just left the Tweet up.

It's not quite what anyone would have done, since there was the other producer who was all, "we lost, by the way" and turned away from the microphone. Horowitz and the third producer could have done that and waited for someone else on the stage to announce what was going on.  It looked like the stage manager was pushing Warren Beatty too, but Beatty wasn't being too forceful about getting to the mic.

I agree that "hero" is a bit over the top though. 

The cover up is worse than the crime!  Okay, not really, but it sure did look unprofessional.   In his senior position, he should have known better.

[zxy556575]

The numerous ways this could have been prevented continue. From the Hollywood Reporter article:

"The only two people who know the results ahead of time are the two accountants from PwC, who each have a full set of envelopes and stand in opposite wings of the theater since they don't know from which side the presenters will enter."

Why is it completely unknown/unplanned/uncommunicated on which side each presenter would be entering?

Jesus. Grade school presentations of Tigger's Toyland are better organized.

[weathered1]

28 minutes ago, Lord Donia said:

Why is it completely unknown/unplanned/uncommunicated on which side each presenter would be entering?

Jesus. Grade school presentations of Tigger's Toyland are better organized.

That really does make zero sense. These things are rehearsed (unless you're Dunaway and/or Beatty and don't want to practice the walk out). At the very least, people involved with the production - like the stage manager - would be able to tell them, "Okay, these presenters are going out from this side; these are the categories they'll be presenting; these are the envelopes you'll need to have ready for them." 

It sounds like some people involved or in the know are trying to cast blame while others are trying to explain away some culpability. What a mess - an unprofessional, totally avoidable mess.

[phoenics]

1 hour ago, Inquisitionist said:

If PwC doesn't lose this engagement, I'll be gobsmacked. 

 

It's not like this was the only thing they do for them (counting ballots).  PwC does the internal audit for the academy - it's a big deal (and a headache) to switch firms.

[KaveDweller]

54 minutes ago, Lord Donia said:

The numerous ways this could have been prevented continue. From the Hollywood Reporter article:

"The only two people who know the results ahead of time are the two accountants from PwC, who each have a full set of envelopes and stand in opposite wings of the theater since they don't know from which side the presenters will enter."

Why is it completely unknown/unplanned/uncommunicated on which side each presenter would be entering?

Jesus. Grade school presentations of Tigger's Toyland are better organized.

All the other stories I have read said that it was known, and they have both as a backup in case someone ends up on the wrong side for whatever reason. They supposedly each had two stacks one with the 12 that they were giving out and a second with the 12 back ups.

[Artsda]

All the attacks on social media and just in general on Casey's win is odd to me. It's like a smear campaign with people not knowing the facts and condemned him guilty. Comments that he shouldn't have won because of it, even. 

This is the same Academy that gave on the run, can't enter the country Roman Polanski an  Oscar right? And when he was announced the winner the crowd went screaming in applause and gave him a standing ovation.  That was a convicted child rapist. 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Artsda

[J0nas3]

6 minutes ago, Artsda said:

All the attacks on social media and just in general on Casey's win is odd to me. It's like a smear campaign with people not knowing the facts and condemned him guilty. Comments that he shouldn't have won because of it, even. 

This is the same Academy that gave on the run, can't enter the country Roman Polankski and Oscar right? And when he was announced the crowd screaming in applause and gave him a standing ovation.  That was a convicted child rapist. 

Being bothered by Casey's win doesn't mean we're okay with Polanski's win. Casey's just more in view now. And while we may not know the facts, I've read about the accusations and know that he settled without admitting wrongdoing. Nice deal if you can get it, but there's a difference between not having to admit wrongdoing and being proved blameless.

Casey's win and Gibson's "redemption" are of a piece. It proves that you can be redeemed in the eyes of Hollywood without apology for past misdeeds. And it does seem to help if you're white. Anybody heard from Nate Parker lately?

Edited March 1, 2017 by J0nas3
added clarity (I hope)

[aradia22]

Quote

Gary the tourist and his fiancee met in jail. 

He served 20 yrs and was released 3 days before Oscars. http://www.celebuzz.com/2017-02-28/oscars-gary-from-chicago-prison-sex-offender/. 

Was he there to give Casey Affleck moral support?

So far the only evidence is that "FOX News also points out that there is a registered sex offender in California with the same who was charged with attempted rape by force or fear. It has not been confirmed if this is the same Gary Alan Coe." Which yes, not good. But while I don't think you can ever totally forgive or erase the actions of the past, I do want to believe that rehabilitation is possible, even if it is the same guy. Unlike Casey, he admitted to his wrongdoing and faced the repercussions for it. 

[aradia22]

Quote

This is the same Academy that gave on the run, can't enter the country Roman Polanski an  Oscar right? And when he was announced the winner the crowd went screaming in applause and gave him a standing ovation.  That was a convicted child rapist. 

I don't remember the crowd's reaction. But just to untangle things a little, the Academy is not equivalent to people on social media/writing articles and blog posts. The latter group has always been outraged about Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, etc. 

[Artsda]

3 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

I don't remember the crowd's reaction. But just to untangle things a little, the Academy is not equivalent to people on social media/writing articles and blog posts. The latter group has always been outraged about Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, etc. 

The crowd started screaming and applauding and then stood up, it's probably on You Tube. 

It's like the latter group doesn't understand that this is an awards show based on acting or directing. Not being a great person. lol It's Hollywood, half of that room has probably been in rehab. Phillip Seymour Huffman was a heroin addict.  Heath Ledger won after dying of an OD. It's not about that, the work is rewarded despite it.

[pennben]

33 minutes ago, J0nas3 said:

And it does seem to help if you're white. Anybody heard from Nate Parker lately?

Precisely. 

Edited March 1, 2017 by pennben

[MVFrostsMyPie]

I thought this hit the nail on the head pretty well: http://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a43408/casey-affleck-oscar-win/ 

"Affleck's Best Actor win isn't the most upsetting item on this list; for one thing, an Oscar doesn't come with nuclear launch codes. But it is grim confirmation of an all-too-common pattern. An Oscar provides an invaluable career boost; Affleck will probably get more roles, better roles, and more name recognition as the result of the award. As he becomes increasingly successful, he will become increasingly untouchable; meaning, if the allegations are true, that the women he's victimized will have less and less chance to be heard. That's not just damaging to the individuals involved here, but to all women who find themselves victimized by powerful men."

Edited March 1, 2017 by MVFrostsMyPie

[JustaPerson]

I think Nate Parker suffered from that disastrous interview(s?) he gave about the subject. Casey has stayed pretty tight lipped about what he did. And then the nature of the crimes themselves. Parker's caused a lot more vitriol (not that I don't think what Casey did wasn't shitty, but it's harder to ignore gang rape). I do agree that race and privilege play its part, but Nate Parker didn't help himself with his PR. I think this sums it up better. 

[MerBearHou]

I keep hearing about the female stagehand who realized the error and said backstage "it's Moonlight, not La La Land" -- how did she know if the envelopes are kept so secret?  She's not with PWC.  

Edited March 1, 2017 by MerBearHou

[pennben]

Quote

 think Nate Parker suffered from that disastrous interview(s?) he gave about the subject. Casey has stayed pretty tight lipped about what he did. And then the nature of the crimes themselves. Parker's caused a lot more vitriol (not that I don't think what Casey did wasn't shitty, but it's harder to ignore gang rape). I do agree that race and privilege play its part, but Nate Parker didn't help himself with his PR. I think this sums it up better

    I think that's all correct. I was just responding to the notion that 'it's just about the work', when I don't feel that is the case, nor do I agree that it should be the case. 

Edited March 1, 2017 by pennben

[aradia22]

Quote

It's like the latter group doesn't understand that this is an awards show based on acting or directing. Not being a great person. lol It's Hollywood, half of that room has probably been in rehab. Phillip Seymour Huffman was a heroin addict.  Heath Ledger won after dying of an OD. It's not about that, the work is rewarded despite it.

Quote

I think that's all correct. I was just responding to the notion that 'it's just about the work', when I don't feel that is the case. 

I agree it's not all about the work. It's not a sporting event or even like... I don't know, a dog show or something. Not only is it subjective, but it's the Academy Awards. The decisions made coincide with who was Best Actor or Best Director (theoretically) but they're also about adding to the canon. They're saying which movies and performances and achievements get added to the venerated group and also which people get invited into the club. It's not like you're declared the winner and that's the end of it. 

Also, I know addiction has repercussions for people besides the person actually doing the drugs or drinking the alcohol but there's a WORLD of difference between that and any kind of sexual assault allegation. 

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, Artsda said:

It's like the latter group doesn't understand that this is an awards show based on acting or directing. Not being a great person. lol It's Hollywood, half of that room has probably been in rehab. Phillip Seymour Huffman was a heroin addict.  Heath Ledger won after dying of an OD. It's not about that, the work is rewarded despite it.

Just because you don't agree with the criticism doesn't mean those who hold the criticism don't "get" it.  

Technically, the awards are about talent but what is "best" is subjective.  Is Casey really a better actor than Denzel?  The subjectivity of it all is why there is so much Oscar campaigning. It's as much about the story as it is about the talent.  It's why people talk of momentum.  Or sentiment going for the frontrunner, underdog or the person who lost for those roles in the past and it's about time he/she get his/her due. 

All of these things influence how voters feel about a nominee.  The fact is, there is absolutely a line of what will be accepted behavior by a nominee.  Heck, there are theories that Isabelle Huppert's personality turned off voters which firmly tilted the award to Emma. But hey, she's a woman which also highlights that the line will differ based on things like race, gender and who you know in Hollywood*.  I would hope sexual harasser/assaulter would be a bridge too far but I guess it's not.  

*Speaking of not knowing the details of the incident, I'd also like to point out that bringing this complaint was probably a huge risk for these women.  They're women who want to work behind-the-scenes in Hollywood which tends to be male top heavy.  They brought a complaint against a man whose brother and longtime childhood friend were bonafied A-listers.  In a town where it helps who you know...it certainly wasn't going to be a career enhancer which is just one more reason I tend to believe their accounts. 

39 minutes ago, MerBearHou said:

I keep hearing about the female stagehand who realized the error and said backstage "it's Moonlight, not La La Land" -- how did she know if the envelopes are kept so secret?  She's not with PWC.  

I feel there's something left out of that story.  I believe she was told or overheard the PWC guy. 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Irlandesa

[Artsda]

Quote

"Affleck's Best Actor win isn't the most upsetting item on this list; for one thing, an Oscar doesn't come with nuclear launch codes. But it is grim confirmation of an all-too-common pattern. An Oscar provides an invaluable career boost; Affleck will probably get more roles, better roles, and more name recognition as the result of the award.

I don't even think this applies to Casey. He got roles and had name recognition for doing nothing, but being brother of Ben and honorary brother of Matt Damon. 

This is a guy that got huge blockbuster Ocean's 11 because of Matt. Assassination of Jesse James? (Brad). Argo? (Ben). Manchester? Matt again.  Casey doesn't need an Oscar for a career boost, he intends to continue his independent directing and films because he can afford to do so because he's in the Matt-Brad-George groupe. He and even Emma don't need Oscars to open doors or boost their careers. Compared to someone like Brie last year it helped her, where as Leo didn't need it for roles either. 

Quote

. I do agree that race and privilege play its part, but Nate Parker didn't help himself with his PR. I think this sums it up better. 

I think that does sum up the big differences better. Especially the difference of one being a crime, being arrested and put on trial. Compared to no cops, no charges and just a money settlement. 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Artsda

[FilmTVGeek80]

Quote

Being bothered by Casey's win doesn't mean we're okay with Polanski's win. Casey's just more in view now. And while we may not know the facts, I've read about the accusations and know that he settled without admitting wrongdoing. Nice deal if you can get it, but there's a difference between not having to admit wrongdoing and being proved blameless.

 

 

 

It also doesn't prove guilt either. I do find the argument that because he settled that must mean he's guilty a little funny since I don't the same people making that claim saying that because the women chose to settle (and not take the case to trial or file criminal charges) that must mean they were just looking for a payout.

1 hour ago, Irlandesa said:

I would hope sexual harasser/assaulter would be a bridge too far but I guess it's not.  

That lesson should have been learned with Polanski, who unlike Affleck, was found guilty of his crime, which was much worse than sexual harassment, and he still one with rapturous applause.

1 hour ago, Irlandesa said:

*Speaking of not knowing the details of the incident, I'd also like to point out that bringing this complaint was probably a huge risk for these women.  They're women who want to work behind-the-scenes in Hollywood which tends to be male top heavy.  They brought a complaint against a man whose brother and longtime childhood friend were bonafied A-listers.  In a town where it helps who you know...it certainly wasn't going to be a career enhancer which is just one more reason I tend to believe their accounts. 

 

 

 

It being risky does not mean their story is automatically true. I've read the articles and I don't remember reading too much about the names of the women being bandied around and I have yet to hear about either of them being blacklisted, so guess not that much of a risk. 

I just hate in this day and age how people are so quick to play judge and jury when they really know nothing but a few scant details of what they read.

Quote

Is Casey really a better actor than Denzel?

That's not the question that was being asked. It was 'Is Casey's performance in this one movie better than Denzel's in his movie?'

Quote

 Heck, there are theories that Isabelle Huppert's personality turned off voters which firmly tilted the award to Emma. But hey, she's a woman which also highlights that the line will differ based on things like race, gender and who you know in Hollywood*. 

 

Even if that theory is correct, it's not just about her being a woman. Several times in this thread, people have brought up Russell Crowe probably losing the Oscar for A Beautiful Mind because people didn't like him.

Edited March 1, 2017 by FilmTVGeek80

[Irlandesa]

19 minutes ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

It being risky does not mean their story is automatically true. I've read the articles and I don't remember reading too much about the names of the women being bandied around and I have yet to hear about either of them being blacklisted, so guess not that much of a risk.

Not much of a risk because you couldn't find something on Google?  No one is going to advertise or speak publicly that they're avoiding hiring women who filed a sexual harassment complaint.  But retaliation is something women fear when it comes to reporting sexual harassment.  I would imagine it's even more of a consideration in an industry as small as the one they're in. 

35 minutes ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

I just hate in this day and age how people are so quick to play judge and jury when they really know nothing but a few scant details of what they read.

We're not playing judge and jury.  We're just taking what we know about this situation and putting it in the context of what we know about sexual assault and sexual harassment and reaching conclusions.  Conclusions, by the way, that will have absolutely zero effect on Casey. 

[aradia22]

Quote

I just hate in this day and age how people are so quick to play judge and jury when they really know nothing but a few scant details of what they read.

Personally, I don't believe he's guilty. That is, I believe I don't know for sure one way or the other. BUT the fact that he refused to engage with the conversation at all, even to speak indirectly about women's rights issues and sexual assault/harrassment does bother me. His brother is involved in the Eastern Congo Initiative which places an emphasis on helping women. ALSO, given the lack of certainty, it means that at least some of the people who voted for him to win chose him feeling that he probably did do what he was accused of doing. Is the Polanski situation worse? Yes. Is this still bad, especially given how it contributes to the larger rape culture and comfort we have in devaluing testimony and silencing victims? Yes. "Judge and jury" is interesting phrasing. That's mostly what the court of public opinion is capable of. The full phrase is "judge, jury, and executioner." But these cases rarely get tried satisfactorily in an actual court of law where sentencing might be relevant. I'm not speaking about Casey Affleck right now but what it means for society as a whole... especially since it keeps happening.

[BW Manilowe]

On 2/27/2017 at 8:21 AM, SeriousPurrs said:

I'm sure other stars are probably thinking, Damn, wish that had happened when I was a presenter.

Think of how many times Beatty's name has been reported, tweeted, spoken--Can't buy that much publicity!

Neither Beatty or Dunaway have had this much attention in decades(?) or at least a number of years.

(And they didn't even have to die.)

Beatty, & wife Annette Bening, got some perhaps unwanted publicity at least 2 years ago (2013-ish, perhaps earlier) when their firstborn daughter (the child born before they were married), Kathlyn Elizabeth Beatty, came out as their transgender son, Stephen Ira Beatty, saying he'd felt that way since he was about 14 years old (Beatty subsequently declared Stephen his "hero" last year, 2016.).

[BW Manilowe]

On 2/27/2017 at 1:59 AM, scarynikki12 said:

So it seems that the envelopes to back and forth from the two briefcases.  Award #1 comes from, let's say, the briefcase off stage right, Award #2 off stage left, and back and forth until the show is done.  To be fair, if this has always been the order, it's only failed one time and that was human error.  I don't know how long the accountants have been doing this but I do know it's long enough that their track record is impressive and law of numbers say that this had to happen sometime.  Sucks that it was now all the same.  What I suspect may happen in the future is that the envelopes will all be given from one of the briefcases, to avoid such a mistake, and the second one will not only be backup but will also have the second envelope opened and read by an Oscar producer/stage hand/Academy member as the winner is announced as another way to verify that it is correct.  Also, I think it's safe to say that they'll start putting the award title in giant font along with the winner.  If Best Actress In A Leading Role was in the same size font as Emma Stone, then Faye hopefully would have immediately realized why Warren was confused and done something about it herself.

They've said the accounting firm involved has been tallying the votes for 83 years, & the 2 accountants responsible for handing the envelopes to the presenters as they go on stage have been doing that for 3 years.

[BW Manilowe]

On 2/27/2017 at 1:27 PM, Inquisitionist said:

The Oscars In Memoriam tends to include people who had a major impact on motion pictures regardless of how well known they were (i.e., most of the behind-the-scenes folks aren't household names) or whose contributions were perhaps lesser but they were well known to the general movie-going public.  IMO, Alexis Arquette doesn't fit either of those categories.

As others have noted, Rickman was included last year.

There was probably some gaming involved, but I don't think Rose was necessarily a lead role in Fences.  The story is about Troy and the people in his orbit.  Much of Rose's screen time is background stuff.  She has only a few moments in the spotlight. 

Shandling got a special tribute at the Emmys, which was appropriate given his impact on television.  He had a few movie roles, but I honestly don't associate him with films and can see why the Oscars would not include him in their In Memoriam.

Perhaps Alexis doesn't individually fit the supposed definition of those who do/don't belong in the In Memoriam segment but, as others have said, she does fit--in their opinion, & I agree--as part of the Arquette acting family, who could perhaps be considered American acting "royalty" as their family goes back in Hollywood for (at least) 40 years. I remember seeing the "grandpa" of the family, Cliff Arquette, as the comedic character Charley Weaver from Mount Ida, as a regular "square" on the original version of Hollywood Squares which, back then, was aired on NBC & hosted by Peter Marshall. These days, the family is represented in Hollywood by, among others, award-winning actress Patricia (aka Patty) Arquette & her brother, David Arquette. Until her divorce from David Arquette, & the resumption of her birth name, Cox, Friends & Cougar Town star Courteney Cox Arquette also was part of the Arquette acting dynasty in the US.

[starri]

But that's all TV stuff.  Was Alexis in the memorium reel at the SAG Awards?

I completely understand why her family would want her included, but they tend to focus on either deaths of people who had been nominees/winner (as with George Kennedy), those that had done recent high-profile work (Anton Yelchin), or industry icons (Carrie and Debbie).  I doubt very seriously the behind-the-camera folks are all listed either.

Which is not to say I don't agree with Patricia and that she should have been included; I do.  I just don't think their ultimate decision is indefensible.

[BW Manilowe]

On 2/27/2017 at 4:40 PM, blackwing said:

I don't know why the Oscars can't be on a Saturday.  Why must they always be on a Sunday?  Because of some tradition?  Traditions change.  If they can switch from "and the winner is" to "and the Oscar goes to" so as to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of rich actors and film bigwigs who don't want any insinuation that they are losers... the Oscars can happen on a Saturday.

Then there's no more staying up late and being tired at work on Monday.  Or wasting several hours at work browsing the internet and reading up on all the best and worst dressed and all the anecdotes and whatnot!

Dresses:  Taraji P. Henson and Viola Davis were the best dressed IMO.  All of the media seems to love Emma Stone but I don't understand why Emma Stone and Nicole Kidman end up on Best Dressed lists when that colour washes them out, yet Felicity Jones gets raked over the coals for wearing essentially the exact same colour.  I've seen Janelle Monae on some Best Dressed lists too (along with some Worst).  To me, her dress was like a combination of 23rd century call girl (transparent top) meets Queen Elizabeth I (those huge side dress things).

They used to be on Mondays for years, at least most of the years I was in school. And the reasons they gave for moving them to Sundays (where they've aired since 1999) were they could get more viewers starting at 8:30PM Eastern on Sundays than 9PM on Mondays; they could avoid Los Angeles Rush Hour traffic trying to get participants to the ceremonies; the 8:30PM Eastern start time on Sundays would allow Eastern time viewers to go to bed earlier (which so far hasn't happened because the show continually manages to run longer than the scheduled timeslot). There are also reasons the ceremonies were moved to a late February to, possibly, early March timeframe.

I remember watching them, a lot of the time growing up, with my parents in their room so I could take a nap during the "boring" categories (pretty much anything but the 4 acting categories, Best Director, & Best Picture) & through any Best Song performances not by singers/bands I wasn't a fan of, & (hopefully, if they stayed awake) have someone there to wake me up for the big cluster of awards I wanted to see (usually the lead acting, director, & picture categories) at or towards the end plus any best song nominees' performances they might've scheduled later in the show.

[BW Manilowe]

On 2/27/2017 at 5:47 PM, ProudMary said:

 

 

I agree that Amy Adams should have gotten a nomination this year, specifically the slot that went to Meryl Streep.  The Oscar nominations were not finalized until a couple of weeks after the Golden Globes were held.  I firmly believe that Meryl only secured her FFJ nomination AFTER she made her anti-Trump speech.  IMO, it was her reward for that, at the expense of Amy Adams (and to a slightly lesser extent at Taraji P. Henson's for Hidden Figures.)  I loved her speech BTW but don't think one should have anything to do with the other.  

Although she wasn't nominated, she did attend and presented the award for Best Adapted Screenplay.  If you'd like to see what she wore to the Oscars, here's a link to a photo of her gown.  It was again a Tom Ford, following what she's been doing much of this awards season showcasing her Nocturnal Animals director.
http://hollywoodlife.com/2017/02/26/amy-adams-oscar-dress-2017-oscars-gown/

IMO, that scene is the best acted scene in any 2016 movie.  Absolutely amazing.

Well, not that far off base.  She was in Suicide Squad!

Except not.  I guess the Washington Post needs an introduction to Whoopi Goldberg.

All the songs are from various movies.  "The Heat is On" is from Beverly Hills Cop.

I'm so happy to read this.  I thought it was just me!

What made it even worse is that many of the celebrities seated up front pulled out their phones to video the tourists!  

 

I agree with both of you on this.  He was so good and incredibly handsome in both of those.  I joked when he was named People's first Sexiest Man Alive that they should just retire the award immediately.  And then years later we discover that he is just an awful, awful human being.  Some of Hollywood may have taken the forgive and forget route but this fan definitely hasn't.  He sickens me.

Sources I read yesterday claim that Whoopi's Tony doesn't count as part of the Triple Crown of major US entertainment industry awards Viola's now credited with being the first African-American actress to win because Whoopi's Tony was presented to her as 1 of the producers of a play (musical), Thoroughly Modern Millie, which had a successful revival on Broadway a few years ago. I thought/I'd read Whoopi's Tony didn't count because it was a "non-competitive" Tony marking the success of her original 1-woman show on Broadway, & "non-competitive" awards are said not to count towards EGOTs (the Grand Slam equivalent of US entertainment industry awards). Viola's Emmy, Tony, & Oscar were all won for roles she actually played (Annalise in HTGAWM & the wife/mother in Fences). So she's still in contention for a legitimate EGOT, if she can find a Grammy project that qualifies for EGOTs.

[starri]

Whoopi is a legitimate EGOT.  She won all four awards in competitive categories, it's just that her Tony is for producing.  There's a reason why most of the other EGOTs are producers or composers.

The only performers that have awards for just for performances are Helen Hayes and Rita Moreno.  And depending on how you want to split hairs, John Gielgud, since one of his Tonys a defunct category called Best Company, which means it wasn't individual.

[BW Manilowe]

On 2/27/2017 at 8:03 PM, KaveDweller said:

Don't they do some other awards show on Saturday before the Oscars? An awards show for independent movies or something. And I don't mean the RAzzies, something else.

They are always scheduled for 3 hours. Last night's was scheduled for 8:30 - 11:30, so that's still pretty late even if it ended on time. I don't know why they push the start to 8:30 instead of 8, but it's really rough when you're on the east coast.

Yes the Independent Spirit Awards, for the best in independent films & performances, are awarded (& televised) on Saturday of Oscars weekend. So are the Razzies (for the year's worst films & performances).

ABC pushes the start until 8:30 so they can have their own Red Carpet pre-show starting at 7--which they should be allowed (to have their own Red Carpet show) as the host network. All the cable network Red Carpet shows start before theirs, but I heard a long time ago that at least E!'s Red Carpet (really, probably all of the cable network shows) contractually has to be off the air before ABC's show.