Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
thuganomics85

The Annual Academy Awards Topic

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Inquisitionist said:

I liked Dern's dress better than the half-gown/half-bikini outfits that some of the other women wore.  

Yep... but for some reason the fashionistas are all praising the bikini outfits chosen by Zendaya, Andra Day, and Carey Mulligan.  The descriptions for all of their dresses all more or less say something about "bold midriff cutout".  No, that's not a "cutout".  I don't know much about fashion, but I thought a cutout is when there's a small swath of fabric cut out of the dress to expose the skin beneath.  These weren't "cutouts"... they were actual bikinis.  But maybe this is the trend?

I do wonder about the boldness of Day and Mulligan (both of whom had decent chances to win Best Actress) wearing gold... no doubt so that when/if she won, the media could say she perfectly matched the statue.  But their wins were far from guaranteed.  I remember Frances McDormand wearing some kind of gold Art Deco curtains the last time she won.  And I remember Meryl Streep wearing gold when she won for "The Iron Lady".  But they were pretty much assured the win.

Day and Mulligan wearing gold and then not winning reminds me of the Olympics when Michelle Kwan was widely expected to win gold.  Then she fell on her bupkis several times and ended up with bronze.  Her exhibition skate featured her in a gold dress skating to Sting's "Fields of Gold".  She finished the skate in complete tears over what she had lost.  I remember being slightly surprised at the hubris, and the fact that she didn't swap out the song and dress.  Surely she had other programs prepared that she could have skated to instead.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Supposedly, there is a theory that there has never been a Best Actress winner who wore red the night she won. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't, but I'd love for next year to have all the Best Actress nominees show up in red, just to bust that myth.

ETA: Funny enough...

dresses-oscars-ht-rc-210426_161945736265

Edited by Hiyo
  • Like 6
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

Halle Berry's dress was red (well, the skirt was; the top was a beaded design on meshing), and it's my favorite Oscar dress ever.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

One of the major mistakes made by TPTB was having In Memorium end with someone other than Sean Connery.  That guy was a major, major, star over decades.  Few have ever been able to crossover from whimsy to serious drama better than SC.  His career stands up to anyone all-time, imo.

Boseman may have become something of the order of magnitude that Connery was, but he had not come close to those heights, given the brevity of his career in comparison.

  • Like 6
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

That's a cool chart!  I think it's great that Joanne Woodward and Julie Christie made their own dresses.  I'm picturing them buying a pattern and fabric and sitting in front of their sewing machines and it takes me back to a simpler time.  Nowadays it's all about fashion houses trying to get exposure and lending dresses to nominees... I would imagine very few of today's stars probably even know how to sew.

I also find it interesting that Katharine Hepburn didn't show up even once to collect any of her 4 BA awards.

45 minutes ago, NUguy514 said:

Halle Berry's dress was red (well, the skirt was; the top was a beaded design on meshing), and it's my favorite Oscar dress ever.

I think it was more of a burgundy... does that qualify as red for purposes of this test?  When it says red does it mean bright red like what Angela Bassett wore the other night?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Lonesome Rhodes said:

One of the major mistakes made by TPTB was having In Memorium end with someone other than Sean Connery.  That guy was a major, major, star over decades.  Few have ever been able to crossover from whimsy to serious drama better than SC.  His career stands up to anyone all-time, imo.

Boseman may have become something of the order of magnitude that Connery was, but he had not come close to those heights, given the brevity of his career in comparison.

The entire segment was just handled so poorly.  I can't believe they decided to have some stars get less time simply because the song was speeding up, and other stars more time simply because the song was slowing down.  It was really not respectful in my opinion.

Edited to add one of my friends called it "In Memoriam: Speedreading Edition"

Edited by Ms Blue Jay
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

30 minutes ago, Lonesome Rhodes said:

One of the major mistakes made by TPTB was having In Memorium end with someone other than Sean Connery.  That guy was a major, major, star over decades.  Few have ever been able to crossover from whimsy to serious drama better than SC.  His career stands up to anyone all-time, imo.

I completely agree and said that at the time. Sean Connery was a legend and icon. I'm very sorry Chadwick Boseman died too soon, but he should not have been the last one featured. And, it's because of times like this year, they really need to standardize the In Memoriam. Either show the deceased in the order they died over the past year, or show them in alphabetical order. That way, there's no putting someone in more of a spotlight. They finally learned to mute the live audience clapping for the TV audience during the segment.

  • Like 9
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/26/2021 at 10:47 PM, Ms Blue Jay said:

Anthony won because he got the most votes.  It's not an objective science.  Voters are not even required to watch the movies.

I have no idea why people voted for Hopkins, but one thing that probably worked in his favour was the fact that he has been working steady in movies since like the 1960's (assuming he is not a total asshole on set). The academy is made up of actors, writers, producers and directors, so it wouldn't surprise me to find out that a significant number of voters were people who worked with him. I feel like if you have a choice between a guy you know and one you don't, even if they gave equally good performances, the guy you know is going to have the edge.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

“I think it was more of a burgundy... does that qualify as red for purposes of this test?”

Burgundy. I think when people think red, they mean the type of red Viola Davis or Allison Jannay were wearing when they won their Supporting Actress Oscars. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Arcadiasw said:

I hope whoever was behind that decision is fired. 

I hope whoever made that decision is outted, and never gets a job in show business again. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Book Junkie said:

I'm very sorry Chadwick Boseman died too soon, but he should not have been the last one featured.

I assume this was done in part of the build up to the “woke academy award best actor to deceased black actor” angle they were going for. So manipulative and just using his death so pat themselves on the back and collect on the good PR. I’m delighted it backfired on them. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Kromm said:

I hope whoever made that decision is outted, and never gets a job in show business again. 

You know they will. It's just like bad coaches. They keep getting fired and hired with expensive contracts and fired and hired again and make even more money when they shouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the decision to end on Chadwick was more about his age than his race even if his race factored into another story the Awards were hoping to tell.

The impact factor was likely going to be "cut down in his prime" more than "four acting winners of color" which was far less of a guarantee given the legit toss up status of the Best Actress category.

It was very dumb but I can see why they expected Boseman to win.  He won all the major US precursors. He didn't BAFTA but BAFTA has had its own issues with race and shows a preference for British actors.  That's why I don't think his loss there was seen as significant as his wins at SAG, the Golden Globes.

Edited by Irlandesa
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

But there has been precedent for it. I remember Juliette Binoche snatching the Best Supporting Actress award from Lauren Bacall after Bacall had won the GG and SAG awards, but lost the BAFTA to...Binoche.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Hiyo said:

But there has been precedent for it. I remember Juliette Binoche snatching the Best Supporting Actress award from Lauren Bacall after Bacall had won the GG and SAG awards, but lost the BAFTA to...Binoche.
 

Didn't the same thing happen with Christian Bale in 2019? He got the Golden Globe and Critic's Choice for Cheney, but lost the Oscar to Rami Malek.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

It was very dumb but I can see why they expected Boseman to win.

The Academy has no business "expecting" who's going to win, let alone organizing its show around that expectation. It's an insult to the other nominees.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Milburn Stone said:

The Academy has no business "expecting" who's going to win, let alone organizing its show around that expectation. It's an insult to the other nominees.

Oh I agree but that's also not realistic because humans are going to human.

And while I don't mind shifting the order of awards, doing so to have a specific effect is ridiculous.

Edited by Irlandesa

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/27/2021 at 3:32 PM, blackwing said:

 That said, Harrison Ford looked really frail too.  I missed the intro and wasn't even sure if it was him.  Wonder if he will dye his hair for Indy 5.

I had the same thought. It seemed as though he was having trouble speaking. Forget his hair color. I wonder if Harrison Ford will be physically able to play Indy for the next movie. It's a physically demanding role and I'm not sure if Ford is up for it. I also have issues accepting the fact that Harrison Ford is now old. I know it beats the alternative. The dominant visual image I have of him is from the late 1970s-early 1980s, and what he looks like now is always a bit of a shock. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

6 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

I think the decision to end on Chadwick was more about his age than his race even if his race factored into another story the Awards were hoping to tell.

The impact factor was likely going to be "cut down in his prime" more than "four acting winners of color which ,"was far less of a guarantee given the legit toss up status of the Best Actress category.

It was very dumb but I can see why they expected Boseman to win.  He won all the major US precursors. He didn't BAFTA but BAFTA has had its own issues with race and shows a preference for British actors.  That's why I don't think his loss there was seen as significant as his wins at SAG, the Golden Globes.

It doesn't matter if he won or not.  It was horribly manipulative and exploitative of his memory either way.  This way was just more in your face in highlighting the ridiculousness of what they were doing. 

I'm generally not on the whole "blame Hollywood for everything" train--a tendency that's actually generally been blame shifting instead and quite ruinous.  But the very fact that I'm not actually makes me even madder about this. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Kromm said:

I hope whoever made that decision is outted, and never gets a job in show business again. 

Please tell me that Tom Cruise produced the In Memoriam segment!

  • Laugh 9

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Didn't the same thing happen with Christian Bale in 2019? He got the Golden Globe and Critic's Choice for Cheney, but lost the Oscar to Rami Malek.

I don't remember it that way. From early on I remember Malek being the frontrunner with it being his race to lose.

Whereas with Binoche's win, I remember at the time it was definitely seen as an upset, especially as Bacall was also considered the sentimental favorite who was "finally" getting an Oscar after decades in the business.

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

The Academy has no business "expecting" who's going to win, let alone organizing its show around that expectation.

Was that Soderbergh's decision, or the Academy's? And was it him or the Academy that gave the final approval for the In Memoriam segment?

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Hiyo said:

But there has been precedent for it. I remember Juliette Binoche snatching the Best Supporting Actress award from Lauren Bacall after Bacall had won the GG and SAG awards, but lost the BAFTA to...Binoche.
 

In addition to the Binoche/Bacall example, Best Actress 2018 is another instance where BAFTA presaged a shift in momentum.  Glenn Close had won the Golden Globe for Drama and the SAG (to be fair, Olivia Colman had also won a GG, but for Comedy).  BAFTA, however, went for Colman, which was dismissed as Brits voting for a Brit, but really signaled a shift.  Colman, of course, upset Close for the Oscar.  It was really similar to the Hopkins/Boseman race.

As far as Christian Bale vs. Rami Malek.  Malek did win the GG for Drama and the SAG, so it's not quite the same as this year.  Of course, Malek is the worst Best Actor winner ever (yes, I've seen all 93 winning performances), so there was no way a Boseman win would've mirrored that because Boseman, while not that great, was nowhere close to being utterly, horribly, completely, very, very, offensively, very terrible.

  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Didn't the same thing happen with Christian Bale in 2019? He got the Golden Globe and Critic's Choice for Cheney, but lost the Oscar to Rami Malek.

Not really. Christian won the Critic's Choice and Comedy Golden Globe, but Rami won the Drama Golden Globe (which is usually considered more of the Oscar precursor). Rami also won SAG and BAFTA, and was the heavy favorite going into the Oscars. It was funny watching Film Twitter twist itself further and further into denial that Rami would win the Oscar with each award he won that year.

Edited by OnePlusOne
  • Like 2
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

6 hours ago, OnePlusOne said:

Not really. Christian won the Critic's Choice and Comedy Golden Globe, but Rami won the Drama Golden Globe (which is usually considered more of the Oscar precursor). Rami also won SAG and BAFTA, and was the heavy favorite going into the Oscars. It was funny watching Film Twitter twist itself further and further into denial that Rami would win the Oscar with each award he won that year.

Thanks. I really don't pay attention to all that stuff. Only to if my fave who is nominated will win. The year Rami won (happy for him!) was the last time I watched. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

And while I don't mind shifting the order of awards, doing so to have a specific effect is ridiculous.

I think we're almost saying the same thing, except that I'd call it offensive.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't seen any mention of the reason why there was a gender swap with the lead acting categories.  Why did Renee give out Best Actress and Joaquin give out Best Actor?  The evil part of me can picture JP begging the producers to give out Best Actor.

Shifting the Best Actor to last reminded me of the time when Kathryn Bigelow won for The Hurt Locker.  She was a lock at the time and the Academy trotted out Barbra Streisand to present Best Director.  Of course KB won, and it was a good moment, but it would've been awkward if Quentin Tarantino had won.

  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Hiyo said:

But there has been precedent for it. I remember Juliette Binoche snatching the Best Supporting Actress award from Lauren Bacall after Bacall had won the GG and SAG awards, but lost the BAFTA to...Binoche.
 

I agree that Lauren Bacall was a huge favourite... despite the BAFTA loss, she was still expected to win, based on the strength of the GG and the SAG, and above all, the sentimentality.  When Juliette won and in her speech she thanked the other nominees "especially Lauren", they showed Bacall on TV and she said "so sweet".  Bacall was a gracious loser.

I also recall when another stalwart of Old Hollywood, Gloria Stuart, was nominated for "Titanic".  Some said that sentimentality would give her the Oscar.  But Kim Basinger swept the awards that year, so it was not a surprise when she won the Oscar.  Nonetheless, I recall a shot of poor Gloria Stuart in the audience, looking stunned and despondent.

 

1 hour ago, sugarbaker design said:

I haven't seen any mention of the reason why there was a gender swap with the lead acting categories.  Why did Renee give out Best Actress and Joaquin give out Best Actor?  The evil part of me can picture JP begging the producers to give out Best Actor.

I would not at all be surprised if Phoenix asked for Best Actor.  I wish he had stayed home, he was terrible as a presenter.  I do love that he seemingly refused to lick the nominees' butts and tell some insightful story or give accolades about them.  But the delivery in his monotone voice, etc.

I think the reason why it was switched was in line with all of the producers other puzzling decisions... they wanted to be fresh and edgy and make people think "ah, this is different".

  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/29/2021 at 5:15 PM, blackwing said:

think the reason why it was switched was in line with all of the producers other puzzling decisions... they wanted to be fresh and edgy and make people think "ah, this is different".

I think above was the reason for why the we didn’t get clips etc. Switching the order wasn’t done for edginess, it was sheer manipulation through and through. With the year that’s been in it They wanted a big Hollywood show - a standing ovation, clapping with tears (only some of which would be genuine) to close out the night. It was exploiting through and through. It wasn’t about Chadwick and I think had He won it would have been dampened by a lingering question of if it was a fix given the great lengths the producers went to ensure they milked it for all the could. 

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

17 hours ago, Avabelle said:

it was sheer manipulation through and through. With the year that’s been in it They wanted a big Hollywood show - a standing ovation, clapping with tears (only some of which would be genuine) to close out the night. It was exploiting through and through. It wasn’t about Chadwick and I think had He won it would have been dampened by a lingering question of if it was a fix given the great lengths the producers went to ensure they milked it for all the could. 

Yeah, again, this actually makes me even angrier, because they're doing this in a time where Hollywood is a convenient, unfairly maligned punching bag for a lot of things. So in THAT environment they do something so transparently manipulative and self serving (if it had worked, although it makes them look even worse assuming it would, even if Boseman had won). Way to embrace the negative narratives, Hollywood.  You stupid fuckers. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/26/2021 at 6:03 PM, Slade347 said:

Wolfwalkers is on Apple TV+ which I believe offers a free seven-day trial.

I don’t know if it still is offering this or not, but late last year I bought a new Apple device. At the time your purchase included a free year of AppleTV. So I have 3 more free months of the service.

Share this post


Link to post

Since this hasn’t been mentioned yet, I’ll do it.

As of this year’s Oscars, Sir Anthony Hopkins is now the eldest male Oscar acting winner, at 83 years, 25 days (if I’ve figured correctly). He was born December 31, 1937 (I didn’t know that; that makes him & my brother “birthday twins”, except for the year—Sir Anthony is 29 years older than my brother, who was born in 1966). He replaces the late Christopher Plummer in this position, who was 82 years, 2 months, 13 days old (if I’ve figured correctly) when he won as Best Supporting Actor at the 84th Academy Awards, on February 26, 2012, for his role in Beginners.

Christopher Plummer may no longer be the oldest male acting Oscar winner, but he is currently the oldest male acting Oscar nominee, having been nominated once again as Best Supporting Actor, at the 90th Academy Awards, held on March 4, 2018. He was nominated for his role as real-life billionaire J. Paul Getty in All the Money in the World. He was 88 years, 1 month, 13 days old (if I figured correctly) when he received this nomination on January 23, 2018.

He was the second actor to film the role, after fellow Oscar winner Kevin Spacey. Spacey filmed the part but was later dismissed, & had his scenes cut, from the film following a same-sex harassment suit by an actor who said Spacey drunkenly groped him years ago when he (the complainant) was underage; this suit was the first of many which, to date, have resulted in Spacey coming out as gay & the effective end of his acting career.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Well, at least Plummer gets to keep the record for oldest Best Supporting Actor winner.

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/29/2021 at 10:33 AM, sugarbaker design said:

I haven't seen any mention of the reason why there was a gender swap with the lead acting categories.  Why did Renee give out Best Actress and Joaquin give out Best Actor?  The evil part of me can picture JP begging the producers to give out Best Actor.

Shifting the Best Actor to last reminded me of the time when Kathryn Bigelow won for The Hurt Locker.  She was a lock at the time and the Academy trotted out Barbra Streisand to present Best Director.  Of course KB won, and it was a good moment, but it would've been awkward if Quentin Tarantino had won.

They figured Chadwick would win and were getting the Joker to give an Oscar to Black Panther?

Some of acting presentations were also switched up a bit for the 2018 and 2019 ceremonies. Casey Affleck didn't attend the ceremony the year after his win, so they had Jodie Foster and Jennifer Lawrence present Best Actress together, while Jane Fonda and Helen Mirren presented Best Actor. Emma Stone was there, but got shifted to present Best Director.

 

For the 2019 ceremony, the producers initially didn't ask the prior year's winners back to present the acting categories because they hoped to get bigger stars instead. Allison Janney spoke out about the potential snub and the producers relented after the huge backlash. Still, they paired up Janney with Gary Oldman to present Best Actor, while Frances McDormand and Sam Rockwell presented Best Actress. They got other actors to present the Supporting categories that year.

 

*

 

Quote

"That was something we were going to do well before the nominations came out — we talked about that in January," Soderbergh said. "It's our belief — that I think is not unfounded — that actors' speeches tend to be more dramatic than producers' speeches. And so we thought it might be fun to mix it up, especially if people didn't know that was coming. So that was always part of the plan."

Imagine if they'd done that last year and the last moments of the ceremony had been the Joaquin Phoenix/Renee Zellweger speeches, instead of the Parasite win. 

 

Quote

The producers were criticized by some for potentially banking on Boseman's win to conclude the show, but Soderbergh denied that there was an any assumption about who would win, so much as a desire to plan for any possibility.

"I said if there was even the sliver of a chance that he would win and that his widow would speak, then we were operating under the fact that was the end of the show," he said. "So it wasn't like we assumed it would, but if there was even a possibility that it would happen, then you have to account for that. That would have been such a shattering moment, that to come back after that would have been just impossible."

It seems like the Globes and the SAG Awards managed? 

Edited by Dejana · Reason: updated a typo

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Dejana said:

while Frances McDormand and Sam Rockwell presented Best Actor.

I know you meant to type Best Actress (for the record Olivia Colman!).

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, sugarbaker design said:

I know you meant to type Best Actress (for the record Olivia Colman!).

Oops! Though two Best Actor awards that year would have made a lot of people happier. Whenever the acting awards at the Oscars go gender-neutral, they can just split the categories between biopic and non-biopic performances and still have the four awards that way...

 

Edited by Dejana

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Dejana said:

Whenever the acting awards at the Oscars go gender-neutral,

I hope they don't go gender-neutral, if they do a man will win every year.

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Dejana said:

Oops! Though two Best Actor awards that year would have made a lot of people happier.

 

That would not have made me happier at all.  I would actually much rather have given two Best Actress awards that year; actually, I would just have given Colman, Weisz, and Stone a joint Best Actress Oscar.  The Best Actor nominees were terrrrrrrrible, and none of them – Malek, especially – deserved to win.

4 hours ago, Dejana said:

"That was something we were going to do well before the nominations came out — we talked about that in January," Soderbergh said.

Steven,

source.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, NUguy514 said:

I would just have given Colman, Weisz, and Stone a joint Best Actress Oscar.

Yes!!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, sugarbaker design said:

I hope they don't go gender-neutral, if they do a man will win every year.

Other groups have moved in that direction and it hasn't worked out like that. Of course, when you have a couple dozen critics all meeting up and talking it out, they can arrange it so that the winners are balanced with respect to race/gender/sexuality/etc. Left up to thousands of individual Oscar voters... There might be a bias towards male roles among the voters, but if you had one woman vs four men in a Best Lead Performance category, it might end up favoring her in the end. I don't see the Oscars going this way any time soon, as a situation where significantly more men got nominated in the acting categories would be a PR nightmare for the Academy. They have enough of those as it is!

*

The 25th Oscars, though filmed footage and radio broadcasts exist from earlier ceremonies.

Edited by Dejana

Share this post


Link to post

The acting awards are some of the most popular awards.  I don't see them going gender neutral unless there's a way to keep at least four awards.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see them going gender neutral in the near future either. On one end, you would have people being (rightfully, in my opinion) concerned that more men would win that way due to a bias from voters, on the other end you would have some conservatives foaming at the mouth how gender is being erased in "woke Hollywood".

But I do wonder how they are going to handle when someone non-binary gives good performance that deserves at least a nomination. It's bound to happen eventually.

Share this post


Link to post

Aren't actors submitted for nominations by the studios or production companies? It might be the decision of how to categorize would be made there rather than by the Academy.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

Aren't actors submitted for nominations by the studios or production companies? It might be the decision of how to categorize would be made there rather than by the Academy.

No, studios can campaign actors in lead or supporting categories as they desire, but members of the actors' branch of the Academy (which is the only branch responsible for acting nominations) may vote for nominees in whichever category they individually feel is correct.  The example that comes to my mind most obviously is Keisha Castle-Hughes.  She was the undisputed lead in Whale Rider; however, since she was only thirteen, the studio assumed she wouldn't have a chance of being nominated in lead and campaigned her in supporting to maximize her chances of being nominated at all.  Come nomination morning, though, she was nominated in lead because enough members of the actors' branch quite correctly saw she was the lead in her film and put her on their ballots for Lead Actress.  Most of the time, it's the case that actors are nominated in whatever category for which they're being campaigned (hence the ridiculousness of Daniel Kaluuya and LaKeith Stanfield in Supporting Actor), but it's ultimately at the discretion of the individual members of the actors' branch when they fill out their ballots.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

I don't see them going gender neutral in the near future either. On one end, you would have people being (rightfully, in my opinion) concerned that more men would win that way due to a bias from voters, on the other end you would have some conservatives foaming at the mouth how gender is being erased in "woke Hollywood".

But I do wonder how they are going to handle when someone non-binary gives good performance that deserves at least a nomination. It's bound to happen eventually.

Asia Kate Dillon from the TV show Billions is non-binary and they've submitted in Actor categories before, as the term can be used in a gender-neutral way. They've implored the SAG Awards to drop their gender-specific categories (SAG has used "Female Actor" from the start to avoid saying "actress", and also their trophy is called an "Actor"). I guess the Oscar bylaws probably say that Best Actor/Supporting Actor are specifically are for men, but it would be a bad look for the Academy to disqualify someone from a nomination based on gender. The Oscars have changed up their categories throughout the years and would probably come up with additional acting awards (Best Voice/Motion Capture Performance, Best Film Debut, etc), if they ever drop the gender designations.

 

1 hour ago, NUguy514 said:

No, studios can campaign actors in lead or supporting categories as they desire, but members of the actors' branch of the Academy (which is the only branch responsible for acting nominations) may vote for nominees in whichever category they individually feel is correct.  The example that comes to my mind most obviously is Keisha Castle-Hughes.  She was the undisputed lead in Whale Rider; however, since she was only thirteen, the studio assumed she wouldn't have a chance of being nominated in lead and campaigned her in supporting to maximize her chances of being nominated at all.  Come nomination morning, though, she was nominated in lead because enough members of the actors' branch quite correctly saw she was the lead in her film and put her on their ballots for Lead Actress.  Most of the time, it's the case that actors are nominated in whatever category for which they're being campaigned (hence the ridiculousness of Daniel Kaluuya and LaKeith Stanfield in Supporting Actor), but it's ultimately at the discretion of the individual members of the actors' branch when they fill out their ballots.

LaKeith Stanfield was campaigned as a lead by Warner Bros, but Academy members voted for him in supporting anyway. It's suspected that Daniel Kaluuya and LaKeith got votes in both categories but were stronger in the Best Supporting Actor category. At least there's a rule against the same performance getting nominated in multiple categories (though only after it happened with Barry Fitzgerald for Going My Way).

The SAG Awards make potential nominees submit in a specific category and voters can't deviate from that. The Golden Globes can reject a categorization from an actor/movie and place them where they want: they nixed Rooney Mara and Alicia Vikander in Best Supporting Actress for Carol and The Danish Girl, respectively, but did go along with Kate Winslet in Supporting Actress for The Reader. 

 

Edited by Dejana
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

The Golden Globes can reject a categorization from an actor/movie and place them where they want: they nixed Rooney Mara and Alicia Vikander in Best Supporting Actress for Carol and The Danish Girl, respectively, but did go along with Kate Winslet in Supporting Actress for The Reader. 

And the AA flipped all three of their nominations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size