The Annual Academy Awards - General Discussion

[Rebecca berkowit]

If you do something, and then someone else does the same thing, and you criticize them for that thing,  you’re a hypocrite.  However, if you once did a bad thing in your life, and then someone else does another different bad thing,  and you criticize them for that thing, you are not a hypocrite, necessarily.  Even if you did the first bad thing to someone tangentially related to the person who did the second bad thing.  And to go combing Twitter for bad things someone did or said five years ago because they criticized someone today, well…..I already said I don’t see the point of Twitter.  Society can’t function this way.  Stay off of Twitter, it will clearly come back to bite you.  Why does every random celebrity thought need to be broadcasted and dissected? That’s what publicists are for.

[Hava]

I know most people are tired of talking about the "incident," but I have still been following along, and today I saw a video close-up of Chris Rocks' face during Questlove's acceptance speech, and it was pretty heartbreaking. He looked upset and confused. If i were him, I would feel so, so hurt and abandoned if I was just assaulted and everybody around me moved on as though it didn't happen. Someone made a great point that no one from backstage came out to check in on him--not even a "hey, you good?", nothing--before moving on. Like, what the hell?? What a way to make someone feel like their safety does not matter and they're not valued.

And today I also learned that he was a victim of bullying as a kid (including sexually assault :( ), and that makes this situation even more upsetting.

Edited April 1, 2022 by Hava

[Door County Cherry]

Since things have become heated and discussion has gone a bit circular and off topic, we're closing the thread for the season. 

It'll reopen in a few months for next year's show days after we reconsidered but please continue to stick to the events of the show and be respectful of your fellow posters. 

[ProudMary]

ADVERTISEMENT Film academy apologizes to Sacheen Littlefeather for 1973 Oscars

[Academy president David] Rubin called Littlefeather’s speech “a powerful statement that continues to remind us of the necessity of respect and the importance of human dignity.”

“The abuse you endured because of this statement was unwarranted and unjustified,” wrote Rubin. “The emotional burden you have lived through and the cost to your own career in our industry are irreparable. For too long the courage you showed has been unacknowledged. For this, we offer both our deepest apologies and our sincere admiration.”

It only took them 50 years. Full info at the AP above link.

[Milburn Stone]

13 hours ago, ProudMary said:

ADVERTISEMENT Film academy apologizes to Sacheen Littlefeather for 1973 Oscars

I think this is great. Some words that jumped out at me were "the cost to your own career in our industry." I never realized until this minute that Sacheen was a film actress! All these years I thought she was just a friend of Brando's, or a civilian he met on a location, or someone he encountered in an activist group, or someone he sought in an activist group he'd become aware of, or some such.

I'd be interested in attending her Academy event on September 17 if I could. Maybe video of it will be archived.

[blackwing]

9 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

I think this is great. Some words that jumped out at me were "the cost to your own career in our industry." I never realized until this minute that Sacheen was a film actress! All these years I thought she was just a friend of Brando's, or a civilian he met on a location, or someone he encountered in an activist group, or someone he sought in an activist group he'd become aware of, or some such.

I thought she was one of those things, I didn't think she was an actress.  I thought she was some kind of activist that knew somebody who knew Brando.  And when he decided he was going to decline the award if he won, he got in touch with her and asked her to speak on his behalf.

I think it is good that the Academy is apologising to her.  She didn't deserve to be booed.  But I think she probably knew what she was getting into when she agreed to do this for Brando.  And I'm pretty sure she was an activist so she must have been used to not receiving a welcome reception given the times.

Did Brando ever publicly apologise to her for putting her in this position?  He should have.

[ProudMary]

Sadly, the final chapter of the story; Sacheen Littlefeather has died, just two weeks after participating in an Academy event celebrating Native Americans. 😥

From ABC News:

Sacheen Littlefeather, actress and activist who declined an Oscar for Marlon Brando, dies at 75

Following the apology, Littlefeather participated in an Academy event on Sept. 17 for an evening of "conversation, healing and celebration."

Ahead of the event, which celebrated Native Americans and included a reading of Littlefeather's speech, the actress and activist reflected on the apology and legacy of her remarks.

"Regarding the Academy's apology to me, we Indians are very patient people -- it's only been 50 years! We need to keep our sense of humor about this at all times. It's our method of survival," Littlefeather said, according to the Academy.

"This is a dream come true," she added, speaking about the event itself. "It is profoundly heartening to see how much has changed since I did not accept the Academy Award 50 years ago. I am so proud of each and every person who will appear on stage."

[A.Ham]

I wish the Oscars could have at least tried to do something like this:

Strictly Come Dancing cast does Encanto (low resolution video)

They could learn a thing of two from the British.... and they could have even had some original cast singing. Wasted opportunity in my eyes. 

Edited October 25, 2022 by A.Ham

[BetterButter]

Jimmy Kimmel to host his third Oscars in 2023

[Vermicious Knid]

Voting just started for the Academy Awards and the Post is already out there with predictions for acting, director and best picture. .

 

[BetterButter]

Oscars 2023: Here's the full list of nominations

[blackwing]

A lot of the acting nominations went as expected, but I'm especially happy for Jamie Lee Curtis, Stephanie Hsu, Hong Chau, and Bryan Tyree Henry.  Very disappointed that Viola Davis was omitted, she was a powerhouse in "The Woman King".  And what happened to Danielle Deadwyler for "Till"?

I'm also glad that Tom Cruise was not nominated for Best Actor.  That performance was decent but not Oscar worthy at all.

[Milburn Stone]

Why is Glass Onion nominated for best adapted screenplay? What was it adapted from?

[BetterButter]

12 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

Why is Glass Onion nominated for best adapted screenplay?

Because it's a sequel.

[kittykat]

A lot of great actors sneaking on there for their first nominations: Brian Tyree Henry, Andrea Riseborough, Bill Nighy, Hong Chau. Judd Hirsch getting his second nomination after 42 years.

The Best Actor race is on.  3 men enter (sorry Bill and Paul), 1 will triumph.  Any of them would be nice.  As far as performances go Colin was probably best but my heart is rooting for Brendan.  Nothing against Austin because he was great but it would be nice for the biopic performance to NOT win for once.

Cate v. Michelle Y, I lean towards Michelle but won't be disappointed if Cate joins Kate, Jack, Meryl, Frances, Daniel and Ingrid in the 3+ timers club. 

That said Michelle W is on the Amy Adams when will she ever win path? Then again, it took both Kate Winslet and Leo their sixth nomination so hang in there!

Was hoping Sarah Polley would sneak in for director but since women won the last two years we're good for another ninety four right, RIGHT! 🙄

That Best Supporting Actress race is stacked, I'll cheer for Angela but no am good with any of them (same with S. actor)

Edited January 24, 2023 by kittykat

[MicheleinPhilly]

When Riz Ahmed announced "My Year of Dicks" I nearly choked on my coffee. 

[Eureka]

My two cents: I was not a fan of Banshees but thought the actors were very good (if that makes sense) so glad they were nominated. I loved Everything Everywhere. I can’t believe Top Gun Maverick was nominated, that’s ridiculous (I am Gen X but thought other than a little nostalgia, the movie was terrible). And when I saw Judd Hirsch’s name, I couldn’t even remember who he was in The Fablemans for a second, lol. I thought Michelle Williams was amazing in it but overall I felt the movie was a little too slow for me. I’ve only seen four of the ones nominated for best picture. 

[libgirl2]

I would love Brendan  to win. I know Austin  is right up there, but he is is still young, he can wait some. Colin, I have always liked him. This will be very interesting. And I love Bill Nighy and am thrilled he got a nomination! 

[Spartan Girl]

When Ke Huy QUAN wins, please let him say “Goonies never say die” in his acceptance speech! 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

[tennisgurl]

Glad to see so much love for Everything Everywhere All at Once. I can’t help but root for Brendan, I hope he takes home the gold, but I’m really happy just to see him get nominated. 

[truthaboutluv]

15 hours ago, libgirl2 said:

I know Austin  is right up there, but he is is still young, he can wait some.

YMMV but I've always hated that argument because I believe it's just one of the reasons Oscars tend to do what many call the "makeup win" where someone who should have won years prior for usually a far better role, finally gets rewarded because there's the feeling that they're "due." 

See Leonardo Dicaprio winning for The Revenant when he probably should have won for What's Eating Gilbert Grape? years prior. But he was only 19 when he got that nomination and some said, "oh he's young and he has time" and Tommy Lee Jones, who did win, was a veteran actor by that point. 

Same with the feeling about Heath Ledger when he was nominated for Brokeback Mountain. Except he didn't have time, because he died a few years later. And of course Al Pacino winning for Scent of Women when he probably should have won years prior for either The Godfather or Dog Day Afternoon. 

To be clear, I'm not saying Brendan isn't deserving of the win because honestly, it's been years now where I don't get too dogged on who is most deserving or not for these wins, as so much of this subjective.

There have been films and performances that were so lauded and loved that I didn't think was that amazing and others I loved that some hated, so total toss up. As I often say, by the time we get to the Oscar nominations most of the nominees are well-deserving and you can make a case for almost all of them. 

[libgirl2]

1 hour ago, truthaboutluv said:

YMMV but I've always hated that argument because I believe it's just one of the reasons Oscars tend to do what many call the "makeup win" where someone who should have won years prior for usually a far better role, finally gets rewarded because there's the feeling that they're "due." 

See Leonardo Dicaprio winning for The Revenant when he probably should have won for What's Eating Gilbert Grape? years prior. But he was only 19 when he got that nomination and some said, "oh he's young and he has time" and Tommy Lee Jones, who did win, was a veteran actor by that point. 

Same with the feeling about Heath Ledger when he was nominated for Brokeback Mountain. Except he didn't have time, because he died a few years later. And of course Al Pacino winning for Scent of Women when he probably should have won years prior for either The Godfather or Dog Day Afternoon. 

To be clear, I'm not saying Brendan isn't deserving of the win because honestly, it's been years now where I don't get too dogged on who is most deserving or not for these wins, as so much of this subjective.

There have been films and performances that were so lauded and loved that I didn't think was that amazing and others I loved that some hated, so total toss up. As I often say, by the time we get to the Oscar nominations most of the nominees are well-deserving and you can make a case for almost all of them. 

I get what you are saying. There are many instances when someone gets the "career" win over someone who really should have won. I find it frustrating. 

In Brendan's case, he has never been nominated so maybe I lean more towards him, plus he was great in the role. How many chances do older actors get nowadays? If Austin wins, I would be happy. 

Edited January 25, 2023 by libgirl2

[Milburn Stone]

23 hours ago, BetterButter said:

Because it's a sequel.

I had such a hard time believing your answer that I had to go on google to verify it, and you're right!

In response to which, I can only say that this is the dumbest-assed rule in all of Oscar history, and that's saying something.

[blackwing]

45 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

I get what you are saying. There are many instances when someone gets the "career" win over someone who really should have won. I find it frustrating. 

In Brendan's case, he has never been nominated so maybe I lean more towards him, plus he was great in the role. How many chances do older actors get nowadays? If Austin wins, I would be happy. 

Unlike with actresses, age doesn't seem to mean as much when it comes to male actors, roles and awards.  But even assuming there is a bias against older actors, Colin Farrell isn't much younger than Brendan Fraser, and he has never been nominated before either.  And his body of work is much more impressive than Fraser's.  He should have been nominated for "In Bruges" some years ago (he won a Golden Globe for it), plus he was also great in "After Yang" this year.

Between the two performances, I would vote for Farrell.  I tend to dislike Oscar bait movies and roles, and Fraser's role was about as Oscar bait as they come.

[kittykat]

I really like this years acting noms, even though I haven’t seen all the performances there wasn’t one where I went really? Her? Him? For that? Im looking forward to checking all these out.

I also like that 16/20 are first time nominees (and even repeaters Hirsch and Bassett are on their second). I think they’re slowly getting better on diversity recognition and new blood in the nominations is part of that.

[libgirl2]

17 minutes ago, kittykat said:

I really like this years acting noms, even though I haven’t seen all the performances there wasn’t one where I went really? Her? Him? For that? Im looking forward to checking all these out.

I also like that 16/20 are first time nominees (and even repeaters Hirsch and Bassett are on their second). I think they’re slowly getting better on diversity recognition and new blood in the nominations is part of that.

I agree, it is good to see new faces. 

BTW, I like your "bat". 

[Cheezwiz]

Happy with most of the noms, even though I've seen very few of this year's films. Was really disappointed that Sarah Polley didn't score a Best Directing nom, since her film got a best picture nod. That is always irksome to me when that happens.

The only other WTF reaction I had was in response to all the nominations for Top Gun. I mean, really? I understand there's a nostalgia factor for some people, and could also understand some of the technical categories, but Best Actor?

[libgirl2]

4 minutes ago, Cheezwiz said:

Happy with most of the noms, even though I've seen very few of this year's films. Was really disappointed that Sarah Polley didn't score a Best Directing nom, since her film got a best picture nod. That is always irksome to me when that happens.

The only other WTF reaction I had was in response to all the nominations for Top Gun. I mean, really? I understand there's a nostalgia factor for some people, and could also understand some of the technical categories, but Best Actor?

You mean best picture not actor? Because, I agree, it doesn't seem to fit in there, but I guess enough people loved it. 

I'm also disappointed with Sarah Polley not being nominated. I never understood how something could get nominated for best picture and not director.

[NUguy514]

4 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

You mean best picture not actor? Because, I agree, it doesn't seem to fit in there, but I guess enough people loved it. 

I'm also disappointed with Sarah Polley not being nominated. I never understood how something could get nominated for best picture and not director.

Well, there are ten Best Picture nominees and only five Best Director nominees, so there is no way you can avoid having a movie nominated for BP but not BD.

[libgirl2]

3 minutes ago, NUguy514 said:

Well, there are ten Best Picture nominees and only five Best Director nominees, so there is no way you can avoid having a movie nominated for BP but not BD.

I suppose so, but this has happened before when there were only 5 films nominated. I guess someone gets cut. 

Edited January 25, 2023 by libgirl2

[Cheezwiz]

5 minutes ago, NUguy514 said:

Well, there are ten Best Picture nominees and only five Best Director nominees, so there is no way you can avoid having a movie nominated for BP but not BD.

Honestly, I think they should align those two categories. Do they think the picture just made itself? It's weird.

[libgirl2]

1 minute ago, Cheezwiz said:

Honestly, I think they should align those two categories. Do they think the picture just made itself? It's weird.

They need to do something to "even" it out some. 

[Kel Varnsen]

3 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

In response to which, I can only say that this is the dumbest-assed rule in all of Oscar history, and that's saying something.

No the dumbest Oscar rule is what counts as a best original screen play, when it comes to true stories. It seems like if you base your story on one book it's an adapted screen play but if you use several in the course of your research on a story it suddenly becomes an original screen play. Like how can you call a movie like Spotlight an original screenplay when it is a story about real people and real things they did. Top Gun Maverick is way more original than that.

[slowpoked]

The acting nominees were great this year, amazed but happy that Andrea Riseborough got nominated. It’s your typical Oscar-bait role, but there was nothing Oscar-baity about her performance. It was restrained and nuanced where you expect her to go all out and hysterical. There was no one big moment, but just the entire performance was amazing. I’m still rooting for Michelle Yeoh though - it’s not a role and a movie that usually gets done by the studios, and she was amazing in it. 

As a Filipino, I was rooting for Dolly de Leon, so I’m sad she didn’t quite make it. If there was anyone I would drop in favor of her, it would be JLC (I thought Stephanie’s performance was the stronger one of the two anyway), but I like JLC and I understand the role isn’t something people see usually onscreen (seriously, an IRS auditor?!), and EEAAO has all the momentum now. I won’t be surprised if it wins Best Picture.

With no one movie or acting performance that is a lock, yet (except maybe Angela Bassett?), it should make for one exciting Oscars night!

 

[Bill1978]

10 hours ago, libgirl2 said:

I'm also disappointed with Sarah Polley not being nominated. I never understood how something could get nominated for best picture and not director.

Baz Luhrmann has directed 2 Best Pictures nominees and didn't get nominated for directing either of them. And one of them was back in the day of the 5 BP nominees. 

[yowsah1]

Looking at the Best Actor noms all I can think is, "Look, dudes, I know that Will Smith completely disgraced himself and the Academy last year, but don't you think 5 white dudes in the category this year is a bit of an overreaction?"

[libgirl2]

9 hours ago, Bill1978 said:

Baz Luhrmann has directed 2 Best Pictures nominees and didn't get nominated for directing either of them. And one of them was back in the day of the 5 BP nominees. 

Very true. I guess it has never made sense in some cases. 

[Bruinsfan]

10 hours ago, yowsah1 said:

Looking at the Best Actor noms all I can think is, "Look, dudes, I know that Will Smith completely disgraced himself and the Academy last year, but don't you think 5 white dudes in the category this year is a bit of an overreaction?"

By rights Ke Huy Quan should have been nominated in this category, but I assume the people doing the nominating thought his chances would be better for Supporting Actor.

[libgirl2]

4 minutes ago, Bruinsfan said:

By rights Ke Huy Quan should have been nominated in this category, but I assume the people doing the nominating thought his chances would be better for Supporting Actor.

I just saw the movie and I thought he was in it quite a lot more than a supporting character. It was kind of like a fine line. 

[blackwing]

21 hours ago, libgirl2 said:

I'm also disappointed with Sarah Polley not being nominated. I never understood how something could get nominated for best picture and not director.

That was always a jab by Billy Crystal back when he was host and did the singing bit to open the show.  I always remember him singing "Did this film direct itself?" and then a camera shot of Barbra Streisand, whose "The Prince of Tides" was nominated for Best Picture but she was snubbed for Best Director.

But mismatches among categories have always been an issue.  How can "The Last Emperor" win 9 out of 9 Oscars including Best Picture and Best Director and yet not one actor from the movie was even nominated?  It's the best movie of the year but that had nothing to do with the acting performances?  Same thing happened with "Braveheart", "Slumdog Millionaire", "Parasite" and several others.

8 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

I just saw the movie and I thought he was in it quite a lot more than a supporting character. It was kind of like a fine line. 

Similarly, category jockeying isn't a new thing either.  Geena Davis ("The Accidental Tourist") and Jennifer Connelly ("A Beautiful Mind") won in Supporting when they were the lead female characters and in significant portions of the movie.  I think the mentality is that even though they were in the movie a lot, it wasn't their story, they were supporting the story and the male lead.  Seems like a similar approach with Ke Huy Quan... it wasn't his story, it was Michelle Yeoh's?

[libgirl2]

2 minutes ago, blackwing said:

That was always a jab by Billy Crystal back when he was host and did the singing bit to open the show.  I always remember him singing "Did this film direct itself?" and then a camera shot of Barbra Streisand, whose "The Prince of Tides" was nominated for Best Picture but she was snubbed for Best Director.

But mismatches among categories have always been an issue.  How can "The Last Emperor" win 9 out of 9 Oscars including Best Picture and Best Director and yet not one actor from the movie was even nominated?  It's the best movie of the year but that had nothing to do with the acting performances?  Same thing happened with "Braveheart", "Slumdog Millionaire", "Parasite" and several others.

Similarly, category jockeying isn't a new thing either.  Geena Davis ("The Accidental Tourist") and Jennifer Connelly ("A Beautiful Mind") won in Supporting when they were the lead female characters and in significant portions of the movie.  I think the mentality is that even though they were in the movie a lot, it wasn't their story, they were supporting the story and the male lead.  Seems like a similar approach with Ke Huy Quan... it wasn't his story, it was Michelle Yeoh's?

I remember that with Billy Crystal and The Prince of Tides! 

I think in the case of The Last Emperor, while performances were good, it was more the spectacle of the movie (I have seen it). Just like a movie will only get nominated for an acting role and not much else. 

I agree with your assessment of a "supporting" character, I guess it isn't quite their story. 

[Bill1978]

3 hours ago, blackwing said:

Similarly, category jockeying isn't a new thing either.  Geena Davis ("The Accidental Tourist") and Jennifer Connelly ("A Beautiful Mind") won in Supporting when they were the lead female characters and in significant portions of the movie.  I think the mentality is that even though they were in the movie a lot, it wasn't their story, they were supporting the story and the male lead.  Seems like a similar approach with Ke Huy Quan... it wasn't his story, it was Michelle Yeoh's?

My favourite category fraud is Timothy Hutton winning Best Supporting Actor for Ordinary People in which his character was the main character. I don't care how people justify it, everyone else in that movie was supporting the story arc of his character.

[kittykat]

I don't know what the clear rules of categorizing lead vs supporting.  There was the great All About Eve debate where Anne Baxter was almost out into supporting and deservedly pushed for lead (she was freaking EVE ffs).  But on the other side it also meant two people from the same movie in the same category which can lead to vote splitting, hence Judy Holliday's win.  Then again there's also Chicago where Catherine Zeta-Jones and Queen Latifah were both nominated in the supporting category and CZJ still won.

Sometimes it's merit like the cast of Trial of the Chicago Seven all submitting in supporting because of it being a true ensemble.

Being the top billed male/female in a film doesn't necessarily make one a lead. Jim Broadbent was the top billed male in Iris but in the overall story he was a support character to Judi Denchs' main lead.  Same with Jessica Lange in Tootsie with regards to Dustin Hoffman. 

If I have to call one out it would be Viola Davis in Fences.  She won for supporting when she should have been in lead IMHO.  Oscar politics, what you gonna do!

[MicheleinPhilly]

One of the most egregious recent examples for me was Rooney Mara being nominated for Supporting Actress for Carol. Yes, Cate is the bigger star and the movie was CALLED Carol, but in my opinion, the movie was 100% Therese's (Mara's) story. 

And I've never looked at screen time or anything like that, but they were both so obviously co-leads, the category fraud was ridiculous. 

And I'm still salty that Mara lost to Alicia Vikander. 

[argrow]

9 hours ago, kittykat said:

If I have to call one out it would be Viola Davis in Fences.  She won for supporting when she should have been in lead IMHO.  Oscar politics, what you gonna do!

She even won Best Performance by a Leading Actress in a Play at the Tony Awards for the same role, and the movie didn't change too much from the play. Definitely should have been in the lead category.

Edited January 27, 2023 by argrow

[libgirl2]

21 hours ago, Bill1978 said:

My favourite category fraud is Timothy Hutton winning Best Supporting Actor for Ordinary People in which his character was the main character. I don't care how people justify it, everyone else in that movie was supporting the story arc of his character.

OMG! I forgot about that one!

[slowpoked]

On 1/26/2023 at 8:39 AM, blackwing said:

Similarly, category jockeying isn't a new thing either.  Geena Davis ("The Accidental Tourist") and Jennifer Connelly ("A Beautiful Mind") won in Supporting when they were the lead female characters and in significant portions of the movie.  I think the mentality is that even though they were in the movie a lot, it wasn't their story, they were supporting the story and the male lead.  Seems like a similar approach with Ke Huy Quan... it wasn't his story, it was Michelle Yeoh's?

 

Another favorite of mine is Jamie Foxx's nomination as Best Supporting Actor for Collateral when he was clearly a co-lead of Tom Cruise - Jesus, he drove him around for 90% of the movie! But obviously, he wasn't submitted for Best Actor because that would conflict with Ray, where he was (and indeed) a surefire winner. 

I think there are no clear-cut rules in Lead vs. Supporting category. It's where the actor, studios and campaign team want to submit for. Also, they want to strategize to make sure a submission doesn't conflict with that movie's other submission, so as not to split votes. That's probably what happened with Carol and Cate and Rooney.

For this year's Oscars, I know there was talk in Michelle Williams surprisingly showing up in the Best Supporting Actress, instead of the Lead. Her role really is supporting, but the category was stacked, so the movie studios probably thought she'd have a better chance at a nomination at the Lead Category (if even zero chances of winning).

Edited January 27, 2023 by slowpoked

[slowpoked]

There's now a mini-controversy brewing with Andrea Riseborough's surprise nomination:

https://puck.news/was-the-andrea-riseborough-oscar-campaign-illegal/

Edited January 27, 2023 by slowpoked

[libgirl2]

57 minutes ago, slowpoked said:

There's now a mini-controversy brewing with Andrea Riseborough's surprise nomination:

https://puck.news/was-the-andrea-riseborough-oscar-campaign-illegal/

Interesting. I have seen her work before but not this. The questions are, was she good in it? And how many times does this happen? 

[slowpoked]

1 hour ago, libgirl2 said:

Interesting. I have seen her work before but not this. The questions are, was she good in it? And how many times does this happen? 

I've seen the movie. She was pretty great in it, great enough for a nomination. I still think it will be Cate vs. Michelle Y. It's a typical Oscar role (alcohol-addicted mother, losing everything, trying to redeem herself, etc.), but I appreciate that her performance was nuanced and restrained enough than what you would normally expect in a role and movie like this.

Do I think it's the greatest performance ever, like Kate Winslet, Ed Norton, etc. think? No. But maybe they're a better judge than I am. 

It's weird though how there's speculation that her campaign might have violated the rules. For one, I didn't think there were any rules, considering the shameless pandering, groveling, lobbying both movie studios and actors have done over the years. I suppose outright bribery is still not allowed. It seems like this stems from the fact that Viola and Danielle didn't make the cut, even though they were huge favorites, while another (white) woman did. 

Edited January 27, 2023 by slowpoked