2019 Awards Season

[AshleyN]

Cross-posted from the other thread:

I wonder what hurt Roma more -- the foreign language factor or the Netflix factor? Maybe it could have survived one but the combination was too much to overcome.

Best Actress was a real bittersweet moment: I adore Olivia Colman and have heard nothing but amazing things about her work in The Favourite, and I really love that they awarded someone who doesn't fit the mold of typical Best Actress winners (which in recent years at least are almost always either ingenues or well-known powerhouse veterans). But omg poor Glenn. It would be one thing to be a filler nominee and lose again, but to actually go in as, well, the favourite, only to have the rug pulled out like that...oof. And she has to know that at her age the chances of getting another Oscar vehicle are getting awfully slim. I wouldn't be surprised if they give her an honorary Oscar in the next couple of years actually.

[methodwriter85]

1 hour ago, AshleyN said:

Best Actress was a real bittersweet moment: I adore Olivia Colman and have heard nothing but amazing things about her work in The Favourite, and I really love that they awarded someone who doesn't fit the mold of typical Best Actress winners (which in recent years at least are almost always either ingenues or well-known powerhouse veterans). But omg poor Glenn. It would be one thing to be a filler nominee and lose again, but to actually go in as, well, the favourite, only to have the rug pulled out like that...oof. And she has to know that at her age the chances of getting another Oscar vehicle are getting awfully slim. I wouldn't be surprised if they give her an honorary Oscar in the next couple of years actually.

It is sad, but I honestly have the feeling that this isn't the last time we'll be seeing Glenn in Oscar season. Hell, her last nomination was 7 years ago so it's not like it's impossible for her to find awards-worthy parts as a woman over 60. At the very least, she probably will get an Honorary Oscar.

I don't know though, something about this year in general felt "meh" to me. I liked '17 and '12 better. Oh, well.

[Simon Boccanegra]

1 hour ago, AshleyN said:

I wonder what hurt Roma more -- the foreign language factor or the Netflix factor? Maybe it could have survived one but the combination was too much to overcome.

I think it was the foreign-language factor. The nominations for both Roma and The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (and in a prior year, Mudbound) prove that Netflix has been welcomed to the table as a producer of important content. That's a good thing for the Academy, because when major directors like Cuarón and the Coens are taking feature-film projects there, there's no holding back the tide. The dam has burst. 

But when a film is the overwhelming favorite to win the Foreign Language category, many voters are going to want to spread the wealth. Green Book was the beneficiary of that. I really feel that if Cuarón had a made a beautifully photographed black-and-white Netflix film about some Latinos in Los Angeles in the 1970s, with the dialogue mainly in English, it would be this year's Best Picture winner.  

I don't mean to cheapen Green Book's win. It obviously was a film that connected with a lot of people. It got the rare A+ in Cinemascore, and I'm sure even more people will see it now that it has been sanctified by the Academy. But it does look like the middle-of-the-road choice here.   

I do wish they'd go back to five Best Picture nominees. I've never been on board with the expanded field, which lets films with no chance get into the conversation. Whether it increases viewership or not, it certainly dilutes the result.  

[starri]

The two that I was most hoping for were Regina King and Into the Spider-Verse.  My night was made within the first fifteen minutes.

I'm actually not surprised poor Glenn ended up with the rug yanked from beneath her again.  There almost certainly was going to be an upset, and it seemed like it was going to happen there.

The LA Times film critic was utterly savage in his opinion on Green Book winning best picture.

[Spartan Girl]

I guess I ought to be glad that Spike Lee won something.

But fucking Green Book? Over Black Panther and BlacKkKlansman?! This is worse than Out of Africa beating The Color Purple!! Hell, I would have been fine over Roma winning as long as it wasn't Green Book!

Well, on the bright side, the show was just fine without a host.

[Proclone]

3 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I guess I ought to be glad that Spike Lee won something.

But fucking Green Book? Over Black Panther and BlacKkKlansman?! This is worse than Out of Africa beating The Color Purple!! Hell, I would have been fine over Roma winning as long as it wasn't Green Book!

Well, on the bright side, the show was just fine without a host.

To be fair I have not seen Green Book.  That being said, I would have been happy with pretty much any of the other nominees winning over it, after reading about it.  Not only did it manipulate the actual history (which isn't really uncommon), but it did it without the family's consent.  The producers claim they couldn't find Dr. Shirley's relatives (which is what they told Mahershala Ali, who honestly thought there was no family to talk to), but Don Shirley had several brothers, one of whom is still living, and quite a few nieces and nephews from what it seems.  It couldn't have been that hard to find them.  Not to mention Nic Vallelonga (Tony's son) wanted to make this movie while Dr. Shirley was still alive and Shirley told him no, in no uncertain terms according to the article I read.  Don Shirley didn't want this movie made at all, I'm sure he wouldn't have wanted this version of it made.  And even if it was a well-made movie, it seems wrong to celebrate it for those reasons alone.

[AshleyN]

I have to say, there are very few races where I'd be more interested in seeing the voting breakdown than Best Picture this year. Was Green Book's win definitive or razor-thin? Did Roma even manage to get runner-up? Bohemian Rhapsody won on all four of it's other nominations, was it an actual threat to take the big one? What about Black Panther? Which films were most helped or hurt by the preferential ballot?

With the precursor's being all over the place and almost all of the nominated movies being divisive there are so many ways the final tally could have gone.

[NUguy514]

Justin Chang's take on Green Book's win is exceptionally on point.  One of the film critics out here who participated in an Oscar predictions panel for one of the local NPR affiliates this past weekend said this about Green Book: "It's the most courageous movie of 1965."  That sums it up perfectly.  I've seen every Best Picture winner, and I would probably rank this one 90, just above fucking Crash.

At the end of the day, though, it's nice to know that when push comes to shove, the old straight white men (a/k/a the majority, still) in the Academy will always remind us that it's the most important thing that straight white men learn Very Important Lessons (especially about racism).  Thanks for the reminder, assholes, it had been two-and-a-half minutes since I'd been reminded.

I'm THRILLED for Regina King and ECSTATIC for Olivia Colman.  I'm going to take Rami Malek's Oscar (barf) and give it to Glenn Close because she's more deserving than any of the five Best Actor nominees.

Alfonso Cuarón is one of the great auteurs of our (and all) time.  He was absolutely robbed of the big prize (whether because of Netflix bias, complaints of the movie being "slow" and "boring" – opinions expressed by much snobbier film people than me and so completely misguided – or, more likely, a deadly combination of the two), but at least he walked away with three.

Spike Lee FINALLY won a damn Oscar and was NOT here for Green Book's bullshit.

My day job is tutoring high-school students for the SAT and ACT; THREE of the four young women standing behind the two women who won for "Period. End of Sentence." are former students of mine!  So insane!!!

[methodwriter85]

21 minutes ago, NUguy514 said:

I'm THRILLED for Regina King and ECSTATIC for Olivia Colman.

I am so torn by this because I wanted Glenn Close to finally get her statue, but having seen the Favourite, I can't say that Olivia Colman didn't deserve the award.

And Glenn Close remains a class act:

[starri]

3 hours ago, NUguy514 said:

Justin Chang's take on Green Book's win is exceptionally on point.  One of the film critics out here who participated in an Oscar predictions panel for one of the local NPR affiliates this past weekend said this about Green Book: "It's the most courageous movie of 1965."  That sums it up perfectly.  I've seen every Best Picture winner, and I would probably rank this one 90, just above fucking Crash.

The funny thing is, while I haven't gotten to spend a lot of time online today, almost every reaction I've seen has been "The fuck is this shit?"

[tennisgurl]

9 hours ago, NUguy514 said:

I've seen every Best Picture winner, and I would probably rank this one 90, just above fucking Crash.

I mean, at least Green Book is better than Crash, or as it probably should have been called, "Holy crap, people in LA are SUPER racist, and SUPER weird about it." 

I mean, its not like Green Book was a bad movie, I enjoyed it just fine in a vacuum. But, best movie of the year? In a year with so many truly interesting takes on the exact same subject that Green Book was trying to do? Really? I guess its the kind of movie that doesent really challenge all that much and says pretty easy stuff about complicated issues, and thats what a lot of people like. And thats fine. But I am raising a major league eyebrow at this being the best movie of the whole freaking year! I wouldn't even put it in my top 15! Even beyond everything else about the race stuff and the true story aspects, its just not very creatively shot or edited or anything. Its pretty by the numbers. Which, again, is fine, but not for a Best Picture winner. 

[Simon Boccanegra]

11 hours ago, Proclone said:

To be fair I have not seen Green Book.  That being said, I would have been happy with pretty much any of the other nominees winning over it, after reading about it.  Not only did it manipulate the actual history (which isn't really uncommon), but it did it without the family's consent.  The producers claim they couldn't find Dr. Shirley's relatives (which is what they told Mahershala Ali, who honestly thought there was no family to talk to), but Don Shirley had several brothers, one of whom is still living, and quite a few nieces and nephews from what it seems.  It couldn't have been that hard to find them.  Not to mention Nic Vallelonga (Tony's son) wanted to make this movie while Dr. Shirley was still alive and Shirley told him no, in no uncertain terms according to the article I read.  Don Shirley didn't want this movie made at all, I'm sure he wouldn't have wanted this version of it made.  And even if it was a well-made movie, it seems wrong to celebrate it for those reasons alone.

Well...the younger Vallelonga claims Shirley didn't want the movie made while he was alive; he wanted them to wait until he had passed. I can't speak to the veracity of that, of course. But what's beyond dispute is that Shirley's heirs were not these family members who have been so vocal. His heirs were his friends, and his surviving friends have generally been more supportive of Green Book than his surviving family members have been.

There is also a recording from 2011, made in connection with a documentary, in which Don Shirley says, “I trusted him implicitly. Tony, not only was he my driver. We never had an employer-employee relationship. We got to be friendly with one another."

What's also beyond dispute is that whatever liberties Green Book took, such as compressing a very long concert tour into a period of about six weeks to get a "home for Christmas" narrative in, pale beside those of BlacKkKlansman. I mean, my God. People see BlacKkKlansman and they think Stallworth's white partner/proxy was Jewish, they think these guys foiled a bombing plot involving explosives stolen from the Army, they think Stallworth romanced an Angela Davis-type radical activist who hated cops (he married his high school sweetheart; the film's female lead character was an invention), and they think it all took place not in 1979 but 1972, the era of groovy Shaft-wear and giant Afros.

I always stress I'm not taking issue with BlacKkKlansman as an entertaining movie. It is. I just die inside a little when people say, "Green Book is a feel-good symphony of lies, and Spike told an incredible true story!" It's incredible, all right. To be as factually shaky as BlacKkKlansman, Green Book would have had to end with Tony Lip spotting a sniper in the wings at a concert, tackling Don Shirley off his piano bench to keep him from being shot, and then chasing down and pummeling the gunman. 

Edited February 26, 2019 by Simon Boccanegra

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, tennisgurl said:

I mean, at least Green Book is better than Crash, or as it probably should have been called, "Holy crap, people in LA are SUPER racist, and SUPER weird about it." 

I was reading reactions somewhere else and they were defending Crash as being a bit better than Green Book because at least it had a bit more nuanced message in "everyone is at least a little bit racist."  So maybe Crash was just given a reprieve as the worst ever. 

1 hour ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

I always stress I'm not taking issue with BlacKkKlansman as an entertaining movie. It is. I just die inside a little when people say, "Green Book is a feel-good symphony of lies, and Spike told an incredible true story!" It's incredible, all right. 

They did both take liberties.  I think the reason Green Book inspires more pique is that it introduces the world to Don Shirley through the eyes of a white man, written by the son of that white man and directed by another white man.  The BlaKKKlansman tells the story of a black man, based on the black man's book, under the vision of a black man with the real life main character supporting the film. Plus, I think the fact that the other main supporting characters are amalgams of real people and made up, there's a concession there that liberties were taken.  The creatives behind Green Book kept talking about how fact-based their movie was and that set them up for more criticism.  

[NUguy514]

45 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

They did both take liberties.  I think the reason Green Book inspires more pique is that it introduces the world to Don Shirley through the eyes of a white man, written by the son of that white man and directed by another white man.  The BlaKKKlansman tells the story of a black man, based on the black man's book, under the vision of a black man with the real life main character supporting the film. Plus, I think the fact that the other main supporting characters are amalgams of real people and made up, there's a concession there that liberties were taken.  The creatives behind Green Book kept talking about how fact-based their movie was and that set them up for more criticism.  

@Irlandesa just hit the nail on the head.  My issue with Green Book isn't that it took liberties, and I never thought BlacKkKlansman was a truthful account of anything.  The latter movie says something, something vitally important, timely, and – most importantly – truthful, about race relations in this country; those are truths a lot of people don't want to look at because they're difficult truths.  I don't care if the events didn't reflect reality because the deeper themes of the film that Lee was working to present to us do reflect reality.  The former movie is...everything that is the opposite of that.  It may present the events somewhat more truthfully, but the deeper message is shallow, pat, specious, and, therefore, deeply insulting (to me anyway).  What it does is go down very easily and leave the system immediately; I forgot almost everything about it about five minutes after it ended.  That's not what a Best Picture should embody.

Having said all that, I think Roma was easily the film of the year and one of the few films of the decade, so...there's that.

[ruby24]

8 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

I mean, its not like Green Book was a bad movie, I enjoyed it just fine in a vacuum. But, best movie of the year? In a year with so many truly interesting takes on the exact same subject that Green Book was trying to do? Really? I guess its the kind of movie that doesent really challenge all that much and says pretty easy stuff about complicated issues, and thats what a lot of people like. And thats fine. But I am raising a major league eyebrow at this being the best movie of the whole freaking year! I wouldn't even put it in my top 15! Even beyond everything else about the race stuff and the true story aspects, its just not very creatively shot or edited or anything. Its pretty by the numbers. Which, again, is fine, but not for a Best Picture winner. 

I feel like the Oscars are constantly in conflict (from the very beginning actually) about whether the Best Picture should be something that is all about the artistic qualities of cinema or something that appeals to the public as entertainment, because that's inherently what the movies are FOR. Are they for critics or are they for the paying audience?

This is the why in the very first ceremony they had two Best Picture awards, one for "artistic achievement" and one for overall production. They couldn't decide what it was that should constitute the "best," and even though they dumped the two awards thing after one year, they've been struggling with it ever since. 

I happen to love Roma and think it's a masterpiece, but I am well aware that a lot of people can't get into it at all. I don't think they would deny it's masterfully shot and directed, etc. but if it's not a movie that regular people can even respond to, does that mean it shouldn't get Best Picture? 

And then on the other hand, if something like Green Book IS satisfying and makes audiences feel good and regular people love it, does that mean it deserves the top award even if it could have been made in the exact same style 50 years ago and there's nothing innovative or creative about the filmmaking in any way?

It's rare that there is some option that comes along that feels like it's both- maybe that's what The Godfather was in 1972. Maybe Casablanca in 1943- obviously that one stood the test of time pretty well, lol. But it's pretty rare.

[Proclone]

On 2/25/2019 at 10:16 PM, Simon Boccanegra said:

Well...the younger Vallelonga claims Shirley didn't want the movie made while he was alive; he wanted them to wait until he had passed. I can't speak to the veracity of that, of course. But what's beyond dispute is that Shirley's heirs were not these family members who have been so vocal. His heirs were his friends, and his surviving friends have generally been more supportive of Green Book than his surviving family members have been.

There is also a recording from 2011, made in connection with a documentary, in which Don Shirley says, “I trusted him implicitly. Tony, not only was he my driver. We never had an employer-employee relationship. We got to be friendly with one another."

What's also beyond dispute is that whatever liberties Green Book took, such as compressing a very long concert tour into a period of about six weeks to get a "home for Christmas" narrative in, pale beside those of BlacKkKlansman. I mean, my God. People see BlacKkKlansman and they think Stallworth's white partner/proxy was Jewish, they think these guys foiled a bombing plot involving explosives stolen from the Army, they think Stallworth romanced an Angela Davis-type radical activist who hated cops (he married his high school sweetheart; the film's female lead character was an invention), and they think it all took place not in 1979 but 1972, the era of groovy Shaft-wear and giant Afros.

I always stress I'm not taking issue with BlacKkKlansman as an entertaining movie. It is. I just die inside a little when people say, "Green Book is a feel-good symphony of lies, and Spike told an incredible true story!" It's incredible, all right. To be as factually shaky as BlacKkKlansman, Green Book would have had to end with Tony Lip spotting a sniper in the wings at a concert, tackling Don Shirley off his piano bench to keep him from being shot, and then chasing down and pummeling the gunman. 

I'm sure that the actual truth about how close Tony and Dr. Shirley were lies somewhere in the middle.  That being said, it sounds surprisingly convenient that Dr. Shirley would agree to have the film made only after his death, and only tell Vallelonga that.  It also is more than a little tacky (IMO) to make a movie about some and not at least give his living family members a heads up.  Producers claim that they didn't know they existed, but I can't imagine an even cursory search didn't find some of them.  So that statement feels really disingenuous to me.

Also, I think in part, why BlacKkKlansman hasn't garnered the same ire, is that I don't think Lee has ever claimed that it was super accurate to what actually happened (please correct me if I'm wrong).  And to be fair to him, there would have had to be embellishments to that story to make into an interesting film, because the KKK members the real Stallworth came in contact with were too stupid to ever come close to figuring anything out.  

It also personally bothers me less, because at least there is a source to go back to and a real living person that can still, say, "No, this is what happened."  Ron Stallworth told his story in his book and the movie has probably sent more people to look for the real story in that book.  Dr. Shirley didn't write a book, we just have to accept what Nic Vallelonga, which is also then filtered through Tony Vallelonga, says about him because there is no other source. 

On 2/26/2019 at 12:05 AM, Irlandesa said:

I was reading reactions somewhere else and they were defending Crash as being a bit better than Green Book because at least it had a bit more nuanced message in "everyone is at least a little bit racist."  So maybe Crash was just given a reprieve as the worst ever. 

They did both take liberties.  I think the reason Green Book inspires more pique is that it introduces the world to Don Shirley through the eyes of a white man, written by the son of that white man and directed by another white man.  The BlaKKKlansman tells the story of a black man, based on the black man's book, under the vision of a black man with the real life main character supporting the film. Plus, I think the fact that the other main supporting characters are amalgams of real people and made up, there's a concession there that liberties were taken.  The creatives behind Green Book kept talking about how fact-based their movie was and that set them up for more criticism.  

I tend to agree.  It's not what Green Book is about, it's how it's told and who it's told by that's the real sticking point.  At some point, minorities need to stop being supporting characters in their own stories.  I think that's why many people have said Green Book seems like a Best Picture winner circa 1992.  I think there was a time that movies that told stories in that fashion were needed to at least open people into accepting minorities.  But we've seen those movies.  It's time to move on from that.  Not even just pertaining to race.  Philadelphia is a great film, that also happens to tell a gay man's story through the eyes of a straight man.  And I wouldn't be happy if a movie made today did that either.

The academy had at least three movies that dealt heavily with race and privilege to choose from.  Both BlacKkKlansman and Black Panther were about black people and were also told by black filmmakers.  They both also seem to have more interesting things to say about racism and when the onus to act on behalf of others exists when you happen to be a minority in a position of privilege.  From what I've heard (and I once again fully admit to not seeing it) Green Book's message was, "Racism is bad."  Not a bad message, but perhaps not the most subtle one either.

Green Book is probably a fine film.  It's probably well made, and I believe the performances were good.  That being said, I thought BlacKkKlansman was excellent, and while I don't think Black Panther deserved Best Picture, I think you can say it's a well-made film with good performances also.  So, it just seems so strange that out of those three movies the academy would pick Green Book.  A well-made movie with the least to say.

I'm not saying any of those movies were actually deserving of Best Picture.  From what I've heard (also haven't seen it, probably won't see it) Roma deserved the title.  But it seems like the academy picked the film that challenged them the least but made them feel like they were choosing a progressive choice.  "Look, we picked the movie that said, racism is bad.  Aren't we hip now?"

Edited February 27, 2019 by Proclone

[Simon Boccanegra]

5 hours ago, Proclone said:

Also, I think in part, why BlacKkKlansman hasn't garnered the same ire, is that I don't think Lee has ever claimed that it was super accurate to what actually happened (please correct me if I'm wrong).  And to be fair to him, there would have had to be embellishments to that story to make into an interesting film, because the KKK members the real Stallworth came in contact with were too stupid to ever come close to figuring anything out.  

Lee's film does begin with a title card informing us that it is "for real, for real shit.." And he did say in a Rolling Stone interview, "I had never heard of Stallworth. I didn’t know his story. People say, 'That is too unbelievable to be true.' And that’s what makes it such a great story." He also said that his job when Jordan Peele et al. got the rights to the book and brought him on board was to give the story more "flava."   

Stallworth's (actual) investigation uncovered that members of the Colorado Springs Klan chapter had top-level security clearance with the North American Aerospace Defense Command. As a result of the investigation, those men were reportedly reassigned to "the farthest northern military installation in the U.S. command," i.e., the North Pole. The film's climax is more of a standard cops-and-criminals affair with an explosion, deaths and arrests. So while it made the story more entertaining, one might argue it also made it more conventional. The fabricated star-crossed romance did that as well.  

Lee's film did receive some criticism in the margins, for its embellishments as well as its essential focus (Stallworth as an heroic figure). Below, a precis of the case made by another director, Boots Riley (Sorry to Bother You).  

https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-news/boots-riley-pens-essay-on-problems-with-blackkklansman-713144/

Quote

Ron Stallworth told his story in his book and the movie has probably sent more people to look for the real story in that book.  Dr. Shirley didn't write a book, we just have to accept what Nic Vallelonga, which is also then filtered through Tony Vallelonga, says about him because there is no other source.

It's possible, though, that people who have never heard of Don Shirley have begun to investigate his recordings. He left a large discography that is receiving more attention now than it has since his heyday, which I'd think anyone who cares about Don Shirley's legacy would consider a good outcome. I had read there was also a forthcoming documentary about him, called Let It Shine, which could not be better timed. I don't know the production status of that film, but anyone with a computer can find biographical information on him that would not be covered in Green Book. I think that that's always what anyone should do after seeing a fact-based drama, if a central character or a story is compelling. Dig deeper. Whether it's Don Shirley, Ron Stallworth, Freddie Mercury, Neil Armstrong, Vincent van Gogh, Lee Israrel, Tonya Harding, Winston Churchill (Darkest Hour), Alan Turing (The Imitation Game), James B. Donovan/Rudolf Abel (Bridge of Spies)...the recent films about these people land at varying levels of "worthwhile." I like some, dislike others; they all have good acting. But they can give us only part of the story. They have the built-in limitations of the dramatic medium and the makers' perspectives and aims. So they are a starting point.  

Quote

At some point, minorities need to stop being supporting characters in their own stories.

Nick Vallelonga was telling his father's story as well. Whatever Green Book does or doesn't claim to be, it isn't a Don Shirley biopic, so it isn't his story in the strictest sense. It covers one episode in his life and that of the author's father.

Quote

I'm not saying any of those movies were actually deserving of Best Picture.  From what I've heard (also haven't seen it, probably won't see it) Roma deserved the title

For what it's worth, I'd give Roma the thumbs-up. That and The Favourite were my favorites of the eight the Academy chose to nominate, although some of my other picks of the year (Can You Ever Forgive Me?, Eighth Grade, First Reformed, etc.) were not made options.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Simon Boccanegra

[Proclone]

3 minutes ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

Nick Vallelonga was telling his father's story as well. Whatever Green Book does or doesn't claim to be, it isn't a Don Shirley biopic, so it isn't his story in the strictest sense. It covers one episode in his life and that of the author's father.

 

I meant in a wider sense that minorities need to stop being supporting characters in their own stories.  If Green Book was made in isolation then it would probably be fine, but nothing is made in isolation  How many movies exist that tell a specific minority experience through the lens of a non-minority?  A lot.  Green Book, The Help...hell, La La Land could be viewed that way (the white guy is the only one who cares about preserving Jazz...a traditionally black artform) and those are only relatively recent Oscar darlings.  There is an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to "White Savior" movies.  Some of them are good films, some of them aren't, but they all have in common is that the white person is the main character. 

Did we need another black man's story told through the eyes of his white friend story?  In my opinion, no we didn't.  Go to that Wikipedia page, more than enough of those kinds of movies exist.  How about we try something new and tell stories about minorities where the actual main character is the member of the minority group?  How about we trust audiences to be smart and accepting enough to watch and understand a movie about a race or racism from the point of view of someone who actually experiences racism first hand and not just tangentially.  And let's all admit that's why films like Green Book get made; it's because Hollywood doesn't think white people will watch a film about black people without a white protagonist.  And that's also why it got Best Picture because it made the members of the academy feel like they were doing something "woke" without actually pushing anyone out of their comfort zone.

[NUguy514]

6 hours ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

Nick Vallelonga was telling his father's story as well. Whatever Green Book does or doesn't claim to be, it isn't a Don Shirley biopic, so it isn't his story in the strictest sense. It covers one episode in his life and that of the author's father.

I think this is the crux of the many issues I (and maybe others, although I can only speak for me) have with this movie.  It's not really telling both stories; the producers and directors and writers kept selling that this was a movie about these two men, but it isn't: it's a movie about this white guy who works for a black guy and has his eyes opened and palatably (I use that word because the movie makes his initial racism seem like something unfortunate, rather than repugnant, so that the audience won't just hate him) racist beliefs challenged by what he witnesses in the South and who effectuates change in the black guy's life.  It's not Vallelonga's story "as well"; it's his story only: Shirley is simply a witness and a reactor in the narrative.  That's a huge problem for me.

5 hours ago, Proclone said:

And let's all admit that's why films like Green Book get made; it's because Hollywood doesn't think white people will watch a film about black people without a white protagonist.  And that's also why it got Best Picture because it made the members of the academy feel like they were doing something "woke" without actually pushing anyone out of their comfort zone.

Oh my god, alllllllll of this!!

[Simon Boccanegra]

34 minutes ago, NUguy514 said:

I think this is the crux of the many issues I (and maybe others, although I can only speak for me) have with this movie.  It's not really telling both stories; the producers and directors and writers kept selling that this was a movie about these two men, but it isn't: it's a movie about this white guy who works for a black guy and has his eyes opened and palatably (I use that word because the movie makes his initial racism seem like something unfortunate, rather than repugnant, so that the audience won't just hate him) racist beliefs challenged by what he witnesses in the South and who effectuates change in the black guy's life.  It's not Vallelonga's story "as well"; it's his story only: Shirley is simply a witness and a reactor in the narrative.  That's a huge problem for me.

I actually agree that the film is more about Tony Lip, who is the character the author knew more intimately. We follow Tony Lip from beginning to end; Shirley only comes into the story when Tony finds himself temporarily unemployed. Mahershala Ali's placement in the supporting-actor category to Mortensen's lead was judicious. 

But I don't find Shirley simply a witness and reactor. It's a substantial part, and people who go into the film knowing nothing about Shirley will come out knowing many things about him that are accurate: the kind of music with which he had the greatest success, that he had been discouraged from pursuing a classical career even though he had the talent, that he lived above Carnegie Hall, that he had had a failed marriage to a woman and pursued furtive gay encounters in the period of the film, that he was well connected enough to call Robert Kennedy when he and Tony were jailed (the film does take a liberty with the timeline; that incident happened about a year later than shown).

6 hours ago, Proclone said:

hell, La La Land could be viewed that way (the white guy is the only one who cares about preserving Jazz...a traditionally black artform

Well...opera is a traditionally white art form; it doesn't mean there's anything unseemly about celebrating Leontyne Price or Jessye Norman. There have been white jazz musicians who could (and did) hang in there with anyone, and most enduring musical genres attract talent of all kinds. There are Latino jazz greats as well. La La Land was written and directed by a white man who aspired to be a jazz drummer but realized that his greatest talent lay elsewhere. Clearly, he maintains his passion for this music, as evidenced by its importance in the stories of Whiplash and La La Land. I actually thought the disagreement between the Gosling and Legend characters was pretty well done in giving time to both sides of the "traditionalist versus progressive" debate, one I'm sure Damien Chazelle has heard a lot of and participated in. I do wish the Legend band had been shown performing something that seemed like a modern offshoot of jazz at all. It was good music, but it was more like a funk-pop hybrid. That worked well enough for the "Sebastian has sold out" story, but less well in illustrating the Legend character's philosophy.

[NUguy514]

1 hour ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

I actually agree that the film is more about Tony Lip, who is the character the author knew more intimately. We follow Tony Lip from beginning to end; Shirley only comes into the story when Tony finds himself temporarily unemployed. Mahershala Ali's placement in the supporting-actor category to Mortensen's lead was judicious. 

But I don't find Shirley simply a witness and reactor. It's a substantial part, and people who go into the film knowing nothing about Shirley will come out knowing many things about him that are accurate: the kind of music with which he had the greatest success, that he had been discouraged from pursuing a classical career even though he had the talent, that he lived above Carnegie Hall, that he had had a failed marriage to a woman and pursued furtive gay encounters in the period of the film, that he was well connected enough to call Robert Kennedy when he and Tony were jailed (the film does take a liberty with the timeline; that incident happened about a year later than shown).

None of that was explored in any detail, which is exactly the problem, and none of it changes my feelings on the enormous shortcomings of this film.

[Proclone]

14 hours ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

I actually agree that the film is more about Tony Lip, who is the character the author knew more intimately. We follow Tony Lip from beginning to end; Shirley only comes into the story when Tony finds himself temporarily unemployed. Mahershala Ali's placement in the supporting-actor category to Mortensen's lead was judicious. 

But I don't find Shirley simply a witness and reactor. It's a substantial part, and people who go into the film knowing nothing about Shirley will come out knowing many things about him that are accurate: the kind of music with which he had the greatest success, that he had been discouraged from pursuing a classical career even though he had the talent, that he lived above Carnegie Hall, that he had had a failed marriage to a woman and pursued furtive gay encounters in the period of the film, that he was well connected enough to call Robert Kennedy when he and Tony were jailed (the film does take a liberty with the timeline; that incident happened about a year later than shown).

Well...opera is a traditionally white art form; it doesn't mean there's anything unseemly about celebrating Leontyne Price or Jessye Norman. There have been white jazz musicians who could (and did) hang in there with anyone, and most enduring musical genres attract talent of all kinds. There are Latino jazz greats as well. La La Land was written and directed by a white man who aspired to be a jazz drummer but realized that his greatest talent lay elsewhere. Clearly, he maintains his passion for this music, as evidenced by its importance in the stories of Whiplash and La La Land. I actually thought the disagreement between the Gosling and Legend characters was pretty well done in giving time to both sides of the "traditionalist versus progressive" debate, one I'm sure Damien Chazelle has heard a lot of and participated in. I do wish the Legend band had been shown performing something that seemed like a modern offshoot of jazz at all. It was good music, but it was more like a funk-pop hybrid. That worked well enough for the "Sebastian has sold out" story, but less well in illustrating the Legend character's philosophy.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure if you're being purposely obtuse about this, I really haven't made my point clear, or what but, my problem and it seems the problem of most people's here, about Green Book, is that it about a specific minority experience and tells it through the eyes of a white man.  There are social and cultural issues that go with movies.  You can't separate them, you can't remove them.  Movies are not made in a vacuum.  And our culture has a really unfortunate history of making minorities play second fiddle in stories about their experiences while pushing a character from the majority to the forefront.

Movies are part of the culture, they are also the lens through which we view culture, and sometimes it can be something that shifts the culture.  The point being whether it is a completely accurate portrayal of Tony Vallelonga's experience or not, it's not a film about him.  It's a film about racism...told by a white person, with a white protagonist.  This particular was the story that was chosen to be told to appeal to white people.  Instead of telling the actual story of a black person who had to use the Green Book to travel in the south (I'm sure both fictional and real stories of that exist).  If you can't understand why that is problematic, then I really don't know how to better explain it.  Just as with La La Land, it's not that the white guy likes jazz or plays jazz, it's that he is presented as the sole person willing to sacrifice for it and in the end, succeeds in saving it in the form of his club...an art that has strong ties to the black community.  The white guy saved the day...again.  Once again if don't see the really unfortunate implications that go along with that, I don't know how to explain them.

I'll also add there is a double standard when it comes to minorities breaking through lines and the majority stepping over minorities.  And there should be.  We should celebrate POC or other minorities that are able to be successful in a traditionally white art form or other mainstream things, like opera.  On the other hand, we don't really need to encourage the majority to usurp a minority art form.  Yes, there is a double standard and there should be.  When you are not a part of a minority group there is a concept of being a good ally.  And part of that is not talking over that minority group.  It is not telling their story without them.  It is certainly not telling their story through your eyes.  I would love it Hollywood would in general start being a better ally to not just the black community but all minority communities by allowing them to tell their own stories.  And trusting audiences that they will watch a well-made thought-provoking movie regardless of what color the lead is.  Granted Black Panther had a built-in market, but I think it finally started to show Hollywood that those films are viable.

*Edited to Add* The same way films influence culture, the Oscars influence films.  The fact that a genre of films (the Oscar Bait movie) has sprung up around it shows that.  So, when the AMPAS rewards a film like Green Book, it is only reinforcing that minorities are supporting characters in stories about their issues.  It is reinforcing the idea that's what the Academy wants to see and by extension the general public.  Giving Green Book Best Picture is taking a step back and it has wider cultural implications.  I don't mean to sound hyperbolic, but as much as Best Picture doesn't really mean anything, it means something in a wider sense.  It's the Academy pointing and saying, "Yes, give us more of that."  And that's why I have a big issue with Green Book winning.  It's less about the film itself and more of what goes along with it's win.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Proclone
To add a thought

[Simon Boccanegra]

9 hours ago, Proclone said:

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure if you're being purposely obtuse about this,

Never a promising beginning. 

Quote

Just as with La La Land, it's not that the white guy likes jazz or plays jazz, it's that he is presented as the sole person willing to sacrifice for it and in the end, succeeds in saving it in the form of his club.

Well…he opens a club. People in the Los Angeles area can go there and hear traditional jazz, and apparently the club is doing well. I don't think he's presented as having saved jazz. The film is realistic enough about its 21st-century setting not to make him even as successful as a number of actual white musicians who worked closer to jazz's commercial heyday: Bill Evans, Stan Getz, Gerry Mulligan, Chet Baker, Joe Pass.

The issues that threaten this music's survival remain. It hangs on—in the world of the film and in the real world—because of people who care about it. It is a minority art form not because only a racial minority makes it or achieves excellence in it, but because only a minority supports it.  

Quote

Giving Green Book Best Picture is taking a step back and it has wider cultural implications.  I don't mean to sound hyperbolic, but as much as Best Picture doesn't really mean anything, it means something in a wider sense.  It's the Academy pointing and saying, "Yes, give us more of that."  And that's why I have a big issue with Green Book winning.  It's less about the film itself and more of what goes along with it's win.

I don't see Green Book's Best Picture win as a step back as much as a step in place. But for me, it really is always about the artistic quality of the film. I rarely agree with the Academy's Best Picture choices, and I did not this time. When they select something that I actually think is the best film of the year or close enough to be in the conversation, as with No Country for Old Men and The Hurt Locker, it is a pleasant surprise.

More often, I find their choices bland. So while for you, Green Book may be a pernicious example, I put it on the same level as A Beautiful Mind, Slumdog Millionaire, The King's Speech, The Artist, Argo. They are middle of the road, well crafted, well acted, enjoyable enough while going on, and not terribly memorable. There isn't a film on that list I've ever felt the desire to see twice.

Edited March 1, 2019 by Simon Boccanegra

[Proclone]

15 hours ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

Never a promising beginning. 

I don't see Green Book's Best Picture win as a step back as much as a step in place. But for me, it really is always about the artistic quality of the film. I rarely agree with the Academy's Best Picture choices, and I did not this time. When they select something that I actually think is the best film of the year or close enough to be in the conversation, as with No Country for Old Men and The Hurt Locker, it is a pleasant surprise.

More often, I find their choices bland. So while for you, Green Book may be a pernicious example, I put it on the same level as A Beautiful Mind, Slumdog Millionaire, The King's Speech, The Artist, Argo. They are middle of the road, well crafted, well acted, enjoyable enough while going on, and not terribly memorable. There isn't a film on that list I've ever felt the desire to see twice.

 

This is beginning to get a bit circular so it will be my last post on the topic here.  And for the record, the rest of my opinioning sentence did, in fact, admit that it was perhaps I that was not making my point clearly, and perhaps I have not. 

While it's great to say that you only judge a film on artistic merit, that's quite frankly a bit naive and short-sighted.  As I said there are cultural and social implications that go along with films, especially films dealing with race.  If we are only judging on artistic merit, then Birth of a Nation is an excellent film for it's time that advanced cinema.  But we don't just judge a film on artistic merit, we do take into account what's it about and who made it.  I could make a gorgeous, technically flawless, well acted, film on a number of really unsavory topics and I doubt I would win any awards for it.  Because films are art, but they are also a reflection of our culture.  When a movie about race is told through the eyes of a white man, you are reinforcing that a white perspective is more important.

And as a side note, the concept of divorcing art from who makes it, is how Polanski and Allen keep getting to make films.  So forgive me if I'm not super enthused about solely judging a work on artistic merit alone.  Other factors need to come into play.

A standstill or a step back, in either case, Green Book is only reinforcing that minority stories should be told to them instead of by them.  And I find it particularly galling that the AMPAS decided to reward it when they could have chosen one the two other movies that dealt with race that didn't have a white guy as the main character if they were so hell-bent on giving the prize to a movie on that topic.

[Ms Blue Jay]

On 2/25/2019 at 10:47 AM, Proclone said:

To be fair I have not seen Green Book.  That being said, I would have been happy with pretty much any of the other nominees winning over it, after reading about it.  

I wanted "Black Panther" to win.

But, when it came down to the final seconds, I said to myself, "You know what.  As long as it isn't VICE or GREEN BROOK, I'll be happy with the outcome."

Welp!!!  😂

I was happy with almost everything before that - so great to see Black Panther and so many black women winning Oscars - so great to see Spike Lee win.  Sad about Glenn Close, and definitely sad about the Best Picture win.  But almost everything else was great.

Although, I heard that the movie "Skin" is horrible, and there are some great articles around about this.  People say it's worse than Green Book!

Edited March 2, 2019 by Ms Blue Jay

[VCRTracking]

Vanity Fair:

Steven Spielberg May Propose an Oscars Rule Change to Rein In Netflix

AV News:

Steven Spielberg is gunning to make sure Netflix never has another Oscars contender like Roma

IndieWire:
The Spielberg vs. Netflix Battle Could Mean Collateral Damage for Indies at the Oscars

[galaxygirl76]

18 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

Vanity Fair:

Steven Spielberg May Propose an Oscars Rule Change to Rein In Netflix

AV News:

Steven Spielberg is gunning to make sure Netflix never has another Oscars contender like Roma

IndieWire:
The Spielberg vs. Netflix Battle Could Mean Collateral Damage for Indies at the Oscars

This may open a can of worms they may regret opening. 

[methodwriter85]

I feel like as long as they follow the rule of a 2-week run at a theater in New York and a theater in Los Angeles, I don't see the problem.

[Dejana]

The most succinct way I've seen the distaste for Green Book described was along the lines that, it seems to be made by people who watched Hidden Figures and thought it should have been about the Kirsten Dunst character.

*

This Oscars race just shows that so much of how awards races turn out is down to timing. All of the Best Picture contenders had major weaknesses in terms of their awards prospects and some of the more recent losers like La La Land or Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri probably would have steamrolled to a win this year. Without #MeToo, we're probably looking at Best Picture Bohemian Rhapsody and Best Director Bryan Singer.  Released a year later, The King's Speech is one of those Best Picture winners that is maybe not remembered well by cinephiles but isn't loathed because it beat something "more deserving".

*

3 hours ago, galaxygirl76 said:

This may open a can of worms they may regret opening. 

True, but why should a streaming service be considered fundamentally different for awards purposes than premium cable channels? For years, there have been HBO movies better than theatrical releases, but they always got shuffled off to the Emmys and that was the way it was. Then again, it isn't like Roma would have earned lots of money as a normal indie theatrical release, or even would have been made at all, and most all the voters still would have seen it on screeners (virtual or physical) anyway.  Another issue is that the amount of money Netflix spent on the campaign has rubbed many in the industry the wrong way, there's always money involved in the Oscars race but apparently they took it to another level (reportedly $60 million).

*

The thing is that any move to rectify one problem with Oscar voting often brings up another. AMPAS went to 10 nominees for Best Picture after The Dark Knight snub, but then some voters thought it was too hard to pick 10 nominees, while others had concerns that a flat-10 ranking allowed in movies that no one actually considered the #1 of the year. Then they went to the current system where the nominees have to get a certain number of #1 votes, which knocked animation back out of the Best Picture game and well-reviewed but not "prestige" action movies (Inception probably would have missed under the current system while IMO Mission: Impossible – Fallout at least would have had a small chance under the flat-10 system).

Because there are so many Best Picture nominees, voting for winners now involves rankings instead of just picking the one movie you like the most. Those anonymous voters have spoken of trying to game the system by ranking competition intentionally low, i.e., a Green Book fan placing Roma in eighth on their ballots for strategic reasons and not because they thought it was the worst of the nominees. I get why AMPAS would want some sort of consensus in Best Picture, as they don't want a winner to get it with only 13 percent of the vote. Overall, I think we get a better overall set of nominees with an expanded field rather than the Top 5, but the voting system as-is has big problems. 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Dejana

[starri]

17 minutes ago, Dejana said:

The most succinct way I've seen the distaste for Green Book described was along the lines that, it seems to be made by people who watched Hidden Figures and thought it should have been about the Kirsten Dunst character.

Ooof.  Accurate.

[ProudMary]

5 hours ago, Dejana said:

Released a year later, The King's Speech is one of those Best Picture winners that is maybe not remembered well by cinephiles but isn't loathed because it beat something "more deserving".

From a probable lonely POV, I'm chuckling at your choice of this particular film to select for this comment because if there is one film in the last ten years that truly ticked me off when it won BP, it was this one.  The Social Network would probably be my choice for film of the decade.  Instead, the Academy went with its typical bland selection of a biopic and/or period piece. 🙄 TSN should have been named Best Picture and David Fincher should have won Best Director over Tom Hooper. Colin Firth was great though.  I don't begrudge him his Best Actor victory. JMO, of course.

[NUguy514]

6 hours ago, Dejana said:

The most succinct way I've seen the distaste for Green Book described was along the lines that, it seems to be made by people who watched Hidden Figures and thought it should have been about the Kirsten Dunst character.

Daaaaamn!  That's a perfect summation!

Oh, and I've seen every single film that won Best Director, and Tom Hooper ranks dead fucking last.  His directorial choices are distractingly bad at almost every possible juncture.

Edited March 4, 2019 by NUguy514

[Dejana]

3 hours ago, ProudMary said:

From a probable lonely POV, I'm chuckling at your choice of this particular film to select for this comment because if there is one film in the last ten years that truly ticked me off when it won BP, it was this one.  The Social Network would probably be my choice for film of the decade.  Instead, the Academy went with its typical bland selection of a biopic and/or period piece. 🙄 TSN should have been named Best Picture and David Fincher should have won Best Director over Tom Hooper. Colin Firth was great though.  I don't begrudge him his Best Actor victory. JMO, of course.

From the reputation of The King's Speech in awards circles, one would have the impression it got poor/mediocre reviews but that was hardly the case. The notices for TKS, if not as lofty as those for The Social Network (Metacritic – 95, Rotten Tomatoes – 95%), are very favorable for a Best Picture nominee in general, and particularly next to the other British-based Best Picture nominees this decade: 

The King's Speech:  Metacritic – 88, Rotten Tomatoes – 94%

Les Miserables:  Metacritic – 63, Rotten Tomatoes – 69%

Philomena:  Metacritic – 77, Rotten Tomatoes – 91%

The Imitation Game:  Metacritic – 73, Rotten Tomatoes – 90%

The Theory of Everything:  Metacritic – 72, Rotten Tomatoes – 79%

Dunkirk:  Metacritic – 94, Rotten Tomatoes – 92%

Darkest Hour:  Metacritic – 75, Rotten Tomatoes – 84%

The Favourite: Metacritic – 90, Rotten Tomatoes - 93%

Bohemian Rhapsody:  Metacritic – 49, Rotten Tomatoes – 61%

Obviously, reviews don't change how people feel about a movie, I was just saying that if The King's Speech had been the thing that kept The Descendants or The Help from winning Best Picture and it had never been up for comparisons against The Social Network, I doubt it would be hated or even thought about half as much as it is.  

Green Book, for the record, is at 69 on Metacritic and 79% on Rotten Tomatoes.

*

3 hours ago, NUguy514 said:

Daaaaamn!  That's a perfect summation!

Oh, and I've seen every single film that won Best Director, and Tom Hooper ranks dead fucking last.  His directorial choices are distractingly bad at almost every possible juncture.

I had to confirm if Cavalcade won Best Director, it did, as a movie it felt about an hour longer than it was but can concede there were some visually appealing sequences amidst the terrible pacing and overly theatrical acting.  It's been a while since I saw TKS, I remember it looking drab, and from what I recall of Les Mis, there were probably a thousand Dutch angles?

Edited March 4, 2019 by Dejana

[NUguy514]

4 hours ago, Dejana said:

I had to confirm if Cavalcade won Best Director, it did, as a movie it felt about an hour longer than it was but can concede there were some visually appealing sequences amidst the terrible pacing and overly theatrical acting.  It's been a while since I saw TKS, I remember it looking drab, and from what I recall of Les Mis, there were probably a thousand Dutch angles?

Yeah, Cavalcade is...not good, and Frank Lloyd's direction of it doesn't help it much, but Hooper is just the worst.  I liked The King's Speech in spite of his abysmal directorial choices (although it still chafes that it won over so many better, more interesting films); moreover, he and Russell Crowe almost destroyed Les Mis for me, and oh my god, so many Dutch angles!!🤮

Edited March 4, 2019 by NUguy514

[AshleyN]

14 hours ago, Dejana said:

Green Book, for the record, is at 69 on Metacritic and 79% on Rotten Tomatoes.

I have to say, I find it really amusing that Green Book actually has the exact same metascore as Crash. Like, what are the odds?

Interestingly, the Academy did seem to respond to Crash's win and the outcry afterward by seeking out films with more critical approval for a long time -- whereas before it was fairly common for movies with mixed critical receptions to win, between Crash and Green Book, every winner had a metascore of at least 85 (even winners that have since fallen out of favour, like Slumdog Millionaire or the aforementioned King's Speech were all very well received at first). I wonder if we'll see something similar happen in response to Green Book, or if its win signals a trend back toward more populist fare.

[Steph J]

On 3/2/2019 at 2:35 PM, VCRTracking said:

Vanity Fair:

Steven Spielberg May Propose an Oscars Rule Change to Rein In Netflix

AV News:

Steven Spielberg is gunning to make sure Netflix never has another Oscars contender like Roma

IndieWire:
The Spielberg vs. Netflix Battle Could Mean Collateral Damage for Indies at the Oscars

I find Spielberg's position on this really elitist and hypocritical.

Elitist for two reasons, first because not everyone lives in a place like Los Angeles or New York where every movie under the sun can be found playing somewhere on a big screen.  A lot of people live in places where smaller movies don't play in their local theater and they would never get a chance to see movies like Roma on a big screen.  Netflix makes it possible for smaller movies like that to be seen by larger audiences.  Secondly because Netflix has given a greater platform to filmmakers of color, female filmmakers, lgbtq filmmakers, etc., who would otherwise have a difficult time getting their work seen, which makes Spielberg's position seem like the kind of cultural gatekeeping that has kept Hollywood so insular and lacking in diversity.

Hypocritical because when The Post was up for awards last year (and Bridge of Spies a few years ago, and Lincoln a few years before that) screeners certainly went out to members of the Academy so that they could watch the movies in the comfort of their own homes.  There's no fundamental difference between someone seeing a movie via a screener and someone watching it via Netflix except that screeners only go to people in the industry. If they're going to put rules in place to outlaw Netflix, then they should pass a rule against seeing movies via screeners, too.

[methodwriter85]

The truth is, movie theaters are insanely expensive. I've seen matinees that are 11 dollars. A popcorn and drink will run you about 12-13 dollars. One person is going to spend 25 dollars going by themselves, probably over 40 going with one other person. Because of this, smaller movies that aren't blockbuster types just aren't going to prioritized when being seen by the bulk of people going to the movies. And it's not like Steven Spielberg is some kind of auteur making low-budget indie movies.

Anyway, Be Kind Rewind did a hot take on Glenn Close's Oscar loss:

I do think that it was an "upset", but it wasn't a total shock. There were people calling this earlier in this thread.

[AshleyN]

On 3/5/2019 at 3:23 AM, methodwriter85 said:

I do think that it was an "upset", but it wasn't a total shock. There were people calling this earlier in this thread.

I agree. Like most people, I thought Close's narrative would probably be enough to carry her to the win, and I can see why casual observers were shocked since she had all the buzz, but even some people who follow these things seem to have talked about it as a massive upset, which I don't really get. Colman won the Globe, the BAFTA*, a slew of critics awards, and was in a movie that led the nominations with ten (including the trio of Picture, Director, and Screenplay). It was never a slam dunk.

*I do think people may have dismissed the BAFTA win on account of her having home-field advantage there, so to speak, but if you actually look at their results in recent years, BAFTA voters have shown themselves to be more than happy to rubber stamp the acting front-runners even over British talent (just look at last year, when they awarded Frances McDormand over Sally Hawkins in the eventual Best Picture winner). In fact, since 2010, the only BAFTA Best Actress winner who didn't go on to win the Oscar was Emmanuelle Riva, who isn't even British. Only twice in the last fifteen years has that category awarded British actresses who didn't go on to win the Oscar, and in both cases the eventual winner wasn't even nominated at BAFTA (Carey Mulligan, who lost to Sandra Bullock, and Imelda Staunton, who lost to Hilary Swank).

[NUguy514]

3 hours ago, AshleyN said:

I agree. Like most people, I thought Close's narrative would probably be enough to carry her to the win, and I can see why casual observers were shocked since she had all the buzz, but even some people who follow these things seem to have talked about it as a massive upset, which I don't really get. Colman won the Globe, the BAFTA*, a slew of critics awards, and was in a movie that led the nominations with ten (including the trio of Picture, Director, and Screenplay). It was never a slam dunk.

*I do think people may have dismissed the BAFTA win on account of her having home-field advantage there, so to speak, but if you actually look at their results in recent years, BAFTA voters have shown themselves to be more than happy to rubber stamp the acting front-runners even over British talent (just look at last year, when they awarded Frances McDormand over Sally Hawkins in the eventual Best Picture winner). In fact, since 2010, the only BAFTA Best Actress winner who didn't go on to win the Oscar was Emmanuelle Riva, who isn't even British. Only twice in the last fifteen years has that category awarded British actresses who didn't go on to win the Oscar, and in both cases the eventual winner wasn't even nominated at BAFTA (Carey Mulligan, who lost to Sandra Bullock, and Imelda Staunton, who lost to Hilary Swank).

Moreover, there is often overlap with BAFTA because there is such a large number of Academy members who are British and BAFTA members themselves; I'm sure they went for Colman en masse.

[alihart41]

On 3/6/2019 at 11:34 AM, AshleyN said:

I agree. Like most people, I thought Close's narrative would probably be enough to carry her to the win, and I can see why casual observers were shocked since she had all the buzz, but even some people who follow these things seem to have talked about it as a massive upset, which I don't really get. Colman won the Globe, the BAFTA*, a slew of critics awards, and was in a movie that led the nominations with ten (including the trio of Picture, Director, and Screenplay). It was never a slam dunk.

*I do think people may have dismissed the BAFTA win on account of her having home-field advantage there, so to speak, but if you actually look at their results in recent years, BAFTA voters have shown themselves to be more than happy to rubber stamp the acting front-runners even over British talent (just look at last year, when they awarded Frances McDormand over Sally Hawkins in the eventual Best Picture winner). In fact, since 2010, the only BAFTA Best Actress winner who didn't go on to win the Oscar was Emmanuelle Riva, who isn't even British. Only twice in the last fifteen years has that category awarded British actresses who didn't go on to win the Oscar, and in both cases the eventual winner wasn't even nominated at BAFTA (Carey Mulligan, who lost to Sandra Bullock, and Imelda Staunton, who lost to Hilary Swank).

I don't think people dismissed Colman's BAFTA win, but in hindsight, everyone vastly overestimated Close's narrative. I think it proves that you cannot win on an overdue narrative alone, especially when your main competitor has a strong film. I am surprised Be Kind Rewind didn't even mention her BAFTA win; that's a major -- and the final -- precursor, and there are lots of BAFTA members who are in AMPAS. Whereas there was no need to mention Close's Spirit Awards win since that's the day before the Oscars and has no impact, and it's not like she beat Colman there.

And while Colman's name had been engraved on that BAFTA since the second The Favourite trailer hit, I think most people knew she was a legit threat, not one of those "home team" BAFTA winners who has no chance at the Oscars. We knew BAFTA would eat up The Favourite like they did with The King's Speech (without the Best Picture win). The King's Speech dragged Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham Carter to wins -- over Brit and frontrunner Christian Bale, while Melissa Leo wasn't even nominated. No one thought Rush and HBC were winning the Oscars though. (And Frances McDormand had home-field advantage in a sense since 3BB was a British production and won Best British Film.)

We'll never know, but I'd be curious to see the vote breakdown. How close (no pun intended) was this? Did Colman win by 50? 500? 1,000?

ETA: This article does a good breakdown of how Colman won and why Julianne Moore was able to get an overdue win: https://www.goldderby.com/article/2019/how-olivia-colman-beat-glenn-close-oscar-best-actress-explanations/

Edited March 8, 2019 by alihart41

[Trini]

2019 Taurus World Stunt Awards nominees: https://www.taurusworldstuntawards.com/2019-nominees/

Ceremony is May 11.