2020 Awards Season

[proserpina65]

16 hours ago, Dancingjaneway said:

do a war movie like "1917"? 

From what I've read about 1917, there are no other war movies like 1917.  I'm hoping to see it this weekend.

 

[truthaboutluv]

1 hour ago, proserpina65 said:

From what I've read about 1917, there are no other war movies like 1917.  I'm hoping to see it this weekend.

 

Yes, it's directed in such a way that gives the impression that the whole film was done in one-take. It's one of the main reasons Sam Mendes is a favorite to win Best Director. 

[Shannon L.]

4 hours ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

It will be available for rental on January 28, well before the Oscars. I haven't made it to that one yet either, and it's actually still playing where I live, but I have so many films that are movie theater "musts" (based on recency of release) that I'm going to couch-watch Parasite on VUDU. 

Good to know, thanks!  I should watch it at home so I can pause and rewind as needed.  That's probably not the best way to watch it, but with my subtitle problem, it may be the best I can do.

1 hour ago, proserpina65 said:

From what I've read about 1917, there are no other war movies like 1917.  I'm hoping to see it this weekend.

 

I've heard this enough that I'm willing to go see it (tonight, actually).  There have been very few war movies that I've liked over the years.  So few, in fact, that I just stopped going to them.  However, I've heard from people, who also don't like war movies, that they really liked this one. 

[kiddo82]

It's way more of a "human" story than most war movies are.  I enjoyed it a lot and it is very different from the Saving Private Ryan's of the world.

 

The big ticket contenders I haven't seen yet are Parasite, The Two Popes, Pain and Glory, and The Irishman 

Edited January 14, 2020 by kiddo82

[Luckylyn]

Women and the Oscars: What’s Going On

https://youtu.be/cg2pUhHf46U

[Pickles Aplenty]

12 hours ago, AshleyN said:

I'm probably a little biased since she's one of my favourite working actors, but I though Saoirse was fantastic in Little Women (and Lady Bird) and I'm all for her and Greta Gerwig becoming the next iconic actor/director pairing. Florence Pugh was terrific too and I'm happy for her nomination. I do think she had a little bit of an advantage when it came to reactions, just because Amy is a character that isn't traditionally as baity and Gerwig went out of her way to give more focus and depth to her than previous adaptations, whereas Saoirse being great as Jo was a little more expected, but both of them went above and beyond for me.

And speaking of Ronan, she's (somewhat quietly) putting together a pretty incredible resume: four nominations at 25, all for Best Picture nominees, for four pretty distinct characters, and all for (IMO) genuinely exceptional and deserving performances. And she's managed to do it while avoiding overexposure or backlash. The once thing I would like to see for her is to break out of the period box a little more -- especially since Lady Bird showed she's more than capable in a contemporary setting -- but I'd guess that has more to do with the roles she's being offered than it being the only thing she wants to do.

Agree, 100%.  Ronan is my favorite working actress, right now.

[methodwriter85]

7 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

It's way more of a "human" story than most war movies are.  I enjoyed it a lot and it is very different from the Saving Private Ryan's of the world.

It pretty much only follows two characters, which is not how most war movies are.

[Shannon L.]

Ok, I have a new favorite (with 2 left to watch). 1917 is stunning. While there are other stories on the list that I like better, as a work of art, this is the best one so far, imo. The fact that wasn't nominated for best editing is a travesty and if it doesn't win for cinematography,  I'll be disappointed.  If it wins for best picture, I'll be happy. Definitely not just another war movie.

[Simon Boccanegra]

Are war films really that plentiful among Best Picture nominees in modern times? I had read this a few times, here and elsewhere, and it didn't match my own recollection. I just thought of them as one among several genres the Academy favors (e.g., literary adaptations, historical dramas/biopics, films about race relations), and not first among equals, as many years have had no war film in the running. 

So I looked at the 193 nominees since 1990.

I ruled out any films about mythical conflicts, such as Hobbit movies and Avatar. It had to be an historic war. Also, a significant amount of time had to be spent on the battlefield. Something like The Irishman, with that one-minute flashback to Sheeran's service, didn't count.    

Best Picture nominees since 1990 I would classify as "war films," with an asterisk for winners: Braveheart (*), Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, Letters from Iwo Jima, The Hurt Locker (*), War Horse, American Sniper, Hacksaw Ridge, Dunkirk, 1917. 

Best Picture nominees since 1990 set against the backdrop of a war, but really about other things: Dances with Wolves (*), Schindler's List (*), The English Patient (*), Life Is Beautiful, The Pianist, The Reader, Inglorious Basterds, The King's Speech (*), Lincoln, Zero Dark Thirty, The Imitation Game, Darkest Hour, Jojo Rabbit, Little Women 2019.

Difficult to classify: Atonement. Its middle section does follow the progress of uniformed soldiers, including a spectacular recreation of the Dunkirk evacuation, and Wikipedia does go with "romantic war drama." I'd say it's about a writer's guilt and a doomed romance above all, and thus category 2.

Edit: Thanks in return, Shannon L. I am seeing 1917 later this week.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Simon Boccanegra

[scarynikki12]

@Simon Boccanegra if you want you can include Gangs Of New York to your war as backdrop list since it's during the Civil War.

[Dejana]

3 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

Ok, I have a new favorite (with 2 left to watch). 1917 is stunning. While there are other stories on the list that I like better, as a work of art, this is the best one so far, imo. The fact that wasn't nominated for best editing is a travesty and if it doesn't win for cinematography,  I'll be disappointed.  If it wins for best picture, I'll be happy. Definitely not just another war movie.

I was listening to an Oscars podcast and the hosts said that among editors, there's a feeling that a movie is made in the editing room. Because of the nature of a "one-shot" movie like 1917, the cuts are preplanned, so some branch members may not consider that "real" editing in the same way.  Birdman won the Best Picture Oscar but also failed to get a Best Film Editing nomination.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Dejana

[benteen]

1917 was great.  It would be very deserving of the Oscar.  I'd rank that as the best film of the year, followed closely by The Irishman and Marriage Story.

[proserpina65]

11 hours ago, Dejana said:

I was listening to an Oscars podcast and the hosts said that among editors, there's a feeling that a movie is made in the editing room. Because of the nature of a "one-shot" movie like 1917, the cuts are preplanned, so some branch members may not consider that "real" editing in the same way.  Birdman won the Best Picture Oscar but also failed to get a Best Film Editing nomination.

Yeah, the fact that all the nominations except Best Picture are voted on only by the members of individual branches of the Academy (directors for Director, editors for Editing, cinematographers for Cinematography) goes a long way towards explaining why the nominations for different categories don't always match up.

[Shannon L.]

I just saw Little Women.  I've never read the book and have only seen the 1994 version once and that was back when it came out, so while I was familiar with the story, there was much that I'd forgotten.

What a beautiful movie.  It felt long, but not in a bad (omg, is this ever going to end!) way.  I was happy and quite moved throughout.  The performances were strong and I can understand the frustration over Greta not getting a directing nod.  I was impressed with all the actresses, especially the actress who played Beth.  Her scenes were so thoughtful.  Those scenes with her and Laurie's grandfather were really got to me.

The only real problems I had with it were:  1. The actresses weren't believable to me as their younger selves.  Yes, the acting younger was good, but they all just looked their older ages to me, and 2.  Timothee Chalomet.  He's a great actor and I look forward to seeing more from him, but he looks about 14 years old and much younger than Florence Plugh.  I couldn't shake it in CMBYN and I couldn't shake it in this one and at times it took me out of it. 

[methodwriter85]

Timothee also didn't change up how he played Older Teddy. He still acted like a kid with adolescent mannerisms.

[shireenbamfatheon]

Parasite deserves every nomination (and more). I went into it with major expectations after all the hype, and I still came out of it completely in love with the movie. It's one of the movies that stay with you for a long time and one that will still be remembered in many years to come. And it really is so different from so many other Oscar movies. I'm just disappointed that the actors who played the father and housewife (ed. initial female help, not houswife, though she was great as well) weren't nominated. The latter especially gave such a memorable performance. Shame that SJ got two noms because the Academy forgot POC exist (except when they play slaves).

Edited January 20, 2020 by shireenbamfatheon

[Wiendish Fitch]

I'm so pissed off at the Academy this year (Joker got how many nominations?!) My impossible dream? That Little Women wins Best Picture and that Sairose Ronan and Florence Pugh win their respective awards, and everyone at the Academy who didn't feel that Greta Gerwig was worth nominating for Best Director spends the rest of their lives with their heads hung low and their tails between their legs.

[angora]

4 hours ago, shireenbamfatheon said:

Parasite deserves every nomination (and more). I went into it with major expectations after all the hype, and I still came out of it completely in love with the movie. It's one of the movies that stay with you for a long time and one that will still be remembered in many years to come. And it really is so different from so many other Oscar movies. I'm just disappointed that the actors who played the father and housewife weren't nominated. The latter especially gave such a memorable performance. Shame that SJ got two noms because the Academy forgot POC exist (except when they play slaves).

I saw this tweet that I thought was extremely telling where Parasite was concerned:

 

[Pickles Aplenty]

So, I hold the unpopular opinion that Little Women was a good movie, not a great one, and that it shouldn't have been nominated for Best Picture.  Because of that, I don't feel like Greta Gerwig was snubbed.  That's not to say that I don't think more female directors should be recognized, because I do, I just don't see what's so amazing about this particular movie.  It was an enjoyable way to spend an afternoon, but Best Picture?  Best Director?  Not seeing it, sorry.

[kiddo82]

I think the Safdie brothers are a bigger snub than Gerwig and I'm surprised I haven't heard more people mention them.  I saw both Little Women and Uncut Gems in the same day.  I liked-not-loved both of them but in retrospect the Safdies did a much better job of setting and maintaining a tone.  And I've definitely thought more about Gems in the past three weeks than Women. I also would have had Waititi on my short list ahead of Gerwig.  Again, women in general need more seats at the table but the specific outrage over Gerwig feels like name checking.  Lulu Wang and Melina Matsoukas made better movies than Gerwig this year.

 

Also, the whole concept of "snubs" in general can be a frustrating topic because at this level it's usually hair splitting.  There can only be 5 (or maybe 10) and there is always, always someone who is going to get left out.   And we can talk about merit and internal/exteranal biases and things like that but when you've whittled it down to five (and maybe only three with a real shot) it's just a matter of personal preference at that point. We can argue about the performances of Adam Driver, Joaquin Phoenix, and Leonardo Dicaprio from now until forever and no one is wrong.  Take the Best Supporting Actress category which to me is a crazy good category this year even in spite of its seemingly foregone conclusion.  I like JLo.  I liked her in Hustlers.  The old softie in me was rooting for her to get in,  however, who does she replace?  People's first inclination may be ScarJo but I'll still argue that her JoJo Rabbit performance was not only worthy of the nom but better than Marriage Story so I have no problem with her being in.  Kathy Bates, Margo Robbie, and Florence Pugh were all better in my opinion than JLo and all deserve to be in.  Honestly, the nominee I could live without in this cateogry is Dern, the heavy favorite, but there was no way she wasn't getting in.  In different years, I could see any of these women/performances actually winning.  People have also cited an actress from Parasite, which I still haven't seen, as being deserving of being in.  I mean, sometimes it just comes down to being on the wrong side of the numbers.  It's hard for me to call Jennifer Lopez not getting in a snub because, at least in my opinion, there were an appropriate number of performances better than hers.  She gave a good performance that was impressive enough but maybe a little bit too much in her range to really blow people away or outshine her competitors.*  Maybe in a different year she gets in but the luck and timing just weren't on her side this time.  

Lupita Nyong'o, on the other hand?  There weren't five performances better than hers this year.  There may not have even been one.  I could personally easily slot her in over any other actress in the lead category.  That to me is a snub.

*I also think part of it is that when someone who we don't normally think of as a "serious ACT-or" (Gaga last year.  JLo and Sandler this year) shows the slightest bit of competence people immediately overreact.  And again, I liked Lopez in Hustlers but holding this performance up to her previous work and saying "this is the best performance of her career" is not the same as holding it up against the work that Bates and Pugh and Johansson did this year.  YMMV. 

Edited January 18, 2020 by kiddo82

[truthaboutluv]

7 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

  Again, women in general need more seats at the table but the specific outrage over Gerwig feels like name checking.  Lulu Wang and Melina Matsoukas made better movies than Gerwig this year.

Glad you mentioned this because this is exactly why I've read a few think pieces by some women of color who say they feel like the outrage of this is selective and more an issue of "white feminism". That in other words, the white, privileged woman is left out and suddenly everyone is so up in arms. Yet there doesn't seem to be as much outrage regarding the women of color directors who have also been ignored.

For the record, I'm not saying I agree completely with their sentiment but there is something to be said that twice now in recent years, the loudest outcry about "no female directors nominated" come about when a vocal group of individuals believed that Greta Gerwig should have gotten a nomination. It's her name that always seems to be attached to the outrage. 

And I'm so glad you mentioned The Farewell. Because in all the talk of snubs and outrage, that to me was one of the biggest disappointments. That The Farewell did not get an Original Screenplay nomination. 

Edited January 18, 2020 by truthaboutluv

[truthaboutluv]

So based on the PGA Awards last night, looks like Globes may have been on the money with their win, and 1917 is heading towards the Best Picture prize. Obviously nothing is absolute until Oscar night.

But PGA is almost always on the money in predicting the Best Picture winner (checked and they’ve correctly awarded 20 Best Picture winners, out of their 30 years of presenting these awards). 

[Ohwell]

I'm just glad to see Brad Pitt this awards season.  

[Pickles Aplenty]

51 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

I'm just glad to see Brad Pitt this awards season.  

So am I, even if I think Leonardo DiCaprio did a better job in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.  Still, I have always been a fan of Brad, and I just want to see him act, and get some recognition for it.  I'm also looking forward to seeing who will be with him on the red carpet, since he and Angelina are no longer a thing. 

[truthaboutluv]

My guess is Brad is either going to show up to the Oscars alone or with his parents. I’m leaning towards the latter, particularly because he shouted them out at the Globes.

And while I too am glad to see him this Awards season, I really wish it wasn’t so heavily intertwined with this Aniston crap. Like people seriously need to let that shit go and move the hell on. It probably doesn’t help that I’ve also always found Aniston to be basic as hell.

Edited January 19, 2020 by truthaboutluv

[Ohwell]

26 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

My guess is Brad is either going to show up to the Oscars alone or with his parents. I’m leaning towards the latter, particularly because he shouted them out at the Globes.

And while I too am glad to see him this Awards season, I really wish it wasn’t so heavily intertwined with this Aniston crap. Like people seriously need to let that shit go and move the hell on. It probably doesn’t help that I’ve also always found Aniston to be basic as hell.

That's my guess, too, that he'll show up alone or with his parents.

I totally agree about the Aniston crap.  

[scarynikki12]

29 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

My guess is Brad is either going to show up to the Oscars alone or with his parents. I’m leaning towards the latter, particularly because he shouted them out at the Globes.

Agreed and I so hope for joking headlines since he mentioned that everyone assumes he’s dating whoever he stands next to. 

[Dejana]

The (not-so) Anonymous Oscar Voters are off to an early start, as Academy members viciously reveal why Lopez, Sandler, Murphy got snubbed from Oscars, and they are as charming as ever:

 

Quote

Acting legend Terry Moore has one piece of advice for Jennifer Lopez, after the A-lister was snubbed for an Oscar nomination this week: “Get over it.”

Quote

“I would have been shocked if she did get it,” sniffed Moore, a longtime member of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Services who votes on Oscar nominees and was once married to Howard Hughes.

 

Quote

“First of all, ‘Hustlers’ is not an ‘Oscar movie.’ It’s a little too rough around the edges, and I’m assuming some other people in the acting category didn’t see it,” said a longtime character actor and Academy member. “Florence Pugh seems to have gotten the J. Lo spot — maybe because ‘Little Women’ is a prestige movie and she’s a bright, new star.

“Actors tend to think of Jennifer Lopez as a phenomenon more than an actress, per se. [It’s like last year, when] Lady Gaga lost the Oscar to Olivia Colman — a real actor’s actor.”

And here I thought Lady Gaga losing Best Actress was more about everyone thinking she was a lock to win another category, so why reward a singer/actress twice in one night, some not thinking her performance was the best, and that her movie suffered the same lukewarm Oscar fate as its predecessors, but okay... Also, where does Glenn Close fit into this voter's theory?

 

Quote

Last month, Sandler may have rubbed some of them the wrong way when he joked on Howard Stern’s show: “If I don’t get [the Oscar], I’m going to f–king come back and do [a movie] again that is so bad on purpose just to make you all pay.”

“There was an arrogance to [Adam],” huffed a voting member. “It’s a lack of respect.”

Funny, when I read Anonymous Oscar Ballot articles, I hardly ever end up thinking, "You know what? The voters are so respectful of the process and the honor that's been bestowed upon them."  It's actually the opposite, more often than not.

*

Quote

As for Eddie Murphy, some voters disliked how hard he seemed to be campaigning for a nomination — including hosting “Saturday Night Live” after giving his old show the cold shoulder for 35 years.

“I didn’t like his attempt for it,” said Moore.

You know if Eddie didn't do any campaigning, there would've been voters saying, "Well, of course he didn't get nominated, he didn't put in any face time and show that us that he cared!" You can't win with some of these folks...

Edited January 20, 2020 by Dejana

[scarynikki12]

24 minutes ago, Dejana said:

Funny, when I read Anonymous Oscar Ballot articles, I hardly ever end up thinking, "You know what? The voters are so respectful of the process and the honor that's been bestowed upon them."  It's actually the opposite, more often than not.

Yep. All I can think is that I would be a better member of the Academy than any of them. I try to watch all of the movies nominated for the "big" categories (Picture, Director, Acting, Screenwriting), I go out of my way to see the nominated shorts, I've taken the time to learn about the "lesser" categories like sound mixing so that I can form my own opinion on what is the best and why, and, most importantly, I love movies and am fascinated by how they get made.

These anonymous voters always make it seem like being in the Academy is a huge burden when it should be the among the best parts of their career. You get movies sent to your house! You can re-watch the ones you like as much as you want (until you have to send them back)! All that is asked of them is that they WATCH the movies and then decide which is the best in each category. If they hated the campaigning and feeling pressured to vote a certain way (which 100% has not stopped even though Harvey's on trial), then that would make sense but they never even hint that this is the case. Instead they talk shit about Hustlers, Jennifer Lopez, and Lady Gaga. Ok, if you saw Hustlers and didn't like it, fine. If you did see it but didn't like JLo's performance, fine. If you saw A Start Is Born and didn't like Gaga's performance, fine. That's completely fair and I have no issue with that. To act like JLo or Gaga shouldn't be in the conversation about which actors had the best performances simply because they aren't viewed as "real" actors is bullshit. They each played roles in a movie. That makes them actors. That they also have careers beyond acting doesn't negate that. Hustlers isn't good enough for the Oscars because it's "rough around the edges" is an interesting choice of words given how many actors get nominated for roles where they play drug addicts, gain some weight, and take off the makeup. It's more honest if they admit they only want the prestige of being an Academy member without doing the few hours of work that's required once a year.

[scarynikki12]

Meanwhile Brad Pitt just won his SAG award and proudly said that he watches ALL of the movies. Is he lying? Maybe, but it didn't seem like it.

Brad's also a lock to win the Oscar in my opinion, if only because he gives a GREAT acceptance speech.

[truthaboutluv]

8 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

Meanwhile Brad Pitt just won his SAG award and proudly said that he watches ALL of the movies. Is he lying? Maybe, but it didn't seem like it.

I can believe it only because Brad’s also a producer and a damn successful one too. So he probably is always paying attention to what’s going in the industry and the work of others. 

[Dejana]

42 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

Meanwhile Brad Pitt just won his SAG award and proudly said that he watches ALL of the movies. Is he lying? Maybe, but it didn't seem like it.

Brad's also a lock to win the Oscar in my opinion, if only because he gives a GREAT acceptance speech.

Given the movies that Brad has chosen to produce, I think he takes film pretty seriously and is a diligent awards voter. It must be so much fun to be able to vote for yourself, for an Oscar. 

I think Brad will probably win but recall the pundits saying Glenn Close's speech at the Golden Globes was supposed to seal her Oscar win, and that didn't quite work out. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood has much more support than The Wife and Pitt is a bigger star, so an upset would be very surprising at this point.

Edited January 20, 2020 by Dejana

[scarynikki12]

The Parasite actors got a standing ovation and won Best Ensemble at SAG just now. Given the enthusiasm in that room I think it's chances of winning Best Picture just increased dramatically. I won't be mad if 1917 wins but I'm really hoping Parasite pulls a Moonlight without the envelope shenanigans.

[scarynikki12]

1 hour ago, Dejana said:

I think Brad will probably win but recall the pundits saying Glenn Close's speech at the Golden Globes was supposed to seal her Oscar win, and that didn't quite work out. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood has much more support than The Wife and Pitt is a bigger star, so an upset would be very surprising at this point.

I remember reading a theory last year that said that the voters may have chosen Coleman over Close because they saw how many nominations The Favourite got (10 I believe) vs The Wife (only the 1 for Close) and decided that made it the more worthy movie and Coleman the more worthy performance. Knowing that not watching all of the nominated movies seems to be a source of pride among some of these voters I can buy that. For the rest I think it came down to liking Coleman's performance more than Close's. Or maybe liking The Favourite more than The Wife. I was surprised Glenn Close didn't win but I adore Olivia Coleman so I was still thrilled. Then she gave that delightful acceptance speech and justified all of her votes.

I agree that Once has more support behind it, both emotional and in terms of nominations, which should help Brad maintain his momentum. I think Joaquin and Laura will also maintain theirs. For some reason I'm feeling like Best Actress may turn out to be the surprise category again but I have no idea why since Renee has been cleaning up.

[thuganomics85]

I know the SAGs for Ensemble might not always align with Best Picture at the Oscars (Black Panther, Three Billboards, and Hidden Figures were all recent winners), but Parasite winning certainly feels like a big deal.  I do think it might boiling down to that and 1917.  Curious to see how the DGA will play out.

Don't want to say the acting categories are set in stone as Olivia Colman beating out Glenn Close at the end last year was certainly huge, but it certainly feels like Joaquin, Renee, Laura, and Brad are on their way to walking up on that stage in a few weeks!

Edited January 20, 2020 by thuganomics85

[AshleyN]

Holy shit Parasite! The fact that a foreign language film won at SAG of all places would have been unthinkable to me a few months ago. Roma couldn't even get nominated here.

[Irlandesa]

6 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

Meanwhile Brad Pitt just won his SAG award and proudly said that he watches ALL of the movies. Is he lying? Maybe, but it didn't seem like it.

I'm pretty neutral on Brad overall and I believe him. I actually think there are quite a few voters who try to do their due diligence and watch as many movies/screeners as they can, especially if there's something getting awards buzz.

And then there are those who don't.

7 hours ago, Dejana said:

You know if Eddie didn't do any campaigning, there would've been voters saying, "Well, of course he didn't get nominated, he didn't put in any face time and show that us that he cared!" You can't win with some of these folks...

Yeah that last one just reeked of subconscious bias to me.  Most of these actors campaign in some way. It's part of the job to promote the movies to the general audiences and, if it has awards potential, to potential voters. But it's Eddie returning to SNL where he's a legend that's too thirsty?  Whatever.

4 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

The Parasite actors got a standing ovation and won Best Ensemble at SAG just now. Given the enthusiasm in that room I think it's chances of winning Best Picture just increased dramatically. I won't be mad if 1917 wins but I'm really hoping Parasite pulls a Moonlight without the envelope shenanigans.

I hope it at least encourages some of the less diligent voters who might have been avoiding Parasite because of the subtitles to actually watch it.  I think it's my front runner of those that I've seen and I think people who are hesitant about the foreign language aspect of it will be surprised at how watchable it is almost immediately.

Edited January 20, 2020 by Irlandesa

[absnow54]

The rest of the Guild awards will be really interesting. 1917 already has PGA and is heavily favorited for Best Cinematography. The other two categories that heavily predict best picture are director and screenplay and 1917 and Parasite have nods in both. I have a gut feeling that they’ll give director to Sam Mendes and picture to Parasite, but I’m also pretty sure most voters will feel that giving best foreign language to Parasite will be enough. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

On 1/18/2020 at 7:09 AM, kiddo82 said:

Lupita Nyong'o, on the other hand?  There weren't five performances better than hers this year.  There may not have even been one.  I could personally easily slot her in over any other actress in the lead category.  That to me is a snub.

I was happy to see that she was nominated for the SAG, but so so so so upset that she won't win any of the big awards this year.  Pisses me off.

18 hours ago, Dejana said:

You know if Eddie didn't do any campaigning, there would've been voters saying, "Well, of course he didn't get nominated, he didn't put in any face time and show that us that he cared!" You can't win with some of these folks...

Isn't that exactly what people said in the Dreamgirls era about why he didn't win the Oscar for that?

18 hours ago, Dejana said:

The (not-so) Anonymous Oscar Voters are off to an early start, as Academy members viciously reveal why Lopez, Sandler, Murphy got snubbed from Oscars, and they are as charming as ever:

Every single person in this article that this 91 year old said didn't "deserve" an Academy award nomination is not white, except for Sandler.  Jennifer Lopez, Eddie Murphy, Awkwafina, Beyonce.  I hope people see that there are members of the academy who simply think non-white people do not deserve the acting awards.

Edited January 20, 2020 by Ms Blue Jay

[Ms Blue Jay]

 

On 1/18/2020 at 7:09 AM, kiddo82 said:

*I also think part of it is that when someone who we don't normally think of as a "serious ACT-or" (Gaga last year.  JLo and Sandler this year) shows the slightest bit of competence people immediately overreact.  And again, I liked Lopez in Hustlers but holding this performance up to her previous work and saying "this is the best performance of her career" is not the same as holding it up against the work that Bates and Pugh and Johansson did this year.  YMMV. 

That's what happened with Sandler.  And the article about the 91 year old being totally derisive about him like he doesn't deserve a nomination confirms what is suspected.

On 1/16/2020 at 7:38 PM, angora said:

I saw this tweet that I thought was extremely telling where Parasite was concerned:

 

Some articles are being written about this issue:

Quote

Had to quote @e_alexjung, who nailed that lousy track record w/r/t PARASITE and CROUCHING TIGER: "There’s an old prejudice at work here that sees Asian people as technical workers — hence the praise for Bong Joon Ho — and refuses to see us as fully human."

 

I definitely think there's a major bias for a system that gives Jennifer Lawrence and Saoirse Ronan 4 nominations by their mid twenties each and nobody seems to bat an eye but the idea of Jennifer Lopez even getting one nomination, of course some old fart is quoted as saying Heavens no, she doesn't deserve that.  It's extremely eye-roll inducing.  People can say that Hustlers is shit, but I've seen the Jennifer Lawrence movies.  I thought some of them were shit and I don't think she was Oscar-worthy in them.  It's not like J.Lo in Hustlers was better than Meryl Streep in ________.  But a lot of people thought she gave one of the more magnifying performances this year so she could have been nominated.  To me she was far better than Gaga in A Star is Born for example.  It's so gross that some Academy voters look at 20-30 year old blondes (Jen, Saoirse, Margot, Scarlett) and say "This is a serious actor"  (which they may well be) but they see a Latina actor or an Asian actor or a Black actor or a comedian or musician and they say "Get over it.  They didn't deserve it".

It's weird to me how some people seem to wait for the Oscar nominations and then shrug their shoulders and say "yeah that makes sense".  Personally I have my own opinions of what I think are my favourite performances of the year beforehand.  There's so much reaching to justify why the Academy is always right and nothing should be changed or questioned.

 

I also thought Constance Wu did a good job in Hustlers but it's like everyone knew that that was such a pipe dream that people don't even speak about her performance out loud.  Pretty sad.

Edited January 20, 2020 by Ms Blue Jay

[Ms Blue Jay]

On 1/18/2020 at 7:09 AM, kiddo82 said:

I think the Safdie brothers are a bigger snub than Gerwig and I'm surprised I haven't heard more people mention them.  I saw both Little Women and Uncut Gems in the same day.  I liked-not-loved both of them but in retrospect the Safdies did a much better job of setting and maintaining a tone.  And I've definitely thought more about Gems in the past three weeks than Women. I also would have had Waititi on my short list ahead of Gerwig.  Again, women in general need more seats at the table but the specific outrage over Gerwig feels like name checking.  Lulu Wang and Melina Matsoukas made better movies than Gerwig this year.

I feel the same about Jordan Peele and "Us" but again, he is another person who is not in the conversation period.

[starri]

1 hour ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I also thought Constance Wu did a good job in Hustlers but it's like everyone knew that that was such a pipe dream that people don't even speak about her performance out loud.  Pretty sad.

I can't imagine some of her shitty comments about Fresh Off the Boat endeared her to the industry.  AMPAS voters might not pay that much attention to TV, but they do to someone who doesn't play the game.

[shireenbamfatheon]

Sorry, but ridiculous that Brad Pitt won an SAG for his performance in OUaTiH. It was a good performance but it doesn't hold a candle to the many snubs and even some of the other nominations. POC can crank out some of the best performances in the last decades without a nom, and a white guy wins the SAG for smiling 90% of the time in this movie and being charismatic. Not Pitt's fault but it really says a lot about how fucking hard some people have to fight to get ahead when others have to do the bare minimum. I don't know why I'm ever surprised. It happens every year. Next year, the Academy (which isn't the SAGs, I know, will probably nominate two people of color instead of one to "make up" for this year. If we're lucky we'll get a female director nom as well.

[Shannon L.]

I just watched the last few categories for SAG and it was nice to see Joaquin Phoenix make a generous, intelligible speech. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

 

1 hour ago, shireenbamfatheon said:

Sorry, but ridiculous that Brad Pitt won an SAG for his performance in OUaTiH. It was a good performance but it doesn't hold a candle to the many snubs and even some of the other nominations. POC can crank out some of the best performances in the last decades without a nom, and a white guy wins the SAG for smiling 90% of the time in this movie and being charismatic. Not Pitt's fault but it really says a lot about how fucking hard some people have to fight to get ahead when others have to do the bare minimum. I don't know why I'm ever surprised. It happens every year. Next year, the Academy (which isn't the SAGs, I know, will probably nominate two people of color instead of one to "make up" for this year. If we're lucky we'll get a female director nom as well.

Leo and Tom don't need me to feel bad for them, but Tom Hanks did amazing work in A Beautiful Day and Leo did amazing work in OUATIH too.  A lot of performances are getting overshadowed because everyone is so intent on rewarding Brad this year.  Same with Laura Dern.  I like Brad and Laura, but I've seen 51 of this year's releases, and those performances were just okay for me personally.

Renee Zellweger I don't mind so much because I actually did think she was in amazing in Judy.  It just sucks that it overshadows Lupita, my actual favourite performance of the year.

Edited January 20, 2020 by Ms Blue Jay

[shireenbamfatheon]

39 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

 

Renee Zellweger I don't mind so much because I actually did think she was in amazing in Judy.  It just sucks that it overshadows Lupita, my actual favourite performance of the year.

Yes, Lupita was phenomenal in US and gave a performance not many could have emulated.

Every time actors of color lose out during awards season, people point the finger at a systemic problem in Hollywood and argue that POC just aren't given that many award-worthy roles unless it's some slave drama, which is absolutely true. But at the same time, whenever they do give brilliant performances they're still overlooked. Oscar Isaac for Inside Llewyn Davis and Ex Machina, Idris Elba and Abraham Attah for Beasts of no Nation (no aspirational slave movie with white ally), Ashton Sanders for Moonlight. This year: Awkwafina and Shuzhen Zao (and Lulu Wang) for The Farewell, Kang-ho Song and Jeong eun-Lee for Parasite, Eddie Murphy for Dolemite is my Name, Lupita for US etc. Each and every one of these people this year gave better performances than ScarJo who got two nominations lmao. 

But yeah, there just aren't enough roles to nominate them for 🙄

[Ms Blue Jay]

There's always an excuse for why a person of colour isn't nominated 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 There are books and binders for those excuses 🙂

And when they're nominated, they don't win either 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂   

I thought Marcus Henderson and Betty Gabriel were easy nominations for "Get Out".  Apparently I was on my own planet.  Kumail Nanjiani was great in "The Big Sick".  Also Jovan Adepo for "Fences".

There are always those Best Picture contenders every year, where mind-bogglingly every single actor in the main cast gets nominated, even when only 1 or 2 of them were worthy.  Notably, those rarely happen when the cast is full of people of colour.

Edited January 20, 2020 by Ms Blue Jay

[kiddo82]

I think if the Academy is serious about making real change the first step is to ensure that the voters see all the nominated films in all the categories.  Not sure how you go about policing that though.  (I mean, how hard is it to watch  a bunch of movies, most of which you should have already seen? It's not like they drop physical copies of the movies off at your doorstep like effing Amazon Prime or anything.  Most of us actually have to wait until a particular movie is playing by us and physically go to see it and yet we still manage to get our homework done.)  After the problem with enforcing that rule you still have the problem of what films/performances get nominated in the first place.  I can't vote Lupita if she's not even nominated.  But I think weeding out those who can't even be bothered to watch all nominated films (a lot of which get multiple noms so several birds/one stone.  Yay!) makes progress towards a group that is interested in seeing as many films as possible leading up to the nominations process. But as I said up thread it feels like it's like turning the Titanic around.

[Ms Blue Jay]

16 minutes ago, kiddo82 said:

  I can't vote Lupita if she's not even nominated.  

How are the nominees chosen?

This horrible guy was like "It's ridiculous to expect Hollywood people to watch all of the movies".  Excuse me?  They have more money and time than anyone!  Even the lower rung people in Hollywood who are actually in the Academy have way more time and money than me, and I watched 200 movies total last year (not all 2019 releases, just any releases.)

The way he TALKS and his POINTS are SUPER ANNOYING.  If you're invited to the Academy it's a privilege.  Why even vote if you're not knowledgeable of what you're voting on?  Bleeeechhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Ms Blue Jay

[kiddo82]

51 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

 

The way he TALKS and his POINTS are SUPER ANNOYING.  If you're invited to the Academy it's a privilege.  Why even vote if you're not knowledgeable of what you're voting on?  Bleeeechhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

I get it.  You can't watch every single movie submitted.  However, if I'm a diligent member I at least have my finger on the pulse.  Maybe a movie like Us just isn't my jam.  Maybe I wasn't  initially planning on seeing it for fun or consideration.  Or maybe I am just too busy to fit it in.  I would like to think that in spite of all that, all the raves about the lead actress' performance, an actress that my organization has already honored, would pique my curiosity and I'd be open to checking it out. It would kind of be my job.  Again, I'm just a private citizen and it's not my job but I've seen many a movie I haven't otherwise been inclined to see because of word of mouth. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by kiddo82