2020 Awards Season

[Irlandesa]

2 hours ago, AshleyN said:

To be honest, I think at least part of the problem is that women only seem to get nominated when there's an "overwhelming consensus choice". You pretty much never see female directors get nominated as a fringe fourth/fifth nominee* -- they have to be undeniable.

Yep.  Todd Phillips is nominated with a film that sits at 69% on Rotten Tomatoes and 59% on Metacritic.  I get critics aren't the be all/end all when it comes to judging a movie's quality but it's pretty telling when critics value more diverse voices/types of movies than those handing out awards. 

4 hours ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

"I have to set aside a slot for at least one woman. Now, which of these others should I remove?" It seems to me logical that in some years there's going to be an overwhelming consensus choice, a Bigelow/Hurt Locker or a Gerwig/Lady Bird, and in some other years, not as obviously. 

I think a lot of voters feel that way and frankly, it's part of the problem.  They don't value films women make.  They don't have women top of mind.  They see voting for a woman as doing some kind of duty and there are probably people exasperated that this has come up again because my goodness, they  just nominated Greta Gerwig two years ago.  Isn't that enough?

God forbid one point out that maybe two women deserve a nomination. What if men were *gasp* the minority in the category?

Nominees:

Sam Mendes/1917:  Current Rotten Tomatoes score 93% Metacritic 84
Martin Scorsese/The Irishman:  RT score 96 Metacritic 94
Todd Phillips/The Joker:  RT 69% Metacritic: 59
Quentin Tarantino/OATIH: RT 85% Metacritic 83
Bong Joon Ho/Parasite: RT 99% Metacritic 96

The women mentioned above
Greta Gerwig/Little Women: RT 96% Metacritic 91
Marielle Heller/ABDITN: RT 95% Metacritic 80
Olivia Wilde/Booksmart: RT 97% Metacritic 84
Melina Matsoukas/Queen & Slim: RT 83% Metacritic 75
Lulu Wang/The Farewell: RT 99% Metacritic 89%
Mati Diop/Atlantics: RT 95% Metacritic 85
Lorne Scarfia/Hustlers: RT 88 Metacritic 79
Chinonye Chukwu/Clemency: RT 98% Metacritic 76
Céline Sciamma/Portrait of a Lady On Fire: RT 97% Metacritic 95

Of the movies those 9 women directed

• All 9 have a higher RT score than Todd Phillips
• 8 have a higher RT score than Quentin Tarantino
• 7 have a higher RT score than Sam Mendes
• 5 have a higher RT score than Martin Scorse
• Both groups have one director with a 99% RT score
• All have a higher Metacritic score than Phillips
• 5 have a higher than (or equal to) Metacritic score as Tarantino and Mendes
• 1 is higher than Scorse

I get that there it's more complex than critic scores and there are movies directed by men with better critical notices that were also ignored but it's just kind of amazing how women directors with successful movies get ignored year after year after year. 

 

[Simon Boccanegra]

2 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

What if men were *gasp* the minority in the category?

Well, I legitimately would have gasped if the announced nominees for 2019 had been a lineup of Lulu Wang, Greta Gerwig, Marielle Heller, Lorne Scarfia, and Martin Scorsese. These days, we all have access to various predictions in the days before nominations are announced, so true shocks are rare. Some of the women on Alma Har'el's list were on the second and third tiers of possibilities; none was considered a lock.   

It may happen someday that there are at least three female finalists for best director in one of the significant competitions, but I think it's some time off, partly just on the basis of statistical reality. Women in recent years have directed within a range of 8 to 11 percent of the movies released, and only a fraction of movies released are awards contenders. Plus, so many of the established "great directors" are male, and usually at least a few of them will have something new in a given year.     

Phillips's Joker film was one of those polarizing ones that turn a lot of people off but also have passionate supporters. So he was the closest thing to a surprise. I will not be surprised if the Oscars' equivalent of this category is the same as the Golden Globes', but with Noah Baumbach replacing Phillips, as Marriage Story seems to be picking up steam. Scorsese, Jong-ho and Tarantino seem sure things. (Edit: Almodóvar's another wildcard, but he could just get relegated to the Foreign-Language ghetto.) 

Quote

I get critics aren't the be all/end all when it comes to judging a movie's quality but it's pretty telling when critics value more diverse voices/types of movies than those handing out awards

But one thing critics and awards voters do have in common is that both a good review and a name or title on a ballot are an endorsement of something, rather than a vote against something else. When a critic writes a good review of a film s/he's just seen, it's about that film as an experience in isolation. I don't think many people who chose Scorsese, Tarantino, Mendes, et al., for the year's best directors were thinking about keeping other people out, even though others directed good films too.

Even when the Best Picture Oscar goes to something I believe doesn't deserve it and is going to age terribly as a representation of that year (which happens more often than not, frankly), I don't doubt that in the moment, the people who voted for it really thought it was the best of the choices. Sometimes I'll actually know people who think the dumb thing was as good as movies get. And that's the depressing thought on which to conclude: in matters of taste, there really are no resolvable disputes.  

Edited December 10, 2019 by Simon Boccanegra

[Irlandesa]

59 minutes ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

Plus, so many of the established "great directors" are male, and usually at least a few of them will have something new in a given year.     

But I think this is part of the problem.  How does one get established as a "great director?"  It's usually by doing a quality film and getting nominated for big awards.  That increases the likelihood that their next supremely well received project will also be considered a "lock". But if women don't get nominated, then their path to becoming an "established great director" in the film snob/nominating committees' minds becomes extremely narrow if not almost completely closed off.  They'll never be a "lock."

Heck, even with a nomination the path is tough as I think people look at nominations for women directors as being in response to the protests regardless of how well received their movie is while sneaking in a Bong Joon Ho is treated as just a nice surprise.

It makes the problem systematic and not something that can be in the same category as other good movies by good directors that were ignored.

[Ms Blue Jay]

To add to Irlandesa's point, even when female directors do an incredible job, they're often ignored afterwards.  Amy Heckerling's career is a good example of this.  The movie she directed in 2007 was direct to DVD.  Yet, we all know she is an established and successful director.  "Look Who's Talking" made $300 million on a $7 million budget.

Box Office of 3 movies directed by women:

WAYNE'S WORLD $183 million
50 SHADES OF GREY $570 million
TWILIGHT $400 million
MAMMA MIA $600 million

Why were the sequels of these movies all given to male directors afterwards?  Sequels are almost always guaranteed to make more money, yet the women, who made all sorts of money for the studios, were removed from the projects?

Female directors are constantly climbing an uphill battle.  There was no reason why Todd Phillips had to be nominated for Best Director this year.  Quentin is also iffy.  I find that movie very overrated.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Ms Blue Jay

[Ms Blue Jay]

17 hours ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

However...Scorsese, Joon-Ho, Tarantino, Mendes, and Phillips are a strong group, and at least three of them were all but automatic, based on the acclaim for their films and the impossibility of separating the films from what they did as directors. I don't think I'd want a situation in which people are filling out ballots and thinking, "I have to set aside a slot for at least one woman. Now, which of these others should I remove?" 

This framing is a little odd.  Why is it assumed that all the slots would naturally be filled by men, and that you'd have to "remove one" to make room for a woman?

Edited December 10, 2019 by Ms Blue Jay

[Popples]

1 hour ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Box Office of 3 movies directed by women:

WAYNE'S WORLD $183 million
TWILIGHT $400 million
MAMMA MIA $600 million

Why were the sequels of these movies all given to male directors afterwards?  Sequels are almost always guaranteed to make more money, yet the women, who made all sorts of money for the studios, were removed from the projects?

I haven't seen the other two movies, but Penelope Spheeris and Mike Meyers didn't get along during the filming of the first Wayne's World, and apparently Mike Meyers didn't want her directing the sequel.

[Ms Blue Jay]

55 minutes ago, Popples said:

I haven't seen the other two movies, but Penelope Spheeris and Mike Meyers didn't get along during the filming of the first Wayne's World, and apparently Mike Meyers didn't want her directing the sequel.

It's the same with author EL James and female director Sam Taylor Johnson who directed 50 Shades of Grey apparently.

But still, this sucks.  Women are often labelled "difficult" and drove out of projects to make room for men.

50 Shades made $570 million on a $40 million budget.  Guess who directed BOTH sequels?  A man named James Foley!  And he failed to make as much money as the woman did.

I bet you Quentin Tarantino is not that easy to get along with.  What about the stories of Uma Thurman on the set of Kill Bill?  I'm sure the sets of 50 Shades and Wayne's World never got this violent.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/02/uma-thurman-crash-footage-kill-bill-instagram

Edited December 10, 2019 by Ms Blue Jay

[Dejana]

11 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

It's the same with author EL James and female director Sam Taylor Johnson who directed 50 Shades of Grey apparently.

But still, this sucks.  Women are often labelled "difficult" and drove out of projects to make room for men.

50 Shades made $570 million on a $40 million budget.  Guess who directed BOTH sequels?  A man named James Foley!  And he failed to make as much money as the woman did.

I bet you Quentin Tarantino is not that easy to get along with.  What about the stories of Uma Thurman on the set of Kill Bill?  I'm sure the sets of 50 Shades and Wayne's World never got this violent.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/02/uma-thurman-crash-footage-kill-bill-instagram

In the case of the 50 Shades franchise, EL James had an incredible amount of input with the adaptation, was on set frequently and even during the promotional tour, the director openly spoke of their clashes about pretty much everything related to the film. 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fifty-shades-cray-inside-story-772282

If STJ left/was pushed out of the later 50 Shades movies, it was another woman's doing (EL James). The screenwriter for the first movie was also a woman, who got replaced for the sequels by EL James' husband. I guess the real way for a woman to have true power in Hollywood is to come there with a fortune in the bank already and a commodity the studios desperately want? 

*

I don't think it is a coincidence that Kathryn Bigelow won an Oscar for directing The Hurt Locker and not something typically "feminine". If a movie is about men at war then it must be "important".  I don't resent war movies or movies about men, but the idea that films need to be about certain sorts of things/people to be "worthy" of awards, holds back movies about/by women in big categories like Best Picture or Best Director. I feel like this tendency with Oscar is getting worse, and there were more female-centric movies winning big in the 1980-90s?

* 

Joker shows the limits of gauging movie's reception based solely on a Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic score. Some 69 percents are all the critics saying, "It was good, I guess?" and other 69 percent RT scores mean "It was a timely masterpiece!" that wins the Venice Film Festival yet is simultaneously irresponsible, inflammatory garbage that could incite bedlam, according to others. I do think a fair share of its American reviews will be consigned to the scrap heap along with other moral panics throughout movie history, in the not so distant future. But in the current awards landscape, I have a hard time picturing a movie about/by women contending in major categories, with a similarly polarizing critical reception as Joker, especially if it were from a genre Oscar has been reluctant to take seriously. Mad Max: Fury Road got strong reviews from critics, but I remember WB taking a long time to shift gears from thinking its big Oscar push that year would be Black Mass, a more typical sort of awards play (male-centric, biopic, period mob movie).

Edited December 11, 2019 by Dejana

[Simon Boccanegra]

15 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

This framing is a little odd.  Why is it assumed that all the slots would naturally be filled by men, and that you'd have to "remove one" to make room for a woman?

In the case of Golden Globes 2020, it isn't an assumption. Five men clearly did have the most support, which is why this conversation is going on. But I'll put the question to you. If you were filling out the director category on a ballot for an awards organization, you had however many slots to fill, and your first choices were all men, would you swap one or more of the names out in order to be more gender-inclusive? Assume none of the women that particular year was among your top choices, but several good female directors were on the bubble. 

It's an understandable impulse, but I don't fault people for not doing it.  

In any case, one of the producers of the Globes now has floated the idea of expanding the category to more than five names. That would allow more people to have "Golden Globe-nominated director" before their names, but I don't know if it's a good solution to anything.

Mind you, after a decade, I still don't like the Academy's expansion of its Best Picture category to as many as ten titles, even though I know it was a reversion to the rules of the '30s and '40s.  

Quote

I bet you Quentin Tarantino is not that easy to get along with.  What about the stories of Uma Thurman on the set of Kill Bill?  I'm sure the sets of 50 Shades and Wayne's World never got this violent.

It's hard to compare Tarantino to Penelope Spheeris or Sam Taylor-Johnson on those films you mention, though. Columbia/Sony didn't decide to make a movie this year about Hollywood in 1969 and hire Tarantino to direct it. He conceives the projects he writes and directs.   

One way I think women have historically been at a disadvantage in accumulating a significant body of work is that they were not allowed to fail. A Michael Cimino could fail on a scale serious enough to bankrupt a studio (Heaven's Gate) and still have a directing career. In fact, he never had another successful movie after his first, and it's not as though his post-Deer Hunter movies were heralded as artistic triumphs that brought prestige to all involved even though they lost money. But Elaine May never got to direct a film again after Ishtar; her past successes became distant memories. There are other examples.    

Kathryn Bigelow was one of the fortunate ones. She had more than one costly flop, such as Strange Days (well regarded by many today, but a mega-bomb in 1995), but somehow hung in there to have a great second act.  

Edited December 11, 2019 by Simon Boccanegra

[Ms Blue Jay]

13 hours ago, Dejana said:

If STJ left/was pushed out of the later 50 Shades movies, it was another woman's doing (EL James). 

I am aware that EL James is a woman.

SAG nominations were released today.

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/2020-sag-nominations-list-nominees-screen-actors-guild-awards-1203430551/

Edited December 11, 2019 by Ms Blue Jay

[AshleyN]

37 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I am aware that EL James is a woman.

SAG nominations were released today.

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/2020-sag-nominations-list-nominees-screen-actors-guild-awards-1203430551/

To expand:

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role:

Christian Bale (“Ford v Ferrari”)
Leonardo DiCaprio (“Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”)
Adam Driver (“Marriage Story”)
Taron Egerton (“Rocketman”)
Joaquin Phoenix (“Joker”)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role:

Cynthia Erivo (“Harriet”)
Scarlett Johansson (“Marriage Story”)
Lupita Nyong’o (“Us”)
Charlize Theron (“Bombshell”)
Renée Zellweger (“Judy”)

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role:

Jamie Foxx (“Just Mercy”)
Tom Hanks (“A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood”)
Al Pacino (“The Irishman”)
Joe Pesci (“The Irishman”)
Brad Pitt (“Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”)

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role:

Laura Dern (“Marriage Story”)
Scarlett Johansson (“Jojo Rabbit”)
Nicole Kidman (“Bombshell”)
Jennifer Lopez (“Hustlers”)
Margot Robbie (“Bombshell”)

Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture:

“Bombshell” (Lionsgate)
“The Irishman” (Netflix)
“Jojo Rabbit” (Fox)
“Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” (Sony)
“Parasite” (Neon)

...

That ensemble nomination is a huge get for Parasite. SAG tends to lean populist and they basically never nominate foreign language performances -- even the ones that go on to be nominated at the Oscars (I'm guessing Antonio Banderas will continue that trend this year). For comparison's sake, Roma was shut out here last year. I already thought it was in for nominations in Picture/Director, but how seriously should we be taking it for the win I wonder?

On the flip side, Marriage Story missing ensemble despite three individual nominations isn't a great sign.

Little Women was shut out by the Art Directors Guild, Costume Designers Guild (which should have been a gimme), and now here. Yikes. It really looks like skipping the festival circuit was a mistake.

[Ms Blue Jay]

I'm happy about a lot of these nominations, but someone I follow was upset about Antonio Banderas being snubbed, and mentioned Adam Sandler being snubbed (again).  I'm always interested in the snubs so I'm curious what others think.  But, I am really happy about Lupita, Taron, Tom, Leo.  Obviously, there's a bunch I haven't seen - Irishman, Parasite, Judy.  So far, reactions to Bombshell aren't that great.  63% on RottenTomatoes, meanwhile Uncut Gems sits at 95%!  (Just happened to be on the homepage when I clicked.)

(removed TV awards talk - not sure)

Edited December 11, 2019 by Ms Blue Jay

[proserpina65]

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 12:07 PM, Ms Blue Jay said:

Box Office of 3 movies directed by women:

WAYNE'S WORLD $183 million
50 SHADES OF GREY $570 million
TWILIGHT $400 million
MAMMA MIA $600 million

While I don't disagree with your argument, at least two of these movies are not good examples, as they are terrible films.

19 hours ago, Dejana said:

If STJ left/was pushed out of the later 50 Shades movies, it was another woman's doing (EL James). The screenwriter for the first movie was also a woman, who got replaced for the sequels by EL James' husband. I guess the real way for a woman to have true power in Hollywood is to come there with a fortune in the bank already and a commodity the studios desperately want? 

Yep, in that particular case, it wasn't some male studio boss or producer who wanted to get rid of the female director.  It was the female writer/producer.

[Ms Blue Jay]

17 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

While I don't disagree with your argument, at least two of these movies are not good examples, as they are terrible films.

Yep, in that particular case, it wasn't some male studio boss or producer who wanted to get rid of the female director.  It was the female writer/producer.

I like all of those 4 films, but my point was about box office numbers, so I think that the examples are sound.

I also never argued that male studio bosses or producers drove out women.  Just that the studio - or whoever - drove out the female director or removed her from the project and then gave it to a man.  That's it.  I simply pointed out that Sam Taylor Johnson is a woman because the name Sam is ambiguous.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Ms Blue Jay

[proserpina65]

12 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

like all of those 4 films, but my point was about box office numbers, so I think that the examples are sound.

I meant in the sense of getting award nominations.  50 Shades of Gray would only have gotten Razzie nominations because it is terrible (so are the books) and the same goes for Twilight.  Yes, they made a lot of money, but they were never award-worthy.

13 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

also never argued that male studio bosses or producers drove out women.  Just that the studio - or whoever - drove out the female director or removed her from the project and then gave it to a man. 

Except in that case it was not the studio who kept Sam Taylor Johnson from directing the 50 Shades sequels, it was E.L. James herself.  And James who insisted that a man (her husband) be the screenwriter.  A lot can be laid at the feet of studio execs, but not in the case of the 50 Shades sequels.

[Ms Blue Jay]

I never personally said that they are "award worthy".  Do you think other directors could have adapted 50 Shades and Twilight into being movies that would be more "award worthy"?   I looked up Twilight, and its accolades section is surprisingly big:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_(2008_film)#Accolades

That's why I said "studio - or whoever".  And I never mentioned screenwriting, only directing.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Ms Blue Jay

[AshleyN]

6 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I'm happy about a lot of these nominations, but someone I follow was upset about Antonio Banderas being snubbed, and mentioned Adam Sandler being snubbed (again).  I'm always interested in the snubs so I'm curious what others think.  But, I am really happy about Lupita, Taron, Tom, Leo.  Obviously, there's a bunch I haven't seen - Irishman, Parasite, Judy.  So far, reactions to Bombshell aren't that great.  63% on RottenTomatoes, meanwhile Uncut Gems sits at 95%!  (Just happened to be on the homepage when I clicked.)

I think Banderas still has a really good shot at the Oscars -- like I said earlier SAG nominations tend to be restricted to more mainstream stuff and they almost never nominate foreign-language performances (which is why the Parasite nomination is a genuinely big deal). The Oscars on the other hand use a preferential ballot system that rewards passion picks and their membership is much more international (especially after the huge influx of new voters the last couple of years, of which many were foreign).

Sandler on the other hand is hurt by the combination of how small-scale his film is and the fact that Best Actor is just a really competitive category this year -- look no further than the fact that a bona fide legend in Robert De Niro might miss for giving his most acclaimed performance in years (decades?) in a Best Picture frontrunner. I think he really would have needed to be THE clear critics choice in order to have a shot, but even that didn't happen with Banderas and Driver sucking up all the oxygen there.

[topanga]

On 12/10/2019 at 2:32 PM, Ms Blue Jay said:

It's the same with author EL James and female director Sam Taylor Johnson who directed 50 Shades of Grey apparently.

But still, this sucks.  Women are often labelled "difficult" and drove out of projects to make room for men.

This absolutely sucks. Stanley Kubrick was a notoriously difficult director who was terrible to his actors, especially women. But did this hamper his career? No. It was lauded as being part of his ‘genius.’ GMAFB.

15 hours ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

One way I think women have historically been at a disadvantage in accumulating a significant body of work is that they were not allowed to fail. A Michael Cimino could fail on a scale serious enough to bankrupt a studio (Heaven's Gate) and still have a directing career. In fact, he never had another successful movie after his first, and it's not as though his post-Deer Hunter movies were heralded as artistic triumphs that brought prestige to all involved even though they lost money. But Elaine May never got to direct a film again after Ishtar; 

So true. And the same screwed-up principle applies to directors of color, too.

[Ms Blue Jay]

3 hours ago, topanga said:

This absolutely sucks. Stanley Kubrick was a notoriously difficult director who was terrible to his actors, especially women. But did this hamper his career? No. It was lauded as being part of his ‘genius.’ GMAFB.

So true. And the same screwed-up principle applies to directors of color, too.

Another one is David O. Russell.  George Clooney notoriously got in a physical fight with him (Three Kings) and there are recordings of him berating Lily Tomlin (I Heart Huckabees).  Imagine berating a legendary actress to make THAT movie.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Ms Blue Jay

[Simon Boccanegra]

Russell also verbally abused Amy Adams on American Hustle. She said a couple years later that she wouldn't work with him again, at least not any time soon, even though she had received acclaim and awards attention for both of her collaborations with him, that one and The Fighter. ("It's not OK with me. Life to me is more important than movies [...] It really taught me how to separate work and home. Because I was like, I cannot bring this experience home with me to my daughter"). 

Often when I hear her praise one of her other directors now, like Denis Villeneuve (who seems to be an especially generous and collaborative person) or Paul Thomas Anderson, I can detect a bit of "unlike some people who shall remain nameless" under it. She and Nicole Kidman were doing one of those actor-interviewing-actor things, and Kidman said she loves "tough" directors (I think she mentioned Kubrick), and Adams pointedly said that she does too...except when the screaming starts. 

(DIsclosure: I like a lot of Russell's work, and it was apparent to me that he had something special from the start, with Spanking the Monkey and Flirting with Disaster. But there's no excuse for how he reportedly runs his sets.) 

[truthaboutluv]

I started writing a post breaking down my thoughts on how I think these categories will all shape up, now having seen how the Critics Choice, Globes and SAG Awards have gone. But it started getting really, really long, so I just decided to make it a blog post for my Pop Culture blog.

Breaking Down the 2020 Oscar Race

[JBC344]

On 12/12/2019 at 5:20 AM, Simon Boccanegra said:

Russell also verbally abused Amy Adams on American Hustle. She said a couple years later that she wouldn't work with him again, at least not any time soon, even though she had received acclaim and awards attention for both of her collaborations with him, that one and The Fighter. ("It's not OK with me. Life to me is more important than movies [...] It really taught me how to separate work and home. Because I was like, I cannot bring this experience home with me to my daughter"). 

Often when I hear her praise one of her other directors now, like Denis Villeneuve (who seems to be an especially generous and collaborative person) or Paul Thomas Anderson, I can detect a bit of "unlike some people who shall remain nameless" under it. She and Nicole Kidman were doing one of those actor-interviewing-actor things, and Kidman said she loves "tough" directors (I think she mentioned Kubrick), and Adams pointedly said that she does too...except when the screaming starts. 

(DIsclosure: I like a lot of Russell's work, and it was apparent to me that he had something special from the start, with Spanking the Monkey and Flirting with Disaster. But there's no excuse for how he reportedly runs his sets.) 

Just wanted to add to this. I know he still gets a lot of crap (unfairly IMO) about the yelling incident on Terminator but I love that Christian Bale got in David's face and threatened him about the way he was treating Amy on American Hustle. 

[Irlandesa]

On 12/11/2019 at 2:43 AM, Simon Boccanegra said:

Assume none of the women that particular year was among your top choices, but several good female directors were on the bubble. 

It's an understandable impulse, but I don't fault people for not doing it.

I do fault them for not seeing contention-worthy movies?

So the ballot scenario is, I think, the tip of the iceberg and presumes that voters have seen all of the movies likely to be in contention before they fill it out.  But that's often not the case.  Voters should see all the movies in contention but often don't and when voters are mostly one gender (~72% male for the Oscars), female-focused movies are more likely to get skipped than another war movie. 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by Irlandesa

[Simon Boccanegra]

Every year, there are those anonymous-voter pieces after the nominations in which people admit they didn't see everything. They turned off Gosford Park after 15 minutes because they couldn't keep the characters sorted; they didn't watch Brokeback Mountain because it makes them uncomfortable; they didn't watch Amour because they hated some other movie the director made; they didn't watch Manchester by the Sea because they heard it was depressing, and so on. If Academy members are that negligent even when they have a finite number of titles and a deadline, I'm less than surprised that members of the HFPA didn't watch everything potentially good leading up to the balloting.   

I just don't think there's a way to create a perfect system and then to supervise it. I'm even less sure there will ever be a year when nominees are announced for any film awards (or any music awards, or television awards) and everyone will be pleased with all the choices.

However, as you mention "another war movie" specifically, is 1917 one you feel was an unworthy entrant in the Globes's dramatic category? 

[Irlandesa]

13 hours ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

However, as you mention "another war movie" specifically, is 1917 one you feel was an unworthy entrant in the Globes's dramatic category? 

I didn't say it was unworthy.  I said it was seen.  And I referred to it mainly because of its end-of-the-year release. In fact, it doesn't start going beyond the coasts until Jan. So voters actually made an effort to see it.

[proserpina65]

On ‎12‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 4:15 PM, Irlandesa said:

I didn't say it was unworthy.  I said it was seen.  And I referred to it mainly because of its end-of-the-year release. In fact, it doesn't start going beyond the coasts until Jan. So voters actually made an effort to see it.

I imagine they must've been sent dvds or streamed it somehow, because it wasn't released to theaters until Christmas day.  Or maybe there were some special screenings for members of the foreign press association.  I'm not really sure how that works.

[Irlandesa]

6 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

I imagine they must've been sent dvds or streamed it somehow, because it wasn't released to theaters until Christmas day.  Or maybe there were some special screenings for members of the foreign press association.  I'm not really sure how that works.

Yes, all movies looking to be in contention tend to send out screeners to voters.  But studios also hold screenings in movie theaters for voters and the article was talking about the demographic who showed up to those screenings. 

[absnow54]

With the Golden Globes last night, I think Laura Dern has thrown a wrench in Jennifer Lopez's path to Oscar glory. If J.Lo was going to win a major award this season, it would have been the Golden Globes. Laura Dern has been laying the path to world domination the last few years, so I really think the Oscar is hers to lose now.

I think Best Actor is still an open race between Driver and Phoenix. Phoenix has a way of torpedoing his own campaign. We'll see if the SAG shakes this up.

The only way Scarlett Johannson is beating Renee Zellweger is if they can push the "but she already has one!" narrative (although she only has one for supporting and not lead...)

I also think Brad is a lock for Best Supporting at this point, if only due to a lack of competition. Seems like a very mediocre category this year.

I feel like Best Picture/Best Director is still a toss up, but Boon Joon Ho raised a good point in his acceptance speech, that little 1 inch of subtitles is a difficult barrier for foreign films to overcome.

[methodwriter85]

2 hours ago, absnow54 said:

I think Best Actor is still an open race between Driver and Phoenix. Phoenix has a way of torpedoing his own campaign. We'll see if the SAG shakes this up.

Phoenix is absolutely horrible at media. He always has been. I can see him losing that Oscar if he pisses off too many people.

Quote

Laura Dern has been laying the path to world domination the last few years, so I really think the Oscar is hers to lose now.

Her narrative is really close to Patricia Arquette's at the time she won her Oscar- Gen X actress from a family in the business who was a quirky ingenue in her youth, never became the A-list leading lady, made a comeback in t.v., and put out some really good work in movies and t.v. leading up to her win.

Anyway, I'm freaking shocked that Awkwafina won the Golden Globes for the Farewell. It was such a fantastic little movie but it came out like in the summer.

Edited January 6, 2020 by methodwriter85

[absnow54]

2 minutes ago, methodwriter85 said:

Her narrative is really close to Patricia Arquette's at the time she won her Oscar- Gen X actress from a family in the business who was a quirky ingenue in her youth, never became the A-list leading lady, made a comeback in t.v., and put out some really good work in movies and t.v. leading up to her win.

Laura even more so, look at how many roots she had planted in the room last night! She had a seat with Marriage Story, Little Women, Big Little Lies, and then popped up in a clip from Ellen's show!

[methodwriter85]

4 minutes ago, absnow54 said:

Laura even more so, look at how many roots she had planted in the room last night! She had a seat with Marriage Story, Little Women, Big Little Lies, and then popped up in a clip from Ellen's show!

I think at this point she's outdoing Sarah Paulson, who has been in like everything. LOL.

[Dejana]

The prognosticators always claim someone's going to lose the Oscar because they gave a bad/awkward speech at a precursor and it will turn off the voters. The only time I remember someone's award show antics likely ruined their Oscar hopes was when Russell Crowe physically attacked a TV exec about his BAFTA speech getting trimmed from the broadcast, the year he was nominated for A Beautiful Mind. 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/feb/26/broadcasting

 

Who knows if AMPAS really would have been willing to give Crowe Best Actor back-to-back, but Russell's antics that year didn't help his cause. 

As for Joaquin Phoenix, it's well known that he's never been the slick, glib movie star type. As long as the talk about him sticks to "Yeah, he's a bit strange but what a talent!" he should be fine, though Joker is still a villain role in a comic book adaptation, and there will be voters who just can't take it seriously. The condensed season will probably limit how much these outside narratives can take hold. Award reporters have noted many voters being unaware of the voting deadlines being as soon as they are, so there might be some WTF nods and snubs come Oscar nomination morning.

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Dejana

[Irlandesa]

16 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

Phoenix is absolutely horrible at media. He always has been. I can see him losing that Oscar if he pisses off too many people.

He has already won an Oscar.  And they love the misunderstood (let's face it, typically white male) genius artiste in Hollywood. He's going to have to do a lot more than be awkward or bad at media to lose the Oscar.

Right now in the critics groups (LA critics, NY, many other regional groups) the choices for best actor have been mostly split between Adam Driver, Adam Sandler and Antonio Banderas with Banderas winning the bigger groups (LA/NY,NSFC).

Oscar voters could definitely diverge from what the critics groups have been selecting but that won't mean Joaquin pissed them off. It'll just mean that there are other very strong candidates who are picking up awards. 

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Irlandesa

[truthaboutluv]

18 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

On 1/6/2020 at 11:07 AM, methodwriter85 said:

 

He has already won an Oscar

Joaquin Phoenix has never won an Oscar. He’s just been nominated a number of times - for Walk the Line, Her and I want to say The Master, but not sure on that one.

Editing to add that he wasn't nominated for Her, it was for Gladiator. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by truthaboutluv

[Dejana]

BAFTA nominations are out:

 

This is a group that's never nominated Denzel for acting, so I can't really be surprised at this point. To be fair, they have awarded other non-white actors before, especially if they are British. 

 

Also really not surprised by the Joker domination, as it was even bigger (relatively) in the UK, spending 6 weeks at #1 in the box office there. In Europe, there was also never the same degree of pre-emptive backlash it got in the US for being too dangerous/irresponsible to be released.  

[truthaboutluv]

I feel like Joker is this year's Bohemian Rhapsody. A film the critics were mixed about but the public loved. And so despite many thinking that only the lead actor would get a nomination, it will actually end up being a major player during the Awards Season. 

On 1/6/2020 at 9:41 AM, absnow54 said:

With the Golden Globes last night, I think Laura Dern has thrown a wrench in Jennifer Lopez's path to Oscar glory.

I think the narrative was always that Dern was going to win the Oscar but some saw J Lo winning the Globe because they feel that HFPA tends to go for the Hollywood stars. So most figured her best chance was there. But the consensus still, far as I was aware, was that Dern is winning the Oscar. 

That said, J Lo isn't completely out yet. The year Lupita Nyong'o won for 12 Years a Slave, she lost the Globe to Jennifer Lawrence. That said, I think it's Dern's year. 

On 1/6/2020 at 9:41 AM, absnow54 said:

I also think Brad is a lock for Best Supporting at this point, if only due to a lack of competition. Seems like a very mediocre category this year.

YMMV, I disagree with this. I thought Pacino and Pesci both gave stellar performances that easily could win, were it not for Brad being in the mix. And I thought Tom Hanks' performance was understatedly beautiful and powerful. Personally I think Supporting Actor is much stronger than Supporting Actress or hell even Best Actress. 

With Antonio Banderas not getting a BAFTA nod, I think he's done and the Best Actor race is solidly between Joaquin and Adam Driver. Though I guess don't count out Taron Egerton who I admit, I didn't think would even still be in the conversation at this point and he's somehow pulled out a SAG and now BAFTA nomination, which means all that's missing is the Oscar. 

[AshleyN]

1 hour ago, Dejana said:

BAFTA nominations are out:

This is a group that's never nominated Denzel for acting, so I can't really be surprised at this point. To be fair, they have awarded other non-white actors before, especially if they are British. 

 

Also really not surprised by the Joker domination, as it was even bigger (relatively) in the UK, spending 6 weeks at #1 in the box office there. In Europe, there was also never the same degree of pre-emptive backlash it got in the US for being too dangerous/irresponsible to be released.  

Morgan Freeman, either, if I'm not mistaken. But yeah, BAFTA's issues with POC, and especially black actors, are notorious among awards watchers by now.

I'm not sure it'll be that much better at the Oscars though. I doubt there will be a full #Oscarssowhite again, as at least one of Lupita/Awkwafina/Cynthia Erivo is likely getting into best actress (maybe two, given what a no1curr Bombshell turned out to be), and JLo still looks good for a nomination at least. Beyond that though, who's even in contention? Maybe Song Kang-ho for Parasite gets in as a passion pick, given how up-for-grabs that fifth slot in supporting actor is?

[AshleyN]

PGA Nominations

1917

Ford v Ferrari

The Irishman

Jojo Rabbit

Joker

Knives Out

Little Women

Marriage Story

Once Upon a Time in… Hollywood

Parasite

DGA Nominations

Bong Joon Ho, “Parasite”

Sam Mendes, “1917”

Martin Scorsese, “The Irishman”

Quentin Tarantino, “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”

Taika Waititi, “Jojo Rabbit”

Looks like the first four are pretty much locked in, with the fifth spot a complete toss-up. I wouldn't be surprised to see any of Waititi, Phillips, Baumbach, Gerwig, or even Pedro Almodovar take it.

Edited January 7, 2020 by AshleyN

[Shannon L.]

I wonder why Rocketman wasn't nominated for Best Costume?

[Ms Blue Jay]

11 hours ago, truthaboutluv said:

I feel like Joker is this year's Bohemian Rhapsody. A film the critics were mixed about but the public loved. And so despite many thinking that only the lead actor would get a nomination, it will actually end up being a major player during the Awards Season. 

I think the narrative was always that Dern was going to win the Oscar but some saw J Lo winning the Globe because they feel that HFPA tends to go for the Hollywood stars. So most figured her best chance was there. But the consensus still, far as I was aware, was that Dern is winning the Oscar. 

That said, J Lo isn't completely out yet. The year Lupita Nyong'o won for 12 Years a Slave, she lost the Globe to Jennifer Lawrence. That said, I think it's Dern's year. 

YMMV, I disagree with this. I thought Pacino and Pesci both gave stellar performances that easily could win, were it not for Brad being in the mix. And I thought Tom Hanks' performance was understatedly beautiful and powerful. Personally I think Supporting Actor is much stronger than Supporting Actress or hell even Best Actress. 

With Antonio Banderas not getting a BAFTA nod, I think he's done and the Best Actor race is solidly between Joaquin and Adam Driver. Though I guess don't count out Taron Egerton who I admit, I didn't think would even still be in the conversation at this point and he's somehow pulled out a SAG and now BAFTA nomination, which means all that's missing is the Oscar. 

Look, I like Brad but I CANNOT believe he beat all those actors out. What a fucking joke.  His role in OUATIH are you kidding me foreign press?!!?!?!?  Tom Hanks was INCREDIBLE in the Mr. Rogers movie.  I haven't gotten through The Irishman yet but there's no way I am going to think Brad was more worthy than the actors in that.  Unfortunately it seems like Hollywood at large is dead. fucking set. on making sure Brad wins awards for this role for SOME reason.  Being old yet hot, I guess?

To make matters worse, BAFTA nominates Margot Robbie for OUATIH too, my god, what the hell?  She barely does a thing!

I actually like Brad and Margot, so these are not personal biases.  I freaking hate Scarlett J. and yet I think she is deserving of nominations for Marriage Story.

I was really happy for Taron, Awkwafina, Parasite, and Renee Zellweger.  The audience was so. damn. COLD to Renee as if she didn't deserve it.  Well I think she did.  The movie was just okay but I always think she is damn fantastic.  I was really, really happy for her.  Besides Taron I would have been happy with Eddie or Leo, so thank god one of the three of them actually won.

Best Actress, I've made it clear.  Lupita should win everything.  BAFTAs are a fucking joke and Globes are not that far behind them.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Ms Blue Jay

[Ms Blue Jay]

11 hours ago, AshleyN said:

I'm not sure it'll be that much better at the Oscars though. I doubt there will be a full #Oscarssowhite again, as at least one of Lupita/Awkwafina/Cynthia Erivo is likely getting into best actress (maybe two, given what a no1curr Bombshell turned out to be),

If no1curr than how the hell did they get 3 nominations at the BAFTAs?  

It makes me really sick when it feels like voters are just like, quick, quick, what were the big white movies this year?  And then breathlessly votes in whoever's in that.

[Ms Blue Jay]

On 12/11/2019 at 12:06 PM, Ms Blue Jay said:

I'm happy about a lot of these nominations, but someone I follow was upset about Antonio Banderas being snubbed, and mentioned Adam Sandler being snubbed (again).  I'm always interested in the snubs so I'm curious what others think.  But, I am really happy about Lupita, Taron, Tom, Leo.  Obviously, there's a bunch I haven't seen - Irishman, Parasite, Judy.  So far, reactions to Bombshell aren't that great.  63% on RottenTomatoes, meanwhile Uncut Gems sits at 95%!  (Just happened to be on the homepage when I clicked.)

(removed TV awards talk - not sure)

Quoting myself, I have no idea why Sandler hasn't had a run at the major awards.

I have seen "Judy" now and I was really happy with Renee, but I always am.

[truthaboutluv]

47 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Look, I like Brad but I CANNOT believe he beat all those actors out. What a fucking joke.  His role in OUATIH are you kidding me foreign press?!!?!?!?  Tom Hanks was INCREDIBLE in the Mr. Rogers movie.  I haven't gotten through The Irishman yet but there's no way I am going to think Brad was more worthy than the actors in that.

YMMV, personally i think Brad has been underrated as an actor for a long time and so, I'm happy to see him finally have this moment. IMO, it's that very bias - i.e. it's Pacino, Pesci and Hanks, icons of acting - that typically would have made some just dismiss Brad without giving his performance a fair chance.

Because I do think for a long time Brad was dismissed as the pretty boy hearthrob. And in reality, he's done a lot of really interesting and great work over the years

38 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Quoting myself, I have no idea why Sandler hasn't had a run at the major awards.

Because he's this year's Ethan Hawke. A performance that the critics absolutely loved but was mostly ignored by the various guilds and voting bodies. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by truthaboutluv

[scarynikki12]

14 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

YMMV, personally i think Brad has been underrated as an actor for a long time and so personally, I'm happy to see him finally have this moment. IMO, it's that very bias - i.e. it's Pacino, Pesci and Hanks, icons of acting - that typically would have made some just dismiss Brad without giving his performance a fair chance. Because I do think for a long time Brad was dismissed as the pretty boy hearthrob. And in reality, he's done a lot of really interesting and great work over the years

I think it was back on TWOP where I remember reading someone describe Brad as a character actor stuck in a heartthrob's body. Which isn't a bad thing necessarily, as his face made him a superstar which then allowed him the financial security to do those character parts he loves so much as well as let him support some truly excellent filmmakers through Plan B. And I absolutely love that his (hopefully first) Oscar came from the production side. But the downside is that he was often overlooked for acting recognition because he was seen as nothing more than a Pretty Boy for so long. A likeable and well connected Pretty Boy but still. He may not win a second Oscar next month but I think it will be well deserved if he does.

[Ms Blue Jay]

There are roles he has deserved the Oscar for.  This one is not it.  Personally.

[absnow54]

8 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

There are roles he has deserved the Oscar for.  This one is not it.  Personally.

When has that stopped the Academy before? I feel like so many recent awards have been rewarding a career rather than a single performance. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

Personally I think it's nonsensical when there were several superior performances in the exact same category.

[truthaboutluv]

13 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Personally I think it's nonsensical when there were several superior performances in the exact same category.

At the end of the day, it's all subjective though. Which is why so many people don't take these award shows so seriously. One person can think a performance is amazing and another, not so much.

Because YMMV, while I do think Pesci and Pacino were good in The Irishman, because they always are, I couldn't help feeling like this isn't anything I haven't seen from them before. Similarly, Laura Dern is the favorite right now to win Supporting Actress for Marriage Story and having seen the film, I can't tell you why that is.

Sure, she was fun and she has one big moment in the film with a funny empowering speech about women and mothers. But is that alone Oscar worthy? I don't think so but she'll likely win and it's all good. 

And nowhere is the whole subjective thing more glaring than the conversation between Joaquin Phoenix and Adam Driver this year. For me, both actors were brilliant but brilliant in such different ways. So how do you really say one was better than the other? Joaquin's performance is loud, in your face with its brilliance. And of course, considering the character he's playing.

On the flipside, Driver's performance is very quiet and understated because it's a film about two people getting a divorce. You're watching it as if you're just watching two ordinary people. There are no bells and whistles. Just a normal, sad story about a marriage ending. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by truthaboutluv

[memememe76]

That is the thing with films featuring PoC. Movies like Hustlers, Us, and The Farewell have to be released early to garner critical raves and strong box office. They have earned “consideration.” 
 

But then they are penalized for the inevitable short term memory of voters. Movies like Bombshell or Little Women or 1917 can get away with late releases because they have built in cachet, credibility. Voters will go out of their way to see it. Would Bombshell be remembered for anything if it was released the same time as Hustlers?

[Ms Blue Jay]

I have no idea why nobody thinks Jordan Peele is one of the best directors this year for "Us" - I certainly do.  I'm just glad that Lupita has some traction even though the movie was released ages ago.  And I am asking rhetorically because I know what the arguments will be - it's horror, it's genre, he's black, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. excuses excuses excuses until the cows come home.