Oscar conversation

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Second question is totally fair and even more SHOULD be being asked - a lot.

First question is biased and loaded and not fair in the slightest.

Not wanting to veer into PBB (perhaps it is too late) but why do you see question one as biased and loaded? Does it seem impossible to you that the Academy might have its own set of prejudices?

Not meaning to provoke a conflict here - just genuinely confused as to why you see the my first and second questions as so disparate when I see them as two sides of the same coin.

[Tommac]

Saw Revenant last night and Leo certainly deserves a nomination and wouldn't surprise me if he wins. His performance was that good.

[gurufrisbee]

Not wanting to veer into PBB (perhaps it is too late) but why do you see question one as biased and loaded? Does it seem impossible to you that the Academy might have its own set of prejudices?

Not meaning to provoke a conflict here - just genuinely confused as to why you see the my first and second questions as so disparate when I see them as two sides of the same coin.

Impossible - no. But it's absolutely biased and loaded. It assumes that the Academy is being prejudiced racially. If the five best performances of a category for a year are all done by people of one race, then it's not prejudiced at all to have them be the five nominations. The assumption made in that first question is that the Academy is intentionally not nominating certain performances based on race. That's incredibly biased and very loaded. It's the same thing as saying that if Coach K starts five african american players that he isn't recognizing the efforts of any white players on his team. It makes a huge assumption that is overwhelmingly out of line, IMO.

It would even be different (although still questionable) if the Academy had never recognized any minority roles or if they had recently increased the number of nominees for those categories specifically with the mindset of wanting to expand to include a wider array of nominees. But the first is absolutely untrue (since 2000, 9 of the 60 acting awards have been WON by African Americans - who make up 13% of the population) and the second is only true about the Best Picture category - not about the acting ones.

[Bostondevil]

OK - so here's a list of reasons why I can't get worked up over the lack of color in the Oscar nominations.

1) Here's fun little article written by somebody who was trying to get a handle on how many actors are in LA. http://hollywoodsapien.com/2012/07/0...rs-are-in-l-a/ For arguments sake, let's accept his best guess but include all actors because you don't have to live in LA to be nominated for an Oscar and go with 135,800. Not all those actors make films, but still, let's use it. And let's also use the general figure that 80% of actors are out of work at any given time. It's a generally accepted figure even though I agree with the blog post that there is no real hard evidence supporting it that I can find sitting at my desk using Google. So, at any given time, 27,160 members of the film and television actors unions are working. The top 1.5% of SAG/AFTRA members don't have to pay any more in dues after they've paid whatever rate it is they have to pay on income above $500,000. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that any actor not in that top 1.5% will never be nominated for an Oscar. Perhaps some newbie from an indie film will get an Oscar nomination someday. Perhaps Gabourey Sidibe didn't make $500,000 for her lead role in Precious but I doubt it. Mo'Nique, who won the Oscar for her supporting performance, was also in that movie and her career is long established. I doubt the lead was paid less but I could be wrong. Anyway - that leaves a total of 2,025 actors who could conceivably win Oscars in any given year. When it comes to Oscars, we are talking about people whose income puts them in the 1% of Americans (I know, not all are American), if not quite the top 1% of professional actors. I profess that I do hope that group includes as many different type of people, including people of color, as possible. But, when it comes to Oscar nominations, which, let's face it, are determined by a bunch of rich people voting which other rich people get to take home a statue. The acting nominations go to only 20 of these rich people every year. You will forgive me if I find worrying which ethnic groups are represented among those rich people as ridiculous.

2) There is a person of color nominated for Best Director. Four of five directors of the Best Animated Feature films are people of color. There is a person of color nominated for Best Cinematography. These are all men. There is a woman (hooray!) of color who directed one of the nominees for Best Foreign Language Film. Two other directors of Best Foreign Language Film are people of color although, to be fair, the guy from Columbia would probably not be considered a minority within his own country. (The woman of color who directed France's Best Foreign Language Film would be consider a person of color within her own country.) Oscar nominees are not lily white as a whole. Non-acting awards don't count? Sorry, they do to me. When I watch the broadcast, I won't just be seeing white faces. There are some other nominees that are people of color but I don't remember exactly which categories and I'm not looking it up again.

3) It's all very well and good to bemoan the lack of acting nominations for people of color as a general problem but, in any given year, you've got to be specific. Which performance by a person of color should be nominated and whose place at the table do they deserve? Make your case. I've read a few articles noting ignored performances by people of color. I have to say - it wasn't a great year for them to actually get work in the kinds of movies that tend to get noticed by the Academy and I will join in complaints about that - but nominations? Ok, the big three are all men Michael B. Jordan, Will Smith, and Idris Elba. Should one, two, or all three of them have been nominated? And if so - whose place do they take? From what I gather, it's Leonardo's race to lose anyway.

4) A couple of the articles I have read also mention John Boyega's perfectly fine turn as Finn in Star Wars: The Force Awakens. My response? You have got to be kidding me. No one has ever been nominated for acting in a Star Wars movie. I would, in fact, feel very sorry for John Boyega had he actually scored a nomination. If he did, everyone would start comparing him to Harrison Ford (who has never been nominated for an Academy Award), perhaps not in this movie, but in the series as a whole, really Finn before Han Solo? And to score the first ever acting nom for a Star Wars movie, you really do have to be the best actor in your particular film, and he's not. Daisy Ridley is. (I didn't see many movies this year but I did see The Force Awakens.) Oscar Isaac gets mentioned some too. First, I was kinda surprised to find out he's a person of color (from Guatemala), second I have seen him be fantastic (Show Me a Hero), but his work in Star Wars was not that good and being good in one movie (Ex Machina) is often discounted when you're not that good in another.

5) Women of color - that's where the complaint should probably lie. I have seen Mya Taylor mentioned. I didn't see Tangerine. Did you? Did anybody? Do people asking for a nomination for this film understand how the Academy works? Perhaps it's a problem. But the voters can only see so many movies. Get better buzz. Also mentioned are women from the movie Chi-Raq. Spike Lee directing "A modern day adaptation of the ancient Greek play Lysistrata by Aristophanes, set against the backdrop of gang violence in Chicago." I'm gonna go rent it or find a place to see it! Nominated for Oscars? Does anybody believe that's possible? Spike Jonze can do the same thing again next year. It's still not getting any Oscar noms. And lastly, Tessa Thompson for playing the girlfriend in Creed. Are any of the nominated roles for Best Supporting Actress the girlfriend? Sorry, but I'd rather see all white nominees than one girlfriend role. Do I wish that Tessa Thompson had better options? Sure. Maybe now she will. Go get nominated for one of those roles please.

An aside - most of the articles I've read bemoaning a lack of color focus on performances by African-American actors. There are lots of people of color. I saw zero mentions of actors of Asian descent. Were their any? They probably have a bigger beef.

So - much as I would like to see more opportunities for all types of people in Hollywood, heck in theater, heck in the arts in general, I do not believe Oscar nominations are either a good measure of how we're doing or a reason to complain.

[BLPOG]

Good post, Bostondevil, but I disagree on one point.

...to score the first ever acting nom for a Star Wars movie, you really do have to be the best actor in your particular film, and [Boyega's] not. Daisy Ridley is.

IMO, Mark Hamill delivered the best performance. His presence really dominated each time he appeared on screen.

[Bostondevil]

Good post, Bostondevil, but I disagree on one point.



IMO, Mark Hamill delivered the best performance. His presence really dominated each time he appeared on screen.

I concede.

[DU82]

4) A couple of the articles I have read also mention John Boyega's perfectly fine turn as Finn in Star Wars: The Force Awakens. My response? You have got to be kidding me. No one has ever been nominated for acting in a Star Wars movie. I would, in fact, feel very sorry for John Boyega had he actually scored a nomination. If he did, everyone would start comparing him to Harrison Ford (who has never been nominated for an Academy Award), perhaps not in this movie, but in the series as a whole, really Finn before Han Solo? And to score the first ever acting nom for a Star Wars movie, you really do have to be the best actor in your particular film, and he's not. Daisy Ridley is. (I didn't see many movies this year but I did see The Force Awakens.)

Alec Guinness, anyone?

Also, Harrison Ford for Witness.

[Bostondevil]

Alec Guinness, anyone?

Also, Harrison Ford for Witness.

Yep, my bad. Should have checked.

Alan Rickman was never nominated for an Oscar. The last time he played Snape in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2", that year Jonah Hill was nominated for "Moneyball". I'm gonna go cry now.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Impossible - no. But it's absolutely biased and loaded. It assumes that the Academy is being prejudiced racially. If the five best performances of a category for a year are all done by people of one race, then it's not prejudiced at all to have them be the five nominations. The assumption made in that first question is that the Academy is intentionally not nominating certain performances based on race. That's incredibly biased and very loaded. It's the same thing as saying that if Coach K starts five african american players that he isn't recognizing the efforts of any white players on his team. It makes a huge assumption that is overwhelmingly out of line, IMO.

It would even be different (although still questionable) if the Academy had never recognized any minority roles or if they had recently increased the number of nominees for those categories specifically with the mindset of wanting to expand to include a wider array of nominees. But the first is absolutely untrue (since 2000, 9 of the 60 acting awards have been WON by African Americans - who make up 13% of the population) and the second is only true about the Best Picture category - not about the acting ones.

I agree that the nominations should go to top performances regardless of race, and anyone who thinks Finn's huffing and puffing and sweating is Oscar worthy is missing some pieces.

I don't agree that it is as far-fetched that the Academy is missing the boat on some performances of color. It doesn't require a racially biased conspiracy to suggest that the Academy decided not to consider, say, Straight Outta Compton performances. The Oscars have a high opinion of themselves, and might have elected not to recognize the artistic merits of that film, regardless of the quality of the performances.

At any rate, it seems we can all agree that it is a pattern indicative of some sort of bias that will almost certainly be addressed in Hollywood.

[brevity]

Here is the leaderboard among Best Picture nominees:

12 The Revenant
10 Mad Max: Fury Road
07 The Martian
06 Bridge of Spies
06 Spotlight
05 The Big Short
04 Room
03 Brooklyn

FYI: Carol had 6, Star Wars: The Force Awakens had 5.

Some thoughts:

1. I was wrong before about Stallone. Whether he wins or loses, he is getting the golden reclamation treatment. It certainly helped that the category was much weaker than expected, with Tom Hardy sliding in out of nowhere and the pick-a-guy approach to Spotlight and The Big Short.

2. This is a coronation of The Revenant. It will win Best Picture, and Inarritu will win Director again. The nominee list parted the waters, and a huge obstacle was lifted when Ridley Scott wasn't nominated. I think Mad Max may win a few awards, but it peaked on Thursday. That leaves the only real Best Picture competition as The Big Short (comedy, arcane subject, no tech recognition) and Spotlight (half as many nominations, with no tech recognition).

3. Alicia Vikander's role in Ex Machina was nominated, just in the Special Effects category.

4. I am enjoying the angered response to the Academy's exclusion of actors of color -- it should be the main story, especially when the Best Picture race is a foregone conclusion -- but this year was not great for African-American contenders. If we take emotion out of the equation and follow the money, the main problem came from the awards campaigns. Let's go film by film.

Creed: Warner Bros. should have put forth a stronger effort, but keep in mind that it was also promoting Mad Max, to greater success, and that both films are spiritual sequels, or reboots, or whatever.

Beasts of No Nation: This is an independent film produced and distributed by Netflix and Bleecker Street Media, the latter of which was also promoting Trumbo, a Hollywood biopic, to greater success.

Concussion: I have no idea what happened here. Sony/Columbia had no other film to promote for awards this year, and had Will Smith doing a topical drama with an accent. Even if they didn't believe in the film -- there is probably a leaked e-mail to that effect -- and even if it was unpopular in NFL-loving America, they could have tried harder.

Straight Outta Compton: I don't think the lack of acting nominations surprised anybody, but with support from the Screen Actors Guild and Producers Guild, this film had a legitimate shot at a Best Picture nomination. So what happened? It's a head-scratcher. Universal has piles of money from this year, but here's how they did Thursday: Ex Machina (2 nominations), Steve Jobs (2), 50 Shades of Grey (1), Compton (1). Zero nominations for Jurassic World, Minions, Furious 7, Pitch Perfect 2, Trainwreck, and Crimson Peak.

[gurufrisbee]

When the nominations came out I thought it was a poor choice that the Academy didn't nominate Star Wars, even if it's not really a good choice for the Best Picture of the year. And I was mad that they didn't do Inside Out, which is the best movie I've seen this year - by far. But I didn't get too up in arms about it, because of the nominated films I'd only seen one - the Martian.

Last night we saw Mad Max. And now I'm really pissed at the Academy. I mean it wasn't a legitimately BAD movie like Boyhood from last year, but it wasn't that good either.

[brevity]

Straight Outta Compton: I don't think the lack of acting nominations surprised anybody, but with support from the Screen Actors Guild and Producers Guild, this film had a legitimate shot at a Best Picture nomination. So what happened? It's a head-scratcher. Universal has piles of money from this year, but here's how they did Thursday: Ex Machina (2 nominations), Steve Jobs (2), 50 Shades of Grey (1), Compton (1). Zero nominations for Jurassic World, Minions, Furious 7, Pitch Perfect 2, Trainwreck, and Crimson Peak.

It's worse than I originally thought. Take Ex Machina off the list because Universal only handled its international distribution. It's an indie produced by A24, which got 7 nominations Thursday: Room (4), Ex Machina (2), Amy (1).

Here is that leaderboard, listed by studio, for anyone who cares (Best Picture nominees in bold):

20 Fox (The Revenant 12, The Martian 7, Joy 1)
14 Buena Vista (Bridge of Spies 6, Star Wars: The Force Awakens 5, Inside Out 2, Cinderella 1)
11 Warner Bros. (Mad Max: Fury Road 10, Creed 1)
09 Weinstein Company (Carol 6, The Hateful Eight 3)
07 A24 (Room 4, Ex Machina 2, Amy 1)
06 Open Road Films (Spotlight 6)
06 Paramount (The Big Short 5, Anomalisa 1)
04 Focus Features (The Danish Girl 4)
04 Fox Searchlight (Brooklyn 3, Youth 1)
04 Lionsgate (Sicario 3, Shaun the Sheep Movie 1)
04 Universal (Steve Jobs 2, Fifty Shades of Grey 1, Straight Outta Compton 1)
02 GKIDS (Boy and the World 1, When Marnie Was There 1)
02 Netflix (What Happened, Miss Simone? 1, Winter on Fire 1)
01 Abramorama (Racing Extinction 1)
01 Bleecker Street (Trumbo 1)
01 Cohen Media Group (Mustang 1)
01 Drafthouse (The Look of Silence 1)
01 Film Movement (Theeb 1)
01 IFC (45 Years 1)
01 Magnolia (A War 1)
01 Music Box (The 100 Year Old Man 1)
01 Orchard (Cartel Land 1)
01 Oscilloscope Pictures (Embrace of the Serpent 1)
01 Radius-TWC (The Hunting Ground 1)
01 Sony/Columbia (Spectre 1)
01 Sony Classics (Son of Saul 1)

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

When the nominations came out I thought it was a poor choice that the Academy didn't nominate Star Wars, even if it's not really a good choice for the Best Picture of the year. And I was mad that they didn't do Inside Out, which is the best movie I've seen this year - by far. But I didn't get too up in arms about it, because of the nominated films I'd only seen one - the Martian.

Last night we saw Mad Max. And now I'm really pissed at the Academy. I mean it wasn't a legitimately BAD movie like Boyhood from last year, but it wasn't that good either.

Agree to disagree. I go to the movies very rarely, and Mad Max was a ton of fun and very well made. Far from a sympathy vote, I have figured it was a shoe-in for a nomination, based on cinematography if nothing else.


The rare artistic blockbuster, IMHO.

[gurufrisbee]

Agree to disagree. I go to the movies very rarely, and Mad Max was a ton of fun and very well made. Far from a sympathy vote, I have figured it was a shoe-in for a nomination, based on cinematography if nothing else.


The rare artistic blockbuster, IMHO.

There is a category for cinematography. It's not "Best Picture".

Unbelievable. Best Picture Nomination for Fast and the Furious in the Desert. smh

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

There is a category for cinematography. It's not "Best Picture".

Unbelievable. Best Picture Nomination for Fast and the Furious in the Desert. smh

Differest taste, I suppose. Best action picture I have seen in 10+ years.

[JasonEvans]

Not that the Critic's Choice Awards carry much (or any) predictive power but Mad Max just won like 4 or 5 technical awards in a row. I don't think it has much of a chance of beating The Revenant for the major awards, but Max is going to win at least 2 or 3 Oscars in the technical categories.

Also, the Academy is going to be sorry they did not nominate Jacob Tremblay for Best Supporting Actor because his acceptance speech a minute ago at the Critic's Choice was almost certainly the cutest moment of the entire awards season.

-Jason "'I know just where I am going to put this - right next to my model of the Millennium Falcon'" Evans

[DevilWearsPrada]

I watched some of the Critics Choice Awards!

So glad Sly Stallone won the Best Supporting Actor for CREED. He also won The Golden Globe!!!
Rooting for Uncle Sly to take the Oscar, this year!!!!!!!

[bedeviled]

Here's a list of the critical ratings on RT.
...[SNIP]...The Revenant 81%...[SNIP]...
It's interesting that The Revenant, so thoroughly outclassed by a long shot, is among the choices. Not suprising, just interesting. (Snubbed Creed has a 93% rating.)
http://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/...inations-2016/

I've been keeping an eye on it due to my vendetta against DiCaprio (it's annoying and creepy that he keeps dating my ex-gfs!). You can rest easy now, CBB - yesterday's critic submissions (up to 228 now) bumped The Revenant to 82% on Rotten Tomatoes. Importantly, that bump means that The Revenant has now finally broken into the critics' Top 100 films of 2015, debuting at #100.


Hey, here's a good blog about Oscar campaigning (How much do Hollywood campaigns for an Oscar cost?). It includes some $$ numbers and stats, like

• The cost of a ‘Best Picture’ winning Oscar campaign is around $10 million
• Award campaigns are run using PR Consultants hired for just $10-15k per consultant (multiple consultants are used in "many cases"), but with payment bonuses of
  
  • $20k for a 'Best picture’ nomination and an additional $20k for a ‘Best picture’ win
  • $10k for a 'Best Actor' or 'Best Director' nomination and an additional $10k for a win
  • $5k+ for other nominations and additional $5k+ for a win
• An Oscar win is estimated to be worth only about $3M at the box office and another $7M in non-monetary gain (Also, a Golden Globe is estimated to be worth more than an Oscar)

If that interested the reader, here's another (Ask The Experts: The Economics of Oscar Season), with commentary from experts. It doesn't go into the figures like the previous, but it does discuss Academy Awards in relation to the future of film-making. As such, it may be of interest to those who want Star Wars and Fast and Furious to win Oscars.

[brevity]

Some guild updates. Last week the Producers Guild (PGA) awarded the producers of The Big Short. Last night the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) awarded the ensemble of Spotlight.

The Directors Guild is next week, but unless Adam McKay (The Big Short) or Thomas McCarthy (Spotlight) win that, I think the Oscars are still a clear-cut coronation of The Revenant.

4. I am enjoying the angered response to the Academy's exclusion of actors of color -- it should be the main story, especially when the Best Picture race is a foregone conclusion -- but this year was not great for African-American contenders. If we take emotion out of the equation and follow the money, the main problem came from the awards campaigns. Let's go film by film.

Creed: Warner Bros. should have put forth a stronger effort, but keep in mind that it was also promoting Mad Max, to greater success, and that both films are spiritual sequels, or reboots, or whatever.

Beasts of No Nation: This is an independent film produced and distributed by Netflix and Bleecker Street Media, the latter of which was also promoting Trumbo, a Hollywood biopic, to greater success...

Variety has a post-SAG writeup here where details about the campaigning for these 2 films are provided. (Note: Beasts of No Nation was nominated for Ensemble by SAG, and Idris Elba won Best Supporting Actor.)

Two things should at least be noted here. First, Netflix sent free three-month subscriptions to the entire SAG-AFTRA membership, greatly helping to expose “Beasts” and “Orange” to voters. (Hard copy screeners of “Beasts” were also mailed out to all 116,000-plus members, a measure taken by only a handful of film contenders.) Second, perceived Oscar frontrunner Sylvester Stallone was not nominated by SAG-AFTRA, largely because the momentum behind “Creed” took hold after the guild’s early deadlines this season.

No one knows the exact overlap between SAG-AFTRA and the Academy, but actors comprise the biggest chunk of the Academy. SAG-AFTRA would include actors that work entirely in TV and radio, and the Academy would include non-actors and some actors who work outside exclusively outside of the United States. But the middle portion of that Venn diagram would strongly suggest that a huge number of Academy members are film actors that have worked in the US, and therefore got Netflix access by being part of SAG.

Anyway, Netflix made a much bigger effort to campaign Beasts of No Nation than I imagined. I've read in multiple places that film people, including anonymous Academy members, have been negligent in watching screener DVDs of eligible films because they've been addicted to Netflix. So the shutout of this film by the Academy makes less and less sense.

[JasonEvans]

Some guild updates. Last week the Producers Guild (PGA) awarded the producers of The Big Short. Last night the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) awarded the ensemble of Spotlight.

The Directors Guild is next week, but unless Adam McKay (The Big Short) or Thomas McCarthy (Spotlight) win that, I think the Oscars are still a clear-cut coronation of The Revenant.

Many folks think George Miller will win the Director's Guild Award for Mad Max.

I'm not seeing your "clear cut coronation of The Revenant." I actually think this is as wide open a race as we have seen in a while. Here are the major awards... there is no trend at all:

Globe (Drama) - Revenant
Globe (Comedy) - Martian
PGA - Big Short
SAG - Spotlight

The PGA is the only organization that employs the same method of picking a winner as the Oscars -- where everyone lists their top 5 and films are eliminated from consideration until one film reaches a 50% threshold. Since the PGA and the Oscars went to that same system 7 years ago, they have picked the same film for Best Picture every single time. So, the PGA is a 100% predictor of the Oscar under this system. That's some pretty strong weight.

Now, I do agree with you that The Revenant seems poised to take home some significant hardware. Leo is a pretty strong favorite in Best Actor and Inarritu is one of two or three leading contenders for Best Director, but I hardly think we are going to see a major award sweep by The Revenant.

Lastly, here are the latest odds from London (where they take Oscar betting very seriously) on the major awards:

Best Pic - Spotlight 5/4, Big Short 5/4, Revenant 5-1, Mad Max 50-1, Martian 50-1, Room 80-1, Bridge of Spies 150-1, Brooklyn 150-1
Best Actor - Leo 1/20 (wow, that is a prohibitive favorite), Redmayne 16-1, Fassbender 16-1, Cranston 66-1, Damon 80-1
Best Actress - Brie Larson 1/8, Ronan 10-1, Blanchett 25-1, Lawrence 25-1, Rampling 40-1
Best Director - Inarritu 5/4, McKay 2-1, Miller 3-1, McCarthy 4-1, Abrahmson 50-1
Sup Actor - Sly 2/5, Rylance 7/2, Bale 17-1, Hardy 20-1, Ruffalo 35-1
Sup Actress - Vikander 8/11, Mara 9/4, Winslet 8-1, Leigh 25-1, McAdams 100-1
Orig Screenplay - Spotlight 2/7, Inside Out 7/2, Bridge of Spies 16-1, Ex Machina 40-1, Compton 40-1
Adapt Screenplay - Big Short 1/3, Room 7-2, Brooklyn 12-1, Carol 25-1, Martian 33-1

-Jason "Best Picture and Best Director seem the closest races" Evans