Heading into the Dolby last night, I had no idea what to expect. It felt like the worst Oscar year in memory, because it was clear we’ve built an outrage machine and it’s clear we’re using it, with reckless abandon. On everything. It also felt like the most unpredictable. I’d jotted down my predictions as I do every year. I put on a dress and heels like I do every year. I go up to the second mezzanine, like I do every year since I’ve been invited to the Oscars, where I get a good stiff drink and wait for it all to wash over me.
What I didn’t expect last night, what I could not have known until got there, was that the feeling in the Dolby was warm, affectionate, loving. It felt like a communal experience unlike any I’ve ever before felt at the Oscars. I can’t really explain it other than to say there wasn’t the usual tension one feels in the theater itself, when jokes are told to break the ice, when a host must try to unite everyone. By accident, the Academy had decided to abandon the idea of a host. Perhaps because of that, or because there were a lot of contented people there, the mood in the room was upbeat, congratulatory, celebratory. Could it be that the people in Whoville are had found a way to sing even though the Grinch stole their presents? Maybe.
I saw the stars of the Minding the Gap documentary dressed up in tuxedos, with dates, seeming to be having a wonderful time. Last time I saw them, they were struggling paycheck to paycheck, trying to eke out lives in the bitter indifference of the American dream that leaves so many like them behind. Here they were, enjoying a different kind of dream altogether, at least for one evening.
I saw a guy who looked just like Rami Malek and when I said “It’s Rami Malek!” I was corrected. No, that’s his twin brother. This has been happening to him all night.” When the show opened and Queen performed with Adam Lambert, it brought down the house. There was so much love for Bohemian Rhapsody, Black Panther, and BlacKkKlansman — so many of the films were beloved because they were popular. People had seem them and were rooting for them. That was a unique experience compared to years where it seems most people haven’t seen most of the films and are less than impressed with some they see. Both Roma and Green Book were met with applause and cheers every time someone referred to them.
Last night’s hostless Oscars were a little rough at first, but once the show hit its stride it was a welcome change from having to endure jokes in the middle of it all. Sometimes the jokes and bits can be a fun boost — the best of them can liven up a boring show. But the misfires run the risk of bringing things to a screeching halt. But this show was anything but boring. The presenters were all unusual out-of-the-box choices and because of that, they were compelling.
This entire Oscar year has felt pretty awful to so many of us because we interface with it online. But step out of the online bubble, where the people actually have conversations? You find a whole different vibe about the movies and the Oscars.
Spike Lee’s win brought the house down. I’ve never heard so much screaming and excitement over a win. It was long overdue. By contrast, Glenn Close’s loss was like a gut punch. I didn’t think enough voters had it in them to do that to her again, for the seventh time. I think she deserved to win, and that Olivia Colman, as good as she was, was nonetheless a supporting player in The Favourite. She was the film’s only win, and for ardent fans of The Favourite, their happiness is understandable. I am sorry for Glenn Close. She deserved better than she got. It was the night’s only real disappointment… for me.
Others found other reasons to feel betrayed. The internet is having a predictable fit over Green Book’s Best Picture win, partly because some just don’t see the Best Picture race for what it was, partly because some don’t see the film as acceptable, and partly because others had invested so much energy in demonizing Green Book and its filmmakers as tantamount to the devil himself. For some, it was seen as the rot and evil corrupting the shining city on the hill. How did we ever get to a place where the good intentions of filmmakers telling a story about friendship between two men can inflame its detractors to such a degree that their heated condemnation is almost on par with Trump’s style of slander? Read Film Twitter this morning and that is what you’ll see.
No self-respecting left-leaning tweeter could let the Green Book win pass. Comments ranged from casual jokes like “Oh I see Hollywood cured racism last night, cool!”, to much more dramatic and extreme reactions. It was so bad that you wondered where everyone was when Green Book won at Toronto, at the Globes, and then at the PGA. Where were the lengthy melodramatic think pieces then? Oh, they all thought that it was a film that could be destroyed because they scream and throw a fit and Hollywood complies. That’s the way it’s always gone, so why should last night have been different. THEY MADE THEIR POINT! And yet, that isn’t how it went. The problem was — people LIKE Green Book. Lots of different kinds of people like Green Book. Black, white, male, female, young, and old.
And in case you were wondering? A lot of Academy members probably felt protective of Green Book — a film they liked that was being branded as racist at the hands of the angry mob attacking it from all sides. This branding worked against La La Land and Three Billboards (again, films made by people who had nothing but good intentions to make the world a better place), but it did not work with Green Book. From my perspective, this push-back is a good thing. I don’t think we’re headed into very good territory if we seek to police art or artists with litmus tests. Criticism and discussion is healthy. When it morphs into accusing people of a lack of integrity, forming a mob, attacking them, vetting them, vilifying them? Not good.
The Oscars of 2019 that I will choose to remember is not the fight(s) Film Twitter tried to instigate, continually pushing the red button of alarm that the world is coming to an end because they didn’t get their way. Instead, I’ll remember a night that made history for people of color among the nominees and winners, especially the Black Panther crew, but also Regina King, Mahershala Ali, Ruth Carter, Alfonso Cuaron, and Spike Lee. Period. End of Sentence was one of the few shorts made entirely by women about women and it won. Moments like that were thrilling to watch — all of them.
The Academy spread the wealth, handing each of the Best Picture nominees at least one Oscar. It was a great night, with outcomes to please fans of every film. It was easily the best Oscars I’ve ever attended. For its part, Netflix moved the needle significantly. No, they didn’t win Best Picture, but they’ve become a major player in the Oscar race all the same. Ditto Marvel. In honoring Roma and Black Panther, the Academy has opened itself up to a bigger, more interesting, more diverse range of films — more vibrant and immediate type of films that reflect new kinds of moviegoers. Even if the voters did, in the end, go with something more traditional, the show felt all the more alive because the nominees hailed from such a wide variety of films.
For the Oscars to have pushed back on the hivemind hysteria that has grown around Green Book was perhaps a sign that it’s maybe going to become a more sane and conciliatory atmosphere out there? Or will the attacks just get more and more severe? What I don’t get is why we continually attack ourselves, as we reach for some kind of unattainable perfection, punishing people who must serve as a stand-in for those who can’t be punished. It was better to listen to the cheers in the Dolby, and watch the winners take the stage. Even Green Book’s win was met with applause. It was, for a time, a good night.
Meanwhile 4 time Oscar winner, 10 time Grammy winner Andre Previn has passed https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2e5f1db02de779c19f966827b39e9ed2e0227bcf5b943fd5ac0222e83612b75b.jpg
According to Sasha Stone, “People LIKE Green Book. Lots of different kinds of people like Green Book. Black, white, male, female, young, and old.”
—> This sounds ridiculous. Oscar voters are 91% white and 76% male, according to a new Times study. Blacks are about 3%, Asians and Latinos are each just over 2%. Did you guys notice all the GREEN BOOK people who came up the stage are ALL WHITES? It makes me yawn. It looks hypocritical.
So the 70 million Green Book made domestically and its extremely rare A+ Cinemascore was driven exclusively by white people. And the L.A. Times study you’re referring to was done in early 2016, before the Academy’s initiative to significantly diversify its ranks began.
This Asian says you’re completely full of shit.
Well, all I can say to the Academy is… Like that great quote from Casablanca…
We’ll always have Moonlight.
Green Book is a masterpiece that will be remembered for decades…
Thanks, Nostradamus!
We’ll have both Moonlight and Green Book. Two is better than one.
ML ====> GB
Sublime ====> Ridiculous
Green Book is not ridiculous, since it is a true story. You may think it is a bit old-fashioned, but that may be because it is a period piece. Ridiculous = all the attempts to generate controversies around this film.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/kareem-abdul-jabbar-truth-green-book-controversy-1175540
My OP meant to say that I have moved on. You should too.
It was not clear from your OP, or even from your post of only 42 minutes ago, that you had moved on. Also: Don’t tell me what to do.
(Which is probably what all the people who voted for Green Book said.)
Help! Would someone please retrieve my post from the spam folder!
So now that the Oscars have been and they are obviously wrong in almost every category (they got a couple right but almost all are wrong) I’m here to set things right by letting you all know the objectively correct awards of the year. These are obviously not favourites or preferences – the best art is something that is easily quantifiable and nobody should disagree with this whatsoever! x marks the winners
Best film
Blindspotting
Eighth Grade x
The Favourite
First Man
First Reformed
Free Solo
Happy As Lazzaro
If Beale Street Could Talk
Shoplifters
Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse
(For the record if you include Roma, Burning, Hereditary, Minding the Gap, Can You Ever Forgive Me?, Leave No Trace, The Death of Stalin, Won’t You Be My Neighbour, Annihilation you’re not wrong either – I just couldn’t find room for them)
Director
Eighth Grade
First Man x
First Reformed
Happy As Lazzaro
Roma
Actress
Glen Close – The Wife
Toni Collette – Hereditary
Olivia Colman – The Favourite x
Elsie Fisher – Eighth Grade
Helena Howard – Madeline’s Madeline
Actor
Daveed Diggs – Blindspotting x
Ethan Hawke – First Reformed
Stephan James – If Beale Street Could Talk
Joaquin Phoenix – You Were Never Really Here
Adriano Tardiolo – Happy As Lazzaro
Supporting Actor
Rafael Casel – Blindspotting
Hugh Grant – Paddington 2
Richard E Grant – Can You Ever Forgive Me? x
Alex Wolff – Hereditary
Steven Yeun – Burning
Supporting Actress
Claire Foy – First Man x
Zoe Kazan – Ballad of Buster Scruggs
Regina King – If Beale Street Could Talk
Emma Stone – The Favourite
Rachel Weisz – The Favourite
Adapted Screenplay
If Beale Street Could Talk
Can You Ever Forgive Me?
First Man
Leave No Trace x
Spiderman Into the Spiderverse
Original Screenplay
Blindspotting
Eighth Grade x
The Favourite
First Reformed
Happy As Lazzaro
Cinematography
Cold War x
First Man
Free Solo
If Beale Street Could Talk
Roma
Editing
If Beale Street Could Talk
The Favourite
First Man
Roma
You Were Never Really here x
Makeup and Hairstyling
Black Panther x
The Favourite
Happy As Lazzaro
Suspiria
Vice
Costume Design
The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
Black Panther x
The Favourite
Isle of Dogs
Suspiria
Production Design
Black Panther
The Favourite
First Man
Roma x
Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse
Sound (combined like BAFTA)
First Man x
A Quiet Place
Roma
Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse
You Were Never Really here
Score/ Songs (I decided to be BAFTA)
First Man x
If Beale Street Could Talk
Isle of Dogs
Mary Poppins Returns
A Star is Born
Visual Effects
Aquaman
Avengers: Infinity War
First Man
Mortal Engines x
Ready Player One
L-O-L
In a perfect world, you would be voting on the Oscars. 🙂
How many more snubs does Natalie Portman have to endure?? Poor girl 🙁
At least she has an Oscar. Can’t say the same about Glenn.
She should have two! 🙁 (I will never ever let this snub go.)
I can’t believe Jennifer Lawrence has an Oscar and Glenn doesn’t.
So Vox Lux just arrived in cinemas here. You never know maybe I’ll need to alter this to include her. It’s one of few films I am yet to see that I plan on seeing! Although if you mean this for Annihilation then yes it broke my heart not including that in a lot of places but 5 is a magic number. Who can argue with only 5 slots!
Let’s face it. Green Book was the Donald Trump election. It survived every attempt at sabotage (deserved or not), and only got stronger when the anti-Green Book people tried to tell other that they shouldn’t vote for it. Had they just closed their mouths, maybe it wouldn’t have won (and neither would Trump). But nobody likes being told what to do and how to feel, and so even though they probably wouldn’t have told you to your face they supported Green Book, they let their vote do the talking. Maybe pushy people in all aspects of life will learn from their mistakes, but judging from the way the 2020 election is shaping up, it doesn’t look like it will happen. Attack each other, go right ahead. You guys are on the same side but since you may disagree in the slightest, go ahead and demolish one another. That is not the way to win a fight.
I tried to explain this early on in the season, that Green Book was “on the right side of history” as Spike Lee finally conceded. But because it wasn’t exactly what everyone wanted, they decided to attack it. But then again, you have to realize to can’t please everyone on your side. Take Spike Lee for example. His film got called out by the director of another “black movie,” Sorry to Bother You, so what does he do in turn? Calls out another movie that is ultimately on his side. It’s ridiculous.
So instead of voicing our opinions about the many multiple levels on which Green Book is a mediocre movie, we should just stay silent.
Wow, so much for an awards discussion site.
Trump wasn’t elected because liberals hate him or because they voiced their opinions that he was not fit for office. He was elected because racism is alive and well in this country. My saying that will not get him elected again, Democrats staying home on Election Day and people voting against their own interests because they finally hear in trump’s words the same racist thoughts they’re thinking themselves is what will get him elected again.
I’m not in the mood to discuss Trump today (why is this a political analogy, I got into the Oscars to escape politics people), but Sasha’s platform (and mine too) has consistently been if you like or don’t like the movie that’s fine, if you want to attack the movie’s credibility with low hanging fruit or for politicized purposes and not do that inconsistently with other nominees, that’s wrong
SunnyDandThePurpleStuff
If you’ve been reading this site this whole season as you’ve claimed, you would know that there hasn’t been a single article Sasha has written that didn’t include Trumps name in it. I’m just trying to fit in here.
Well, i don’t fit in a lot of sites, so I wouldn’t ever try to make you feel excluded.
I think Sasha has talked about the era of Trump here and there but not made it like a definitive thing
Shit like GB winning BP have happened on numerous occasions before, you know. And people were pushy when “Crash”, DMD and “Forest Gump” won, I suppose? And there I was thinking that they generally picked what they like. It might be strange considering the films they awarded in recent years but I do believe that on most occasion they just pick the film they like the most, especially films like GB. I think the years they make an exception is most likely when a very important is dominating the narrative like “12 years a Slave”. I genuinely do not believe that is the film they liked the best. But I think “Moonlight” could be different because there wasn’t the same narrative and unlike LLL it had feels that the Academy generally like. GB is typical Oscar films, less about race relations but safe and it has to have feels.
The only people to blame for Trump and Green Book winning are the people who voted for them. Full stop.
I burnt down the house! You made me do it! It’s always other people’s fault for the terrible choices some people make. I don’t and I never want to blame for my bad choices.
And the ones who omitted themselves from deciding…
Green Book won because of the preferential ballot for Best Picture. It would not have if it was by popular vote, like how most of the other categories are determined.
All the categories are determined by a “popular vote” it’s just that they are tabulated using two different systems (first-past-the-post versus ranked-choice voting).
With more nominees, first-past-the-post (whoever gets the most votes wins) would allow a movie to get pitifully less than a majority of the vote and still win (it’s still the case with 5 nominees, but less so).
Yes. Except now we’re seeing more evidence that an organized effort to deliberately put your main opponent last on the ballot can sweep you to an easy win. Hell if I know what the solution is short of going back to a straight majority vote again.
Yes. Except now we’re seeing more evidence that an organized effort to deliberately put your main opponent last on the ballot can sweep you to an easy win. Hell if I know what the solution is short of going back to a straight majority vote again.
Best Director always provided me a good hint of what would win in plural voting since there was such a strong correlation between both categories before.
hi cirkusfolk, I’d honestly like to understand better where you’re coming from.
I have forgotten whether or not you’re a Trump supporter. (You don’t have to say, if you’re ashamed of it.)
Reason I ask, is you seem to be referring to Democrats as people you don’t align with. Am I reading you wrong?
Why you ask?
I am neither pro or anti Trump. Trump is just a person who makes many decisions that I may or may not agree on. I used the word “you” to describe a group of people not because I don’t belong to them, but because it’s habit to write from an impartial position rather than an editorial one. This has been lost on most journalism as of late. But I think my point and position is not that different from Sasha’s. You are aware I have been against the “Green Book backlash” from the very beginning as I was the first one to post John Singleton’s positive response to the film on this very site. I saw it as a group attacking their own much like you are going to see much of leading up to the democratic primaries.
I’d imagine if all the Bernie supporters that refused to vote for Hilary because their guy didn’t get the nomination, would have voted for Hilary because overall she was still on their side, Hilary would be the current president. So maybe people shouldn’t cut off their nose to spite their face. That’s my point. I could’ve trashed Blackkklansman too with all the changes of the truth, but I know there’s no point to do that. It’s a good movie with a good message. What the director of Sorry to Bother You did when he attacked the integrity of the film, only hurts the same side he is on.
And the other point I was trying to make was that by creating a “backlash” that you intend to defend, you are essentially dividing people. And as we can see with our current society, when people are divided, it doesn’t work out so well. You may not believe anyone could vote for Trump or vote for Best Pic purely for spite alone, but believe me. It’s as a good as a reason as any. It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode when he wants to return the jacket out of spite because he didn’t like the sales clerk. So if you have a group of people telling others what they are supposed to vote for whether it be movies or politicians or if they are telling people who they aren’t supposed to vote for, just be prepared for a reaction.
Did John Singleton like Green Book?
Is there a quote or article linking to it?
I didn’t see any such thing.
Yup. There is.
https://variety.com/gallery/directors-on-directors-black-panther-a-star-is-born/#!15/singleton-greenbook
Hey Ryan, I just wanted to chime in and thank you and Sasha for providing me plenty of company during this Oscar season. It’s one of the closer ones I’ve followed, though I’ll admit I got exhausted of all the awards towards the end, but I appreciated all the discussion and all the Oscar stuff you do, and it’s nice to have a powerful voice like you guys advocating against thought policing infecting movies.
Nor everything is a Donald Trump analogy
The media focused on trashing GB and BR and completely ignored Blackkklansman so yeah..
This isn’t particularly linked to Sasha’s comment of whether Colman was lead or not in this post but more of a general note: I remember when early on in the season a lot of people were baffled by Colman’s choice to go lead. But I think the reasons have been present in a lot of the complaints against her winning: in my opinion a lot of times the way people have phrased words like “she’s a supporting actress” have the kind tone that they’re referring to not only her performance in The Favourite but to her as an actress (especially since Mahershala Ali’s win has gotten none of the same criticism), that she’s somehow not a leading actress who’s fit to win over someone like Glenn Close. I think it was from a career standpoint exactly the right thing for her to do to choose this path (and since I also believe that The Favourite has three leads I don’t mind the choice from that point of view either)
Grrrr! I edit a post – upon which it is deleted as spam!
I like different types of films winning the Best Picture award. One year Moonlight wins the big prize; another year Green Book wins the big one. That’s upholds a kind of diversity and increases the range of unpredictably for what will win, doesn’t it? Or is that the wrong type of diversity?
I notice on this site that many, many commentators seem to want to be drawing parallels between the type of person who votes for Donald Trump and for Green Book. Often, the implication seems to be that only wicked people vote for Donald Trump and so the same for voters for and supporters of Green Book.
I disagree that there has to be an inevitable overlap. It is possible to dislike Trump yet enjoy Green Book.
It is also possible to not fully respect Green Book, yet enjoy the experience of watching it. This might be an apt summary of my position.
Green Book provided a simplified, dumbed-down version of race relations, with overexaggerated characters and some overacting. Yet I enjoyed the film. I found it heartwarming, magical in parts – as well as flawed. I laughed at most (but not all) of the parts I was supposed to laugh, and also at times of purported drama when I’m sure I wasn’t supposed to be doing so.
I think your reaction to the film depends largely on what you expected from the film, what lens you viewed it from.
If you saw Green Book as having a duty to intelligently analyse and provide insight on race relations and race relations psychology then I think you were in for a disappointing ride. One that will have potentially left you fuming at it.
Upon reflection, I think I just didn’t take the film super-seriously. I mean: is thera a mandatory duty that I should? Maybe I took Green Book as a movie that could have inspired by Nick Nolte and Eddie Murphy in 48 hours. Green Book as the second sequel, a twist of a comedy follow-up to Another 48 Hours?!
Otherwise maybe I enjoyed it because I understood it as a relationship movie. Two people initailly guarded against each other, and the world (in some respects), whose presence in the other’s life (situationally forced) proved mutually beneficial. Viewed from that perspective I would say the film was an absolute triumph. It was really lovely in many parts. Moving in parts. And good-looking and very well made.
I think the film was, yes, fairly simple in some ways but I felt the film had a good heart so I let that go.
Green Book won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy. Am totally on board with that. Correct category choice; correct winner.
Just had a watch of the trailer for the film. I’d say it sells itself as a comedy, with some dramatic scenes, but that ultimately it is a feel-good comedy, which often taclkes it themes with a comedic touch and with broad strokes that come from a kind place.
I further note that the trailer concludes with the words: Inspired by a true friendship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZS5d9l8XL0
I like different types of films winning the Best Picture award. One year Moonlight wins the big prize; another year Green Book wins the big one. That’s upholds a kind of diversity and increases the range of unpredictably for what will win, doesn’t it? Or is that the wrong type of diversity?
I notice on this site that many, many commentators seem to want to be drawing parallels between the type of person who votes for Donald Trump and for Green Book. Often, the implication seems to be that only wicked people vote for Donald Trump and so the same for voters for and supporters of Green Book.
I disagree that there has to be an inevitable overlap. It is possible to dislike Trump yet enjoy Green Book.
It is also possible to not fully respect Green Book, yet enjoy the experience of watching it. This might be an apt summary of my position.
Green Book provided a simplified, dumbed-down version of race relations, with overexaggerated characters and some overacting. Yet I enjoyed the film. I found it heartwarming, magical in parts – as well as flawed. I laughed at most (but not all) of the parts I was supposed to laugh, and also at times of purported drama when I’m sure I wasn’t supposed to be doing so.
I think your reaction to the film depends largely on what you expected from the film, what lens you viewed it from.
If you saw Green Book as having a duty to intelligently analyse and provide insight on race relations and race relations psychology then I think you were in for a disappointing ride. One that will have potentially left you fuming at it.
Upon reflection, I think I just didn’t take the film super-seriously. I mean: is there a mandatory duty that I should? Maybe I took Green Book as a movie that could have inspired by Nick Nolte and Eddie Murphy in 48 hours. Green Book as the second sequel, a twist of a comedy follow-up to Another 48 Hours?!
Otherwise maybe I enjoyed it because I understood it as a relationship movie. Two people initailly guarded against each other, and the world (in some respects), whose presence in the other’s life (situationally forced) proved mutually beneficial. Viewed from that perspective I would say the film was an absolute triumph. It was really lovely in many parts. And good-looking and very well made.
I think the film was, yes, fairly simple in some ways but I felt the film had a good heart so I let that go.
Green Book won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy. Am totally on board with that. Correct category choice; correct winner.
Just had a watch of the trailer for the film. I’d say it sells itself as a comedy, with some dramatic scenes, but that ultimately it is a feel-good comedy with broad strokes that come from a kind place.
I further note that the trailer concludes with the words: Inspired by a true friendship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZS5d9l8XL0
This website’s season-long saga hasn’t once, unless I missed it, seriously engaged with critique of Green Book from Wesley Morris, Hanif Abdurraqib, or any other prominent black film or cultural critic. Are they also in the hive mind? Are they hysterical?
As for Twitter, there’s not a single mode of opinion in the world where groupthink and pile-ons aren’t a thing, and I honestly don’t know why anyone would even expect wokeness to be immune. If white woke Twitter feels like a more egregious, influential groupthink pile-on than, say, whiteness itself, maybe log off for a minute.
You expect the writers on this site to consider any opinion they disagree with to be legitimate and worth discussing? Of course not. Anyone who disagrees with them is just the “hive mind”.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/kareem-abdul-jabbar-truth-green-book-controversy-1175540
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is a prominent black critic. His article in the Hollywood Reporter on the 14th of January was probably what persuaded many Academy members to ignore these incoherent (as they saw it) critiques.
I wasn’t aware that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar gets veto power over all other critics’ opinions. It’s hard to keep up with all these new rules.
So Nick Vallelonga is now saying he “didn’t even know [Shirley’s family] really existed until after we were making the film”.
He didn’t know Donald Shirley had a family? Did he think that he sprang fully formed from a rock, or the head of Zeus? What the fuck?
Well, our favourite 2-time Academy Award winner Nick certainly has a way with words.
Imagine being best known for writing 1) an Oscar-winning screenplay and 2) the tweet “@realDonaldTrump 100% correct. Muslims in New Jersey cheering when towers went down. I saw it, as you did, possibly on local CBS news.”
He apologised profusely for that old tweet, saying that he was wrong and has changed his mind about Muslims since then. Don’t try to dig up dirt like this.
Dr. Don Shirley was somewhat estranged from his family, and told Nick Vallelonga himself that he did not want them involved in the screenplay. Although the family did not specify their objections, I suspect it has to do with the gay scenes, since Don Shirley was not openly gay. I’m on the side of Dr Shirley and his chosen scriptwriter, not with the family.
He was not estranged from his family. He was the best man in his brother’s wedding in 1964, two years after the events in the film took place. If Nick Vallelonga actually knew so much about Shirley’s relationship with his family, then why is he now claiming that he didn’t know they existed?
I’m fine with some artistic license being taken in historical films, but I also understand why his family would be so angry that this film is saying things about them which aren’t true. And now they’ve got people like you baselessly smearing them as homophobic.
Nick Vallelonga is the only one claiming that Nick Vallelonga was Dr. Shirley’s “chosen scriptwriter”. Weird that he never told anyone else about it, isn’t it?
Congratulations to Sasha for winning 22 out of 24 categories on Goldderby. That’s highly impressive! Once again she went with the minority on Best Picture, just like in the year of Moonlight, and once again she was right. She only missed on Best Actress and Documentary, going with Close and RBG. That’s a shame.
I did warn her here, though, that she was letting the fact that The Favourite didn’t appeal to her personally blind her to the fact that it appealed to many other voters. She showed it again here, by saying that Spike Lee’s win brought the house down while Colman’s win, by contrast, felt like a gut punch. No, that’s not what we watched on TV. Most of the audience cheered her win, and were laughing along with her and seemingly in a good mood throughout her acceptance speech. People hear what they want to hear.
Her predictions had The Favourite with 0 wins. That was always unlikely, as I said here. It had to win in at least one major category – Screenplay or Lead/Supporting Actress. (I picked the wrong category, like most people.) But if Sasha thinks Colman was a supporting actress, then it is even more impressive that she won a Lead Actress category. She was able to show great acting range with limited screentime. That’s a good thing.
Glenn Close was in a boring movie that most voters did not watch. Rosamund Pike and Joanna Kulig, Toni Collette, Carey Mulligan gave clearly superior performances and were not even nominated. People were bored by he first hour of Roma where basically nothing happens. If anything Cold War, which is full of plot turns, character development, expressive music and photography, was robbed. I cared about The Green Book characters. Leave No Trace, First Reformed, A Private War, The Rider, First Man, BlackKKlansmen were superior movies. They had depth of emotion. The whining is getting tedious about the Oscar results. YOU did not lose.
As many people here and elsewhere put a lot of time, effort and emotion into their Oscarwatching, it’s understandable to be upset when something you deeply love unexpectedly loses, or something you dislike upsets. Sasha seemed (from her tweets) quite upset when Glenn Close unexpectedly lost to Colman in a film that she disliked. I was quite upset when Roma lost to Green Book, a film that I dislike. It’s an emotionally charged night and I think it’s okay for people to let out their feelings afterwards, otherwise we deprive ourselves from the joy that this hobby brings us as well, to paraphrase Mr Perlman 🙂
I love movies, not awards. Awards are totally out of people’s hands. Is it healthy to put so much emotion in something you can not control? People keep repeating the same comments, and that is whining. They are oblivious to Theater and some do not know much about the great acting on tv and streaming. I wrote the summation of my opinion of what was good. Fargo did not win but I prefer that.
Good point about the hypocrisy of being upset about Colman’s win while dragging others for being upset about Green Book’s win. Ridiculous.
Hypocrisy will be on parade if the Irishman turns out to be the real deal and suddenly people aren’t so “concerned” with Netflix (looking your way Mr. Spielberg).
Not relitigating Green Book’s win, but all of the nominated films were affected in one way or another by Academy members downvoting on their preferential ballots for reasons that had nothing to do with the product on the screen.
Her behavior this entire season has been quite odd.
I’m wish Sasha that I was thrilled Green Book won best screenplay. That meant that movie awards aren’t dictated by critics or outrage. I didn’t actually need for it to win best picture, but since it did, I’m also happy. I’ll go to bat for it
I was content with it winning Best Picture, although it wasn’t my #1 choice, but would have preferred The Favourite to win screenplay.
I was more upset about R.Lee Emey being left of the in memoram segment than anything, i mean he was in over 60 films and had one of the most iconic supporting performances as the Drill instructor in Full Medal Jacket, for which he got a Golden Globe nomination for
what about Stanley Donen or Bill Paxton. Paxton died too close to the ceremony last year to put them in so I assumed they’d put him in this year. No such luck and then Stanley Donen gets left out, but he probably won’t get put in this year.
Also, wasn’t Ray Bradbury left out?
One thing that keeps coming to my mind every year. How bad Americans are in acknowledging their best.
So many of the best working directors lost Oscars to inferior or average professionals.
And is there a complex of inferiority with the British when it comes to acting…?
That Oscar Mark Rylance won for basically…
Meryl Streep had to wait 30 years and play a British icon to win an Oscar again.
Glenn Close, probably America’s second best performer alive, now holds the all time crown.
Second best performer alive? Seriously? That’s a whopper of an assertion.
Among American women? It’s either Close or Audra McDonald.
This sounds xenophobic. A theme of this year’s Oscars was embracing diversity. Other nationalities, which includes the British, are a part of embracing diversity.
I’m not American. Nor British. I’m just wondering. I’m convict there is something weird when it comes to American directors acknowledging their most notable peers. I wonder if there is such a thing in acting too.
The other way around may also be true. British love a typically American story sometimes even more than the own Americans do. British awarded David Fincher for Social Network. Americans reversed the decision and gave Hooper. The Help was a top 5 BAFTA contender and missed pretty much everything but acting at the Oscars. Zero Dark Thirty hold its top 5 status at BAFTA. American Gangster was a BP nominee at BAFTA.
It may not be inferiority. It may be just the love one have for typical stories from the other.
British, Irish, Australian, French, and Swedish Actors are superior to American actors. That is a no brainer. They take it seriously. We have a celebrity culture that has Kardashians and Megan Fox.
It could be the case Americans have a superior Directing school and Europeans a superior acting school. I don’t have an opinion on this issue. I think Meryl Streep, Glenn Close, Audra McDonald and Viola Davis, to name a few, are among the best professionals in the art of performing. Historically saying even. In the directing side, Americans are more proeminent in my list of greatest all time directors.
Sorry what is the complex of inferiority with the British when it comes to acting??? Out of the last 20 Oscars (2000 to date), these are the stats on British actors who have won an acting prize:
Actor: 4/20 — Daniel Day-Lewis X 2, Colin Firth, Eddie Redmayne
Actress: 3/20 — Helen Mirren, Kate Winslet, Olivia Colman (4 if you want to count Aussie Cate Blanchett as being in the tradition of trained British actors)
Supp Actor: 3/20 — Jim Broadbent, Christian Bale, Mark Rylance
Supp Actress: 2/20 — Rachel Weisz, Tilda Swinton (3 if you count Cate Blanchett).
So that is 12 out of 80 wins (14 if you count Blanchett).
This hardly seems like a complex of inferiority to the Brits.
And if you are saying Meryl Streep’s win manifests this complex because she only won when she played a Brit, how about all the Brits who won when they played Americans — DDL as Lincoln, Cate Blanchett as Kate Hepburn and in Blue Jasmine, Christian Bale in The Fighter, Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton???
And you say Glenn Close represents that complex as well because she has seven losses. Well of the nine actors with five nominations or more and no wins, four — including the all time loser Peter O’Toole, are British: Peter O’Toole (8), Richard Burton (7), Deborah Kerr (6), Albert Finney (5). Again, not much evidence there for your case.
Cate Blanchett is an Aussie not a. Brit
that is exactly what i already said in my post under “Actress”
Kate Winslet also. Gary Oldman also. I may be biased because of the only acting upsets that happened in the past 10 years and some curious aspects of the Oscars.
Who is the only young hot Actor in the tradition of the Therons, Zeta-Jones, etc. that has won a Lead Actor award in his first bid in the past half century? In my books, just Eddie Redmayne.
Who are the only actress above 45 to win a Lead Actress Oscar in ther first nomination in over half a century? Olivia Colman and Sandra Bullock.
Yes thx Oldman was on my list and i forgot to include him. I added Winslet before you commented but prob you did not see my edit. So thx. In any case, i don’t really feel that the stats show a Brit bias.
Other “hot and young” actors have won on their first bid — Adrien Brody, Matthew McConaughey, Jamie Foxx, Rami Malek. Tom Hanks (oh wait he was nominated for Big first).
Your points about Redmayne and actresses over 45 seem to be addressing a different point than the Brit bias you suggested originally.
Adrien Brody and Rami Malek? NO. Just no. Neither Hanks. Hanks is the terrific actor that is a tremendously popular guy but never a beauty standard “sexiest person alive” nominee
Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Cooper, Leo, Johnny Depp, Will Smith, Travolta, Jeff Bridges… neither could win in their youth.
Jamie Foxx technically was a double-nominee that year and never really a movie industry discovery. More of an outsider. That’s a very specific situation. Just like when Clooney won because he couldn’t win Director. And he was around 45. McConaughey was 44 or 45 already. Danzel had to wait his youth to pass to finally win lead.
You are creating a stat out of your personal opinion of what it hot and what qualifies as young. I interpreted hot as meaning “hot in the business” not “sexually hot”, but whatever.
It’s a pointless exercise because it is so subjective. You can create and adjust your stat based on your personal interests, but that doesn’t make it a viable argument.
For your information, lots of people think Hanks was very hot in that likable guy next door way, and many people think Adrien Brody is hot.
I do not find Eddie Redmayne hot — he looks like a salamander.
What I think we can all agree… “babe factor” plays a role when the industry picks its actress winners. Not when it picks male winners. Being likable also matters more for man than woman. A woman with the aura that surrounds Sean Penn or Russell Crowe would hardly win an Oscar.
Newt Scamander, I get it. Haha.
(Actually, I am embarrassed that I got that reference.)
Oh wow. I literally did not intend that joke. I’ve never heard of Newt Scamander. I’ve never seen a Harry Potter film because I am just not interested. But I’m glad my unintended joke amused you!!! 🙂
Could it be that the controversies and online hatred didn’t harm Green Book as much as for example La La Land and Three Billboards simply because there were so many movies that were hated and had controversies that it had less of an effect? There were at least three nominees that people were attacking this year (Green Book, Bohemian Rhapsody and Vice) whereas in their years, La La Land and Three Billboards were really the centers of those years’ controversies and the films that had the most vocal haters.
I will be interested if you find anyone on AD who hated LLL. However, I went on record last year stating my hatred for Three Billboards and I don’t think I was alone on that. I believe the issue for LLL was that it was the frontrunner from start to finish and criticism of was mostly it wasn’t as good all the awards and praise it got. It was a bit like “Boyhood”, TKS and BB without the critical love overload. Also, good like trying to prove that it was the “backlash” that derail those film’s chances.
Personally, I am much more glad that GB won than Three Billboard. I feel the former will be bigger stain on the Academy than the latter. Three Billboard wasn’t seen as problematic as GB by many and that is why I was so against it winning.
Bingo. A hint on why I think the controversy killed La La Land and 3B and not Green Book. Who has women leads?
TSOW also had a women lead. I believe that TSOW was more of a traditional film and old style, except for its genre. I think it ticked a lot more boxes than Three Billboards.
Further developing my point: LLL’s main character choses the career over the man, Mildred Hayes is a “bad girl” with the right motivations but a tough girl. Elisa is a more traditional hero. And love (for a man… a fish man) is her main motivation.
No films have suffered the hate campaigns La La Land and Zero Dark Thirty have in this post-social media era. In Zero Dark Thirty, once again, “the man” is not Chastain’s character motivation. It actually is capturing that man but I’m saying is… love is lot what drives her.
That’s Oscar tradition. And we should probably factor that in our predictions. Many people said GB was traditional Oscar winner but I didn’t want to believe that it was the same Academy and they probably learned a lesson from “Crash”. But as it got closer and I read the brutally honest ballots, I suddenly realised that tradition is not dead and we were probably due for another shocker. That’s exactly what happened. The new members looked invisible in brutally honest ballot.
SDT did nothing as it was killed stone dead but then the subject matter was always going to prove controversial. LLL cleaned like films have, so I don’t share the claim that it suffered a big backlash. It was mild and it was about jazz. That’s not a big deal.
Hmmm..interesting! but the fish isn’t a man or woman, it’s kind of a non-binary being, don’t you think?
Well, the fish is male. He has that thing. Elisa even makes fun of the size in a scene, doesn’t she?
oh yes that’s true, also that’s gross. true and gross.
As we’ve been saying all season, TSOW and Green Book are simplistic, pedestrian, pandering bait for simple people. They weather backlash, because it doesn’t make a difference to the main demographic. They are Weinstein. They are Trump. They are there to coherently soak up the confusion among the other riskier, edgier, more artful, more rewarding films, as the potential audience of fairweather types without ballast steer away from the tainted hopes.
The Shape of Water is simplistic for people and pedestrian just because your fave movie didn’t win last year? In no way is The Shape of Water as unimaginative as Green Book, which is some 80’s/90’s cliche.
I’m just happy that last year, something baity like 3 Billboards didn’t win. Frances McD was chewing the scenery the whole time!
Who would have also thought that the Academy last year would award Best Picture to a weird fantasy film like The Shape of Water? First time in 14 years, and a Sci-Fi film which is first time in the history of the Academy Awards?
OK, was there even a sensible controversy for Three Billboards? I can’t even remember it a year later. I know that the black film critics association ranked it high
La La Land too white, 3B too racist and Zero Dark Thirty pro-torture. Just summarizing the bullshit.
I still find it hard to believe that john ottman was not even in phone communication with bryan singer when editing the movie. I always thought that the firing of bryan singer might be either a ploy to avoid his controversy affecting the movie or to keep the movie under budget as he was not showing up for the movie. But when the post production comes around…i honestly felt that he would be in communication with the director atleast over the phone or video conference.
Ottman’s win is due to the wider support for bohemian rhapsody in the academy as opposed to controversial vice’s hank corwin.
Bryan Singer is specifically the reason Bohemian didn’t win BP in a seven to eight Oscar romp. The optics of that would be deadly for an Academy that is STILL apologizing for Polanski nearly 20 years after he won while a fugitive.
i don’t think that’s the case. The moment the movie made 800 million..audience have spoken..once audience spoke..industry is not gonna care about the critics.
Not totally the point I was making. I think if Singer wasn’t as radioactive as he is in some circles (justifiably I might add), he would have been nominated and likely won for Director, and the movie would have probably landed in a few more categories and swept. No matter what my feelings are for the product on screen (badly flawed in my opinion), I think that’s how it would have played out on Oscar night.
How does it feel to lose best picture to a masterpiece like Green Book? would you watch the Oscars again?
How does it feel to lose best picture to a masterpiece like Green Book? would you watch the Oscars again?
You draw such strange conclusions from nowhere. I don’t see how you could think that BR could ever win BP, with its low critical rating. Bryan Singer’s absence wouldn’t change that. BR was very lucky just to get the nomination.
Or he did the editing with Dexter Fletcher. By the way when will you stop bitching about BR?
this is the first time i bitched about BR editing.
I feel so devasted and sad with Close loss that I think I can not recover from this for some time. With 30 years watching and rooting for the Oscars, I can only found parallel to this situation when Lauren Bacall lost to Juliett Binoche. Even the speeches – Colman and Binoche – were similar. And even seemly absurd, I can only assume that Close lost by a very slim margin and it shockling happened because voters assumed that she had this in the bag, and voted for their first choices. This is the danger of being the undeniable favorite. The Bafta voters at the Academy alone were not enough to give Colman’s the edge – Close was a Bafta nominee, so she also had some British votes.
But I think it is important – and I have this gut feeling – to say that Sony Classics commited a lot of mistakes during the campaign. Postpone “The Wife” – a weak and vunerable film – for more than a year was a huge mistake, maybe the biggest of them. When it was screened at Toronto in 2017, it was really stunning, a real thunder, and I think Close should have competed that year. The comeback narrative of a legendary actress, with a film that highlight the power of women, in the heat of the Me Too, would be the perfect storm for her. Of course she still could have lost to McDormand, but I really doubt. “3 Bilboards” had an anti vote block and detractors enough to mask “The Wife” weakness. Another error that I feel Sony Committed was only have focusing the screenings for the Actors Branch of the Academy. “The Favourite” was beloved by the bellow the line branches at the Academy, so, as a strategy, something would have to be done. The increase of new members also didn’t help Close. Some probably don’t even know her spectacular body of work – these days it looks like anyone can be an Academy Member, you only have to fit the political agenda. Finally, she should have campaigned in UK too, as Julianne Moore did in her year. On a final note: she gave a bad speech at SAG and I really think that “Every wife needs a husband” in some way hurt her.
I am preparing myself to (sadly) see Amy Adams losing again next year. The world is so unfair when we talk about Awards. Honestly, it is very difficult to live in a world where Paltrow and Malek are Oscar Winners and Close and O’Toole are losers. My heart is crying for Glenn Close.
I think the 3 Billboards block voting wanted to punish McDounagh for the movie’s perceived “sins”, but I don’t think even the film’s detractors could plausibly slag the work McDormand and Rockwell did on screen. Close wasn’t going to win last year either.
The gag of ALL of this is we don’t actually know the vote totals, so we don’t know if it was a close result or a landslide. I think it would be helpful for the Academy in the future to begin storing the vote totals and “declassifying” them after all the people involved have passed away so we can get a fuller story of how someone won or lost. Might cause some revisions to accepted wisdom (for instance I have long suspected that Shakespeare in Love obliterated Saving Private Ryan in the final vote total but it’s often cited as one of the great upsets ever in BP).
For some reason, the Oscars database will tell you who came in 2nd and 3rd place for several years in the 1930s.
That’s weird. I guess the Academy never wants anyone to find out that they got no votes, but maybe releasing the totals for the winner and 2nd place would be of historical interest and provide a new avenue for casual film buffs to reconnect with the truly glorious history of film.
It’s for about 3 years in the mid-1930s. No years before, and no years after.
It’s too bad, Oscar could stand to think outside the box a bit more.
I’m guessing that they have all of the vote totals somewhere in their archives. Why not release them? That would be fascinating. I’d like to know how close Roma came to winning, or how many votes decided Crash v. Brokeback Mountain.
Found’em! SO cool…
Really? That’s SO interesting! Where can I find these?
Go to Oscars.org. Hover over “Awards” at the top then click Oscars, then click Awards Databases to go to the official Oscar database.
Thanks!
which movie won best picture at the Romanian Academy?
That might be a joke of some kind that’s going way over my head… 🙂 But, if not: I’m pretty sure we don’t have such awards over here.
The reason people call it an upset is because SPR won all the awards and I think few films at that time had won as many awards as that. It just looked like a clear winner. On subsequent watching, I think the Academy got the right winner out of the two. I believe “The Truman Show” and “The Thin Red line” were the best, though.
Not even Bacall. Bacall was a star. Never a master of acting. Close is. But she is “only 71”. She can win a competitive Oscar above an age that like 4 woman have done in 175 opportunities over the Academy’s history.
I mentioned Bacall because at that time, she really won everything and lost the Oscar to Binoche, who, as Colman, was shocked by the fact.
Calm down or take a Xanax.
DONT BE A JERK.OH WAIT..YOU ARE
At least Gaga lost all actress contests. That we can be thankful for.
I am so crushed too. I watched it in a theater with about 100 people and there were audible gasps of disbelief. We can only hope for the Sunset Blvd musical. Although the award went to another great actress in a great performance.
Will it be a musical?
I’m sure she’ll be great, but she does have to compete against Gloria Swanson’s iconic take. In fact, many people may not even be comfortable with rewarding Close the Oscar when Swanson couldn’t even win it.
“The Bafta voters at the Academy alone were not enough to give Colman’s the edge”
If most of them voted for Colman, and it was close enough between the American voters, then, yeah, it could easily have been decisive. 500 voters…
“The Bafta voters at the Academy alone were not enough to give Colman’s the edge”
If most of them voted for Colman, and it was close enough between the American voters, then, yeah, it could easily have been decisive. 500 voters…
If it makes you feel any better, this year she lost out to wonderful performance from Colman.
And she joins elite complany: Deborah Kerr, Thelma Ritter, Peter O’Toole, Alfred Hitchcock, Richard Burton, and a few other luminaries have never won a competitive Oscar.
I’m okay with her not winning. That “overdue” bullshit (for lesser performances) is what starts the cycle to begin with.
Glenn will be fine, with her scads of other awards. The Academy really should have recognized her for either Fatal Attraction or Dangerous Liaisons. I can’t even believe they missed nominating her supporting performance in Reversal of Fortune.
If the Academy voters want Close to win, they will vote for her. An excuse such as “because voters assumed that she had this in the bag, and voted for their first choices”, doesn’t make sense. It only proves that Colman won it on performance.
But interesting that you mentioned the release of The Wife. But I doubt she’ll get nominated last year. If that’s the case, she would have to bump one and I think it will be Margot Robbie. But the problem last year for The Wife is that even if it debuted at Toronto with Close getting good notices for her performance, critics were hesitant to confirm it as “this is it, the end, we have a winner already” type of performance. That might be the reason why Sony Pictures Classic decided to delay its release and risk it for this year where Close could carry over her raves from last year to this year without seeing the performances that will be in contention for the race. But as the year went on, when all these variety and wide range of really good lead performances came out, the only argument left for Close’s performance was the “overdue” narrative. To be honest, it didn’t stood out among the many great performances this year. To be fair, in as much as I like Moore’s performance in Still Alice, I don’t think it wold stand a chance for a win this year or last year either with the slates of strong performances and she won her Oscar for a weak slate with only Pike the strongest challenger to Moore but ofcourse we know that Gone Girl wasn’t that much loved hence Moore winning it convincingly.
Sasha, this ranks as the best piece you have ever written – so much profound insight with some underlying hope. Thank you for making sense out of nonsense.
And a Glenn Close post mortem if I may. A punch in stomach was a true sense of how so many of us felt. What made it even worse was we waited 17 months for this not the standard 5-6. By playing 2017 Toronto then being held back for of all movies “Call me by your name” the decision makers outsmarted themselves. Ok I get it. Glenn wouldn’t have won last year. But to error in the timing of the movies release it cost itself beaucoup viewers and voters. And by the way no screener sent to the DGA. What a disgrace by Sony and obviously cost Glenn her win. it’s heartbreaking.
You’re entitled to have time to grieve. When you’ve finished grieving, I hope you’ll work out that nobody was to blame for her not winning. There were simply other performances which had more impact, both last year and this year.
I’ve quibbled and at times vehemently disagreed with comments you made in the run up. So I owe you an apology for that and a bravo for by far the most insightful post mortem story. Excellence delivered. With kind regards,
Stephen
Look at how many people here who were convinced that because Rachel Weisz won BAFTA, it made her the front runner. She had the British advantage with BAFTA – since it was her only major precursor win. Also, BAFTA has only about 500 voters out of the over 8,000 Oscar voters.
I thought that “500” number was from many years ago, and especially before the “new” members that have been accepted in in the past few years specifically.
Most of the audience cheering Colman’s win and laughing along to her speech were not British. You’re right that we were all fools to focus on Rachel Weisz. She couldn’t win her category because she was a previous winner at the Oscars (which she wasn’t at the BAFTAs) and she had internal competition from Emma Stone. In hindsight, we should have guessed that Colman was the one who would win. Nobody on Goldderby got it.
With Regina King, Gold Derby actually got it – they continued to have her as the front runner. But people here couldn’t look beyond her missing SAG and BAFTA and kept riding the Sylvester Stallone train.
Difference is Weisz won nothing else major. Colman had the Globe – and 2/3 of the big critics prizes, like Rylance.
Difference is Weisz won nothing else major. Colman had the Globe – and 2/3 of the big critics prizes, like Rylance.
She won like 30 prizes as opposed to Weisz’s 8.
Yup… 🙂
And Weisz didn’t beat King at BAFTA in the final vote (where the whole membership could speak), while Colman did beat Close.
Best picture seems to go to movies that are more ensemble pieces or two handers as opposed to movies about a single character unless that one role is played by a character actor like sally hawkins and not a movie star like christian bale.
Voters don’t want to support movies that are stoking the ego of a movie star. A movie like the martian is all about matt damon and no other character in the movie. So a win for that movie is a win for a movie that is there to serve matt damon character and his star power. But in case of shape of water, a win for the movie is a win for the directorial vision more so than the lead actor who happens to be a character actor. Because a movie like shape of water , even after it wins best picture is not going to make sally hawkins a box office movie star. But if the martian won best picture then it would increase the box office star power of matt damon. Oscars don’t want that.
Movies about a group of people is more likely to win best picture than a movie about a single person. IF such a movie were to win then the lead actor should not be a movie star or at least shouldn’t look like a movie star.
“Movies about a group of people is more likely to win best picture than a movie about a single person.”
Enter the SAG Ensemble stat…
One last time: choosing to not take a film at face value, engaging with its deeper cultural context, asking incisive questions about the artists’ intentions, acknowledging that queer and/or black voices might have different viewpoints from your own that deserve to be heard, and suggesting that others stop talking long enough to listen to those voices is not “hating” or “trolling” or being part of a “hive mind” — it’s legitimate film criticism and open, thoughtful discussion. Or are we only allowed to engage with movies on nothing but the most shallow surface level from here on out? Are we supposed to shut up and not voice our opinions so we don’t bother anyone who liked the movie and can’t stand to watch it bear any scrutiny? Are we supposed to blindly accept the decisions of an organization that’s still 69% male and 84% white as above reproach, as the objective gold standard of cinema, unable to be questioned or disagreed with? To me, that sounds like an intolerant atmosphere where thoughtful discourse is discouraged — exactly what the dreaded “Film Twitter” is so often accused of being. To me, the only people who would be afraid of “Film Twitter” are the people who are too scared to allow the voiceless to have a voice because of the challenge it would bring to their own entrenched viewpoints. Better to blindly maintain the status quo and cheer the accomplishment of mediocre art than face that challenge and admit your privileged, platformed opinion might not be the only valid voice in the room anymore.
The only reason I’m disappointed with Green Book winning BP is that I just don’t think it’s a particularly great film.
Ok.
it is the only film among the nominees that i felt good after watching. The combination of subject matter set during Christmas is so perfect. I am serious
Fair enough – though I don’t think BP should necessarily be about rewarding the film that makes people feel good.
the movie was able to achieve feel good status despite dealing with such a dark subject matter.
I think the extent to which this applies to individual viewers depends on how receptive they are to the slightly tone-deaf narrative.
This probably reads as more condescending than I intend! I personally didn’t feel particularly uplifted by Green Book because I didn’t buy the conversion that Mortensen’s character seemingly underwent.
Mortensen is not out right racist….he just grew up in a place where he acquired racist tendencies. So it is easier for him to convert than say someone in KKK. His racism has more to do with self preservation than wanting to hurt someone else.
That’s certainly one reading of it. For me, the character was established early on as being what I would classify as outright racist (regardless of how that came about – I’m not sure I believe anyone is born racist, even KKK members acquire racism somewhere…)
No, his (offensive) racism is basically nonexistent apart from that one forced scene in the beginning and that funny sentence from his wife about how hard it will be for him to drive a black man.
You’re right, he’s definitely not offensively racist apart from that scene where he is clearly shown to be offensively racist 🙂
It was 1962, though. Everyone was racist, to some degree. Historical figures shouldn’t be judged by modern standards.
It’s very possible that everyone is still racist, to some degree.
But I don’t disagree – however, in that context, I still don’t buy his apparent conversion. For me, the character doesn’t earn it, which is a problem of writing and/or direction. Mortensen does very well with the material he’s given though.
Anyway, this all gives the impression that I have super strong feelings about Green Book, but I really don’t and that’s my main problem with it.
But I didn’t think he was hugely racist to begin with. He wasn’t a member of the KKK; he was an NYC bouncer. He had experience with many different kinds of people, as he told Shirley after the shower scene. Therefore his racism was slight… and more to do with believing in stereotypes, such as black people liking fried chicken.
Let’s not set KKK membership as the bar for serious racism… We probably shouldn’t get into a discussion of gradations of racism at all – racism is racism.
He believes in stereotypes, and he thinks the natural reaction to seeing a black man drinking out of a glass in his home is to throw the glass in the trash can. He’s a racist.
That he is, by the end of the film, presented as something of a redeemed character in this regard is problematic given that we don’t witness a whole hell of a lot of remorse, or even re-education. He meets a black man he doesn’t hate, who is better educated than him but suffers greatly for the colour of his skin. That man helps him write some letters, and opens his eyes to a fraction of the hate and suffering endured by people of colour. So he invites him to dinner at his home. That’s essentially it. There’s not a lot (if anything) to suggest he doesn’t still think all black people love fried chicken, especially now he’s introduced it to Dr Shirley!
Is it problematic enough to ruin the film? No, it has some nice moments, and I think it means well. The acting is great, there are some funny lines, and it breezes past in what feels like a fairly quick 2hrs 10m. But – for me – it just doesn’t have depth.
Gradations of racism definitely do exist. (I think you said something like that in the first line of your last post.) Therefore, making a blanket statement like “racism is racism” is not acceptable. A blanket statement like that ends all discussion. We must accept that not all racists are incorrigible, and there is hope for their redemption. As Tony went on a long journey of several months (not 2 hrs 10 mins) with Don Shirley in the Deep South, I don’t find it hard to believe that he was a changed man by the end of it.
But racism is racism right?
I mean, you’re right, I shouldn’t have said “to some degree” in my previous post, I was just trying to sound a little less confrontational (I generally find in discussions about race and racism that most discussants take against being accused of racism, even if that accusation is universal)
Now, in real life, sure – I know that people can change. But Green Book doesn’t – for me – do a very good job of showing Moretnsen’s character experiencing that change, on screen. It is the job for the filmmakers to represent those several months within the constraints of a 2hr 10m (or longer or shorter as necessary) film. 130 minutes is plenty of screen time to explore changing attitudes and character redemption, but – again, for me – Green Book is less concerned with showing that.
I’ve willingly entered mudfights over Get Out on this site, so I can cope with being called a racist, either universally or specifically. I think, in this case, perhaps you weren’t paying close enough attention. The film does show Mortensen’s character gradually changing. The fried chicken scene I mentioned was one example of learning for him — a scene where he learned from Don Shirley that his stereotypes were incorrect. He learned that most of his stereotypes needed to be thrown out. There were several scenes where this happened.
Mortensen is very multicultural. He has to monitor white privilege like most white people.
The best picture win should go to movies that evoke emotions.
Agreed – and on that basis, BlacKkKlansman was the best of the nominated bunch for me. Would’ve loved to see If Beale Street Could Talk in the conversation too.
Beale was better than most nominees too.
I though you felt good after watching Vice?
I liked the whole of Green Book… until the Christmas songs at the end. I winced upon hearing them, because I know serious film people hate feelgood endings. Still, at least the film did inform us at the start that the journey would end at Christmastime. This was historically accurate too, apparently, so the film can’t be blamed for it.
feeling good and loving a movie are two different things. Vice is depressingly good. Green book is feel good
Manila Luzon was robbed!
Not to mention Shangela and Willem in ASIB!!!!
We need to quote Anton Ego when summarizing 2018
“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the *new*.”
Every one in the comments section seem to think they know best, and they are a critic with valid opinion. No you are not.
It is hard to defend the new like Roma when the industry wants to stay old school. But to try and teardown other films in defense of your own favorite film is unacceptable. Every single artist out there has more talent than any of us hacks commenting here. I wish people calm down, and be positive about what they like, and keep their criticism constructive about the movies they don’t like.
If all people can do is bad mouth art/movies, the comments section will become unbearable.
You sir, win the internet for the day! But in reality Roma isn’t all that new if you’ve seen the films of Terence Davies or even large parts of Tree Of Life. They’re both memory pieces, too. Roma just had a mammoth campaign behind it so it seemed new.
You sir, win the internet for the day! But in reality Roma isn’t all that new if you’ve seen the films of Terence Davies or even large parts of Tree Of Life. They’re both memory pieces, too. Roma just had a mammoth campaign behind it so it seemed new.
Imagine if The Tree of Life had a 30 million awards campaign
Well put
Ratatouille = rat + patootie. Rat Patootie! That doesn’t sound delicious. At all.
You took the words right out of my mouth, Sasha. I understand that many are upset about Green Book or BR, but hey, it happens. You can’t have it your way all the time. Respect other people’s choices and keep it moving! I’ve spent more time on Awardsdaily than on Goldderby this season because people there are so full of negativity, bitterness and anger.
I’ve decided to stop going on Goldderby because I really dislike some people posting on the forum. Now they are extremely happy Malek fell and hurt himself during the awards. If you don’t like ASIB or The Favourite you are called trash and bullied constantly. God forbid you like Black Panther, BR or GB because you’ll have to go through them insulting you on a daily basis and constantly bitching about how awful this season, the movies, the performances and the awards all are. It’s such a toxic environment and many valuable members stopped posting because of this.
well, I was a main forum moderator and even had my own private subforum, “The Race”, that I had to give up doing my work for a combo of reasons. It was so tiring, plus the final drop was to discover a spanish magazine was stealing my work here and in my blog, I offered to collaborate with them (instead of suing) and they did not even reply to my offer. So, I dropped here and closed my blog. Since then, I just follow a low profile… I am not interested in this beyond a hobby, never tried to make it a way of earning a living. Might do in the future, if I am fired from my actual job, but this consumes so much time and energy that it is better to leave it for when you miss it. People take things too seriously… or too lightly. The bashing of Green Book and Bohemian Rhapsody is completely unfair. It is OK if you don’t like the film – you’re entitled to – but neither of them are crimes against humanity… they’re actually films solid enough to collect awards from their peers and achieved decent audience applause. That’s always saying something and both deserve respect.
I really have problems with films that have a clear, or subliminal, agenda, that I simply can’t tolerate, because they either become hate speech or justify crimes against humanity… it’s an irony how some of them (Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down and American Snipper, most notably) have been Oscar candies and have been championed by critics and audiences alike. I would forbid all of them, except at the University as subject of study on how to manipulate the audiences into embracing fascism, without noticing.
“Now they are extremely happy Malek fell and hurt himself during the awards”
yeah, classless response to having the competition win over one’s champion is not gonna make anyone smell like roses. Take the loss like a champ and move on. Both open hostility and backhanded swipes are pathetic, not sympathetic.
“Take the loss like a champ and move on.”
I would say take the WIN like a champ and move on, but Sasha can’t just graciously acknowledge that her prediction was right, she has to continue attacking people who have legitimate complaints about Green Book as “haters” and “trolls” and rubbing the fact that it won in their faces. It’s not a good look.
“attacking people who have legitimate complaints about Green Book as “haters” and “trolls”
tell that to TLJ critics. They are dismissed as haters and trolls too even though they have legit complaints that the movie’s a mess, characters boring, pacing off, humor fuckin terrible, awkward structure, etc. I guess that any complaint about any movie is always going to be dismissed as un-legit by supporters of that movie. heck, try to give constructive criticism of Black Panther or Moonlight and see what happens.
I since have come to like it, but I was definitely in that camp after the first viewing. And I still think the flaws are all there – I just didn’t mind them that much the second time, and found more greatness in it. (The Last Jedi.)
it’s a strange movie. when it’s great it’s great, when it messes up it’s a big mess.
Agreed.
She was doing it on FB this morning, asserting that Green Book hate will get Trump re-elected.
It’s been 48 hours, we are officially at the point where no one in the real world cares who won Best Picture this year. I’m curious about the Marty film now.
How old are these people for Christ sake? He could have been seriously hurt.
As shocked and saddened as I am still about the Glenn Close snub, I must say we probably jumped the gun when we thought it was a done deal for her. The Critics Choice I don’t care for, bunch of pundits voting for what they think will win Oscars not what they liked, so if I exclude that and look at the other precursors, this is how I saw it.
Glenn Close seemed to have the advantage with the SAG / GG combo that is a slightly more reliable Oscar predictor than the Bafta / GG combo, I would have said it was 60/40 at that point BUT then the overall love for the films themselves had to be factored in and that’s when Close didn’t get any extra points and Colman did, bringing it up to 50/50 and as it turned out in the end, probably a bit higher for Colman, my guess would be a damn close call, 48/52 or something.
And as much as I adore Colman who truly is a brilliant, until recently criminally underrated actress, I agree with Sasha : this was a supporting role. The performance was worthy of an Oscar but not in the lead category, that should have been reserved for an actress who carried her film alone.
My two cents.
P.S. And for the love of FUCK, just give that Sunset Boulevard musical film a greenlight already, get Julie Taymor to direct and just give Close her damn Oscar! I mean ffs, the story essentially has one location and is a two-hander with two bit characters (girlfriend, butler) thrown in there, too so it’s not like the budget couldn’t be made reasonable.
Actually, the Golden Globe/SAG combo is weaker than the Globe/BAFTA combo. Let’s take a look at all the years with BAFTA as a precursors, i.e. before the Oscars.
2000 not applicable, as Roberts won all three awards
2001 not applicable, as Globe, SAG and BAFTA went to three different actresses
2002 applicable, Zellweger had Globe + SAG, Kidman had Globe + BAFTA = Kidman WON
2003 not applicable, as no actress had the Globe + BAFTA combo
2004 not applicable, as no actress had the Globe + BAFTA combo
2005 not applicable, as Witherspoon won all three
2006 not applicable, as Mirren won all three
2007 applicable, Julie Christie had Globe + SAG. Cotillard had Globe + BAFTA. Cotillard WON
2008 not applicable, as Winslet won all three (although only BAFTA was in leading)
2009 not applicable, as no actress had the Globe + BAFTA combo
2010 not applicable, as no actress had the Globe + BAFTA combo
2011 not applicable, but an actress with Globe + BAFTA beat out the SAG winner
2012 not applicable, as no actress had the Globe + BAFTA combo
2013 not applicable, as Cate won all three
2014 not applicable, as Julianne won all three
2015 not applicable, as Larson won all three
2016 not applicable, as Emma Stone won all three
2017 not applicable, as McDormand won all three
2018 Close had Globe + SAG, while Colman had Globe + BAFTA. Colman won.
So, in 18 years every time there was a Globe + SAG vs. Globe + BAFTA nominee, the Globe + BAFTA nominee WON each time in this category.
Thanks, good to know. I guess my mistake was that SAG in itself and not as part of a combo, is usually a better predictor than Bafta.
It’s precisely because of the British bias at BAFTA that you have to combine it with other major wins to see its true strength. When an actor wins ONLY BAFTA, it’s usually not enough. (It is sometimes.) It can be a BAFTA thing. So you add in the requirement to win at least one other big award, so they “prove” they’re not just a BAFTA thing. This is what I did in predicting Colman. (I looked at various combos that were applicable based on Close/Colman’s wins, including the one Zooey Bloom looked at.)
Fascinating on those GG/SAG, GG/BAFTA combo splits. So basically, BAFTA is a large indicator for Best Actress winners.
yep. poeple forget that SAG is now SAG-AFRA. DJs who vote for SAG-AFRA don’t make AMPAS membership.
I’ve been calling it the Kidman-Cotillard path. 🙂
As those are the only two perfect precedents for this year’s race.
Ms Colman didn’t seem to play the pr game that most British nom’s have done. Artful doggering the talk-show circuit into a political campaign. Maybe I don’t watch enough TV but it actually felt like
Colman had not made a major push at all? Which made last night a shock but not a major surprise.
The rumors that Close is not particularly popular personally…there may be something to that?
Anyway the British can no longer say Americans only allow them to flourish as butlers and villains.
1. Glenn Close is one of the most beloved screen icons today, rumors of anything to the contrary are nothing more than mean-spirited bs.
2. Butlers and villains ? Puhlease. It is usually more like kings (Colin Firth), queens (Helen Mirren, Judi Dench), heads of government (Gary Oldman, Daniel Day-Lewis) and scientists (Eddie Redmayne).
Not beloved by the Academy, that’s for sure!
They just awarded a Supporting Actress (albeit a good one) the Leading Actress Oscar over her!
People not beloved by the Academy are not getting enough votes on 7 separate occasions to secure them a place in the top5.
Close won literally every award imaginable leading up to Othcah.
Relative to that scale, it’s fair to say the Academy hates her (especially when you take into account what an incredible fetish that body has for “make-up awards”).
Incorrect. She barely won anything from critics groups and lost the Bafta.
Yes, the Academy seemed to go out of their way to snub her again but Colman didn’t just come out of nowhere, she won a Golden Globe and the Bafta for a film that had 10 Oscar nominations including Best Picture. She was a major threat.
Having said that I was rooting for Glenn Close. I’m ALWAYS rooting for Glenn Close.
Colman pretty much came out of nowhere. Show me who was predicting that. I’m no Oscarologist, but that’s as big of a surprise in a lead acting category as I can remember since Adrien Brody.
Very big surprise, yes, but Colman was clearly number two eith a lot of people thinking she had a real shot, even if Close was the favourite.
I predicted her, and she was the stats favorite. See my reply to Michael Weyer, just below!
The rumours are true. She is kind of a bitch personally and not very beloved for that reason. She was rightly humiliated again.
Go away troll. You’re not welcome here.
Bullshit. Then more bullshit since you clearly don’t know her. Then a vile, malignant theory that she deserved to be “humiliated”. Shame on you.
“She is kind of a bitch personally and not very beloved for that reason.”
You should hear what we say about you at the private AwardsDaily parties that you never get invited to.
“Glenn Close is one of the most beloved screen icons today”
Leo is even more and yet took him 4 noms before he won with the 5th. being beloved and having stars line up is not the same. Sometimes you win for the right role (which Close didn’t have, obviously), sometime you win for body of work (again, they obviously didn’t think that was enough), sometimes you win cause competition is weak (obviously not the case). Stars didn’t line up. End of.
I think the issue is how her peers view her as a working colleague. That moves Oscar votes more than you think. Bill Murray’s loss to Sean Penn was a direct result of Murray’s unprofessional set demeanor for example.
The Close thing is stunning still. I mean, Colman deserved it but Close had built such a seemingly unstoppable juggernaut with Globe, CC and SAG and “it’s long past time,” how could you not expect her coronation?
Between that and King winning without a SAG nod, it looks like the new membership is going to affect some “sure things” in the future.
The Close thing (along with Roma) always felt fake to me. I never believed Close would win Best Actress, it just wasn’t the film & role to do it with. Many of us dissected previous Best Actress winners (going back decades) months ago and explained why Close for The Wife (with competition in mind) was statistically not going to happen.
I am still trying to process Academy Award winner Olivia Colman. It is so sudden and strange. In a single moment, she joins those other British Best Actress winners – Vivien Leigh, Joan Fontaine, Greer Garson, Olivia de Havilland, Audrey Hepburn, Elizabeth Taylor, Julie Andrews, Julie Christie, Maggie Smith, Glenda Jackson, Jessica Tandy, Emma Thomspon, Helen Mirren, and Kate Winslet. That’s a lot to live up to.
True but very well deserved, had secretly hoped she’d pull it off as her performance was amazing.
It’s amazing, really. I love Olivia Colman. Her win IS deserved. She’s always brilliant. And her speech was amazing. That said, good Lord, I feel very bad for Close, I expected her to win, and can only hope she gets the win on her next nom … she ain’t done yet.
King was the critical darling. She also won CC, the Globe. Weisz being British was her win at BAFTA, because she didn’t show up at any other major precursors.
“Close had built such a seemingly unstoppable juggernaut with Globe, CC and SAG and “it’s long past time,” how could you not expect her coronation?”
The Kidman-Cotillard path. Look it up – they’re perfect precedents. Streep is also a semi-precedent – the only difference is she beat Davis at the Globes, while Colman didn’t beat Close.
And some stats:
– No actress in the 16 years of the Gold Derby Awards has won that and the BAFTA and lost the Oscar! Actresses that won those two but not SAG or Critics Choice: Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady, Marion Cotillard for La Mome.
– In the last 12 years (so, 2007-2018), no actor in any of the four categories lost the Oscar after winning both the Gold Derby Award and the BAFTA.
– Since 2001, no actress to have won the BAFTA and either SAG or the Globe has lost the Oscar.
King was also the stats favorite, snubs factored in. I can produce the reasons there, too, upon request.
Sasha, why did you need to pull down Colman’s performance as “supporting player” to show your “disappointment”? Remember when Anthony Hopkins won for “The Silence of the Lambs”? It was a performance that has been long remembered and referenced till today in a “supporting” position.
Lecter was a supporting character. Hopkins really should have gone supporting but I think they were trying to get a nod for Scott Glenn at that cathegory, so they moved Hopkins up, so they wouldn’t compete among themselves. Problem with Glenn is that he ALSO had a strong supporting performance in Backdraft that year, and that he was eclipsed by Hopkins and Foster in “Lambs”, so he became a longshot for the nom
I think Lecter did pass as a lead character, the story was very concerned with him.
in the same sense, Penelope Cruz should have run as Lead in Vicky Christina Barcelona. The first half of the film, her character was talked about and promoted to extenuation and when she finally appeared, she stole the whole film, as a force of nature (she is one of the most deserved Oscars I can remember, in Supporting). But I think she is a supporting character. Same way as Lecter actually is. That is why the rest of the Lecter franchise films fail… Lecter is meant to be a supporting character influencing the rest of the characters’ choices and lives, not the main star. Again, same with Freddy Krueger… the nightmare films that are best, he’s clearly supporting, the menace lurking in the dreams. And that’s why I would love a Friday the 13th film shot from the perspective of Jason and his mother.
If anything Ted Levine should’ve gotten the supporting nod for SOTL.
Lector was such an icon when the movie came out that Hopkins could not lose in any category so they put him in more important Lead. IMO, it isn’t a category fraud like when they deliberately fraud someone cause he/she has no chance of winning in the right category or eevn getting a nom. Also, screen time =/= lead/supporting. Lector was the focal point of the movie, didn’t just serve as the support to Clarice.
SO much hatred towards Green Book, a movie I loved and feel like it has that Hollywood glamour, seems timeless. And is being judged by today’s standards of race when it is a period piece.
It’s being judged by today’s standards because it was made today. Art does not exist in a vacuum, contemporary context matters.
I agree that by not trying to be too “in the moment” does give Green Book a more timeless quality like a more old fashioned Oscar winner… But I still don’t think itwas the overall best movie of the year… BKKKM did the best job of covering both of those bases.
“Spike Lee’s win brought the house down. I’ve never heard so much screaming and excitement over a win. It was long overdue. By contrast, Glenn Close’s loss was like a gut punch. I didn’t think enough voters had it in them to do that to her again, for the seventh time. I think she deserved to win, and that Olivia Colman, as good as she was, was nonetheless a supporting player in The Favourite. She was the film’s only win, and for ardent fans of The Favourite, their happiness is understandable. I am sorry for Glenn Close. She deserved better than she got. It was the night’s only real disappointment… for me.”
Exactly.
Maybe Green Book’s win had nothing to do with twitter, or pushback. Maybe it was the just the usual inoffensive feelgood middle of the road fare that has almost always won BP.
..except that this has only happened once- ,maybe twice at most in last 8 yrs
Congrats to Sasha for winning the Gold Derby Oscar Predictions contest too – I am now posting this on this feed as well as another (sorry). I finished 80th – a career best for me so I was delighted even with that. But Sasha blew the field apart with 22 out of 24 winners, and finished such a clear winner. Amazing effort!!
this just in and as far as i know this article about the TRUE reason netflix pulled support to axe all disney- marvel shows (consider they axed it from what i hear well before disney launch their own stream services) their reason for axing? not cos disney have a stream service up and running..or properly established it cos netflix can’t afford the costs, expenses, fees etc…so if we flow through this logic how is it netflix were willing to back in a film from their platform that woulda been far bigger gamble- that failed for netflix winning best picture than compared to disney backed/ marvel tv series that would almost certainly well did prove to be complete success for netflix?
https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2019/02/netflix-reportedly-cancelled-marvel-shows-over-hefty-licensing-costs-and-lack-of-ownership/
it sounds to me like netflix greed that comes with great power..disappointing..i think with attitude like that netflix will turn their back on academy maybe? which they should..so were disney pushed to do their own stream by aggresive netflix? to what extent were they pushed vs. what was disneys own intentions? anyone?
Netflix will be fine without Disney and Marvel. Look at The Umbrella Academy already better than most Marvel tv shows. Their exclusives this year (and its only February) have been killing it. And they back up quality projects like Beasts of No Nation and Roma. Disney will be successful on its own but unless they get off their kiddie approach, HBO and Netflix have nothing to worry about.
Correct, Henrique.
Netflix can certainly afford to pay Disney any license fee. But they have simply chosen not to.
Because why pay your powerful competitor a mountain of cash for temporary rights to content that Disney has promised to yank away soon?
Why give your competitor millions of dollars to rent content that fewer Netflix subcribers even care about?
So your competitor can spend your own millions against you?
Disney: “Give us millions and millions of dollars for something you can’t keep.”
Netflix: “No thanks. We would much rather fuck you before you fuck us.”
HBO and Netflix lineups for 2019 are killer, I am very curious on what Apple (probably launching this year) and Disney (definitely launching this year) will offer. But I don’t think I’m subscribing to anything else. And Amazon is spending half a billion dollars on a Lord of The Rings series. Insane!
As for movies, the business model is changing. I think all these streaming services can go with a theatrical release and offer the films a couple of weeks later to their subscribers. Hollywood needs to adapt.
I agree with your assessment from top to bottom.
Spot on. I think streaming service machinations are poised for a really nasty stretch.
‘Roma’ had a formidable run already and the fact that it came so close to winning Best Picture will only embolden Netflix which has Martin Scorsese’s next film ‘The Irishman’ right around the corner. Yes Oscar campaigning is expensive, but relative to its almost infinite means, it is much easier for Netflix to spend a lot of money on it than it is for small independent studios.
(are you still at the email address that’s attached to your disqus account?)
….and as this year demonstrates..proof is in the pudding..this will only embolden the academy to dig in and resist the new wave for decades to come..who’s to say that it really quite possible that the academy will not be swayed for as long as it took for certain genre films to make a breakthrough? and consider anything new to the academy combined with the fact that as reinforced by this pivotal moment in oscar history..the fact the chosen new academy membership well atm are clearly more informed educated in terms of understanding what oscars traditions are and the sensible middle ground to evolve as an institution.,..well i underestimated the gen Y emerging new academy members…and it seems clear to lot of us…reflected by surge in audience ratings (marginal but going in right direction for first time in years -+12% improvement), the fact is it took a lifetime of the academy for a fantasy or fiction film combined genre to breakthrough in academy on big screen..how can you be sure or even confident that such a new ‘trend’ clearly driven by the twitterati- fuelled by netflix can expect to be embraced for best picture as soon as you assume it will be?
Again i relieved i been proven wrong..my fears so far have been unfounded…I didnt support as reflected by the damn awful ratings last years oscars last years best picture winner..but above all..at least they backed in big screen films.
Well you be the judge but here some perspective: How long has it taken for anything new conceptually, stylistically that academy taken decades to come round to embrace (let alone to overcome the race/ women bogey they imposed on themselves which if you ask me is far more pressing to been resolved far sooner than the so- called ‘netflix’; revolution which been dealt a massive blow this year onwards) how many times were say black actors snubbed before a breakthrough was finally delivered? how many times were women snubbed for best director or best picture until they brokethrough?
So given these issues are more pressing combined with thankful conservative base flexing it muscle..seemingly finding some middle ground at long last with sensible middle of rd progressives in academy, Combined with boost in ratings does anyone here honestly think Netflix stands a seriously strong chance to breakthrough within few years? try a decade that my prediction.
You look at sheer depth and breadth and fact every primary oscar shortlist– ROMA was one of suuuch a small % of oscar contenders shortlisted before noms announced,,yes it got through but just imagine as reflected from this year the rightful culture and tradition – oscar supprting side by side the big screen movie experience in theatres- NOT in the home….not on your bloody PC..that not what oscars are about..this year they have spoken.
This year the oscar win was the galvanizing of traditional / progressive forces against the aggressive ego- driven massively miscalculating campaign by social- media- digital cyberspace fanatics- saying loud and clear their best picture winner would be the pivotal moment in oscars long history to reconfirm to benefit of silent majority and clearly academy membership- the msg is clear to netflix..focus on your own domain by all means compete but dont expect the benefit of the doubt for best picture until at least you release your films simulataneously on big screen dont be greedy dont expect special treatment just cos your the ‘newest’ thing.
I not against academy acknowledging some achievements but more bout filmmaker than netflix.. if scorsese next film is as awesome as it cracked out to be not doubting majesty of filmmaker it wont be credit to netflix if he get nominated next year but majesty of scorsese as a filmmaker himself…but this will be the exception not the rule..
For a while after oscars experiment with netflix overall i dont see them being a dominant force and given the sour aftertaste as sasha points out netflix backed movies are more divisive amongst academy membership…clearly given pro- social media agitators who backed roma sought to discredit the far superior ‘green book’ compared to ROMA (which backfired spectacualrly) i would not be surprised if academy turn their back on scorcesese not that any film on any format he does is not good enough but the brand of ‘netflix’ attached to it will be instantly recognized and sure might be a contender but that branding will kill in short- medium term netflix best picture win chances.
Against sheer quality and depth at the same time reflected this year in the age the golden age of the critically acclaimed innovative genre breaking blockbuster film, i think reflected from proportion of oscars given to big screen movies netflix will have to let lot of time to pass even if scorsese wins to get consisent convincing strong bvest picture contenders..there simply wont be a trend towards it..
this year proved that in best picture category..
Watching you continue to ignore black and queer voices throughout this awards season to perpetuate your own white feminist agenda has gone from annoying to downright disgusting. You continually cite white leftists online for criticizing Green Book and Bohemian Rhapsody, while ignoring the countless black and queer voices that have spoken out against both films. You’re just as complicit in the “Film Twitter” conversation as anybody else.
Maybe take a hint after two years in a row, black writers have called you out for your bizarre defense of films that attempt to tackle racism from out of touch white writers. You don’t know anybody’s intentions in making a film either, whether they’re good or bad. And you can be well-meaning and still miss the mark. Given the information that’s surfaced about Nick Vallelonga and his support of Trump, it’s hard to believe his intentions were totally pure.
Spike Lee, Chadwick Boseman and many other artists who in the industry had reactions to Green Book’s win that should maybe tell you a little something. It’s not just a hive mind online.
I used to follow your writing a lot more when it felt like you genuinely cared about film and the awards race. Now you seem to be bitter and enraged with the direction of film, award shows and the internet in general. Maybe it’s time to take a step back if you don’t like, you know… reporting on awards… or film. You know, the thing you site purports to be about?
Joe, you’re a guy. How dare you criticize a female writer. Stay in your lane.
“Given the information that’s surfaced about Nick Vallelonga”
want some hard truth? vallelonga tweets were never going to be a thing. ever. hollywood doesn’t care about muslims. that’s the thing with diversity push – there’s hierarchy. not all diversity is equal. clearly race (black) relationships are #1. then comes women rights. then gay. etc. muslims are not the priority. if viggo could get away with Nword slip, vallelonga was definitely going to get away with his tweets. so that’s that. Moreover and most importantly, uncovering those tweets was absolutely pathetic, not sympathetic but pathetic, attempt to take him out James Gunn style and it didn’t hurt him one bit. in fact, I bet he earned lots of sympathy cause stalking old tweets is unsympathetic thing in its own right. it paints the stalker in far worse light than whoever made a transgression tweet years ago. something to think about moving forward. Awards Watch handed him Oscar over when they tried to kill his chance. Losers, serves them right.
The reason a lot of us were predicting Green Book to replicate The Shape
of Water is because it is a simplistic, easy to get, reassuring, period
option. They are both Weinstein through and through. It has nothing to
do with any backlash, or backlash against backlash (a wasted season of
Awards Daily articles). It is simply because it panders and baits, a
safe space for those who aren’t dividing themselves among the other
nominees. The people that wouldn’t criticise Green Book aren’t the
audience who would see this anyway. It isn’t set to be hurt by
word-of-mouth like a more critic-friendly film would suffer. And it has
nothing to do with white, elderly men, it is just simplistic people,
regardless of background.
It is a fallacy to depict Green Book haters as people lambasting inaccuracies or digging up dirt, because it is uncool. It has nothing to do with that. The majority of people couldn’t care less about twitter storms, they just don’t like it on their own terms because it is a pedestrian film for simpletons. Sasha will never understand why Green Book won, and why it is an unpopular win. A majority of us would regard downvoting Bohemian Rhapsody due to any Singer controversy as a total loss of credibility, external noise doesn’t dictate the merit of a film, the PC storms on twitter and critical opinion aren’t necessarily one and the same. If we don’t like a film, for most of us it has nothing to do with any dirt on twitter. It is because the movie sucks, or doesn’t meet the minimum standards for the award.
RT audience 72 Roma, 83 Cold War. Many people were bored with Roma. Could be why it lost. Cold War had all the Stalinist tension, the music as the 3rd lead character, And an abundance of Romantic tension. It had drama. Both were pretty.
No one goes to Rotten Tomatoes for the audience score, Patrick. That’s like going to KFC for the side salad.
All-in-all I’m surprised how much I’m satisfied by the results of this season. It was too crazy, but damn, it actually came together in the end. Simply put, Green Book was a good movie. The bar scene near the end of the film was by far one of the greater movie moments of the year. I stan, I stan
[#3:]
It’s actually proved shockingly easy, in the end, to make Green Book the stats favorite (well, perhaps not really shockingly, given how much weakness the other movies, too, not just Green Book, literally bent over backwards to show this Oscar season), while maintaining the system’s 100% “prediction” accuracy for all other 29 PGA era winners. I think these mostly minor changes improve my system quite a bit (which was to be expected, like I’ve already said on several occasions this year, given how many stats were butting heads all over the place in the race – no matter what was going to win, with the possible exception of The Favourite, there were always going to be a lot of valuable lessons to be drawn from it, with regard to the stats and tie-breaks and all that), while retaining and perhaps even enhancing its inner logic. So, without further ado, here is the breakdown of this year’s stats situation according to my system, and the minor updates which help it predict this year’s winner (and/or improve the logic behind its predictions for previous winners) – first, the elimination rules:
1. PGA snub (not an issue for any of the Best Picture nominees this year) – 100% over 30 years.
2. Two snub rule (eliminates every Best Picture nominee except for Vice and BlacKkKlansman) – 97% over, now, 71 years.
3. WGA loss plus a major guild/Oscar snub for picture, director, editing or acting (takes care of Vice and also affects all but the WGA-ineligible The Favourite) – 97% over 71 years.
4. Not being at least tied for 5th in nominations (eliminates BlacKkKlansman and also affects Green Book and Bohemian Rhapsody) – 97% over, now, 91 years.
Observations:
– The numbers are all updated to include this year’s result.
– As can be seen, a number of movies fall under two or more of these elimination rules. This was a confusing element for me and my system this year, as there is nowhere near enough precedent for this kind of situation: I couldn’t really be sure whether a movie eliminated by a single rule was likely to be stronger in the race than a movie eliminated by multiple rules. Green Book’s win answers that question. There is clearly no difference. (As Green Book was eliminated via three rules, whereas Vice was only eliminated due to the WGA+1 rule, and BlacKkKlansman only due to the nominations ranking rule, if there was a difference, then one of those two would have won.)
– The only modification I’ve had to operate to the elimination rules portion of my system is, again, a highly logical one, in my opinion: whenever a movie is ineligible for the WGA, it cannot be the system’s pick over a movie with a better “weakness count” (explained below) that was eliminated exclusively on account of the WGA+1 rule. Because that would obviously be unfair and illogical. This first came into play last year, with The Shape of Water vs. Three Billboards. At the time, I tried to resolve this by attempting to predict the WGA. This is clearly a much more appropriate solution.
– Since all eight movies get eliminated in one way or another, none gets eliminated (since one has to win), and the weakness count alone decides the winner:
Green Book -3 (DGA loss/directing snub, SAG snub, WGA loss)
The Favourite -3.5 (PGA loss, DGA snub, SAG snub, -0.5 for the WGA ineligibility)
Black Panther -4 (PGA loss, DGA/directing snub, screenplay snub, ACE/editing snub)
BlacKkKlansman -4 (PGA loss, DGA loss, SAG loss, WGA loss)
Bohemian Rhapsody -4 (PGA loss, DGA/directing snub, SAG loss, WGA/screenplay snub)
Roma -4 (PGA loss, SAG snub, WGA loss, editing snub)
Vice -4 (PGA loss, DGA loss, SAG snub, WGA loss)
A Star is Born -5 (PGA loss, DGA loss/directing snub, SAG loss, WGA loss, editing snub)
Observations:
– The 3rd-7th movies above are, of course, listed alphabetically, since they’re tied for number of weaknesses.
– I’ve already explained many times why I only count, for instance, WGA and Oscar screenplay snubs as one weakness (same category is the very basic answer – there’s a longer one with examples and precedents, obviously).
– As I said when posting my final official prediction, I’ve settled on deducting 0.5 points for a WGA ineligibility, to eliminate the need to try and predict that award in order to get Best Picture right. Since not competing for the WGA means a movie has neither won, nor lost the WGA, but something in-between. (As the chances of winning an award are always, in a vacuum, different from both 0% and 100%, as long as there is democratic voting between at least two movies going on.)
– The other modification I operated here was to remove the deduction of one extra point for not being in the top 4 in the nominations ranking, which I like, since that’s basically the same as the elimination rule above. I don’t even remember why I thought I needed to do this in the first place. I can’t spot the race where I thought this was crucial for predicting the right winner… (I mean, I have an idea, but that race is now resolved by the elimination rule, so there’s no longer a need for this deduction.) And, had I removed this earlier, I would have actually predicted Green Book this year (officially – unofficially I probably would have still predicted Roma, thinking the nominations ranking stat might prove too difficult to overcome). With that in mind, the decision is beyond clear.
– Since there is now, after these modifications, no tie for this year, I don’t even need to make any changes to the tie-breaks. However, I do want to make an improvement, anyway, so these are my new tie-breaks:
1. Having more SAG acting wins.
2. Having fewer relevant snubs in the categories listed above.
3. Major guild win rankings. (WGA>PGA>DGA>SAG.)
This is my final modification to the system made this year, and its purpose is to eliminate the need to have different guild rankings for the pre-preferential and preferential eras. Ties broken by the first rule are: Moonlight vs. Arrival (one SAG acting win to zero), Million Dollar Baby vs. The Aviator vs. Sideways (two SAG acting wins to one and zero, respectively) and Shakespeare in Love vs. Saving Private Ryan (one SAG acting win to zero). Ties broken by the second rule (necessary either due to the number of acting wins by the movies tied being equal, or due to there being no SAG Awards that year) are: Crash vs. Brokeback Mountain (editing snub for the latter) and Unforgiven vs. The Crying Game (ACE snub for the latter).
What’s interesting is that, even had Roma won the WGA instead of Eighth Grade, it would still not have been the stats favorite of my system, after these updates, because it would have lost to Green Book on the first tie-break…
Finally, some extra thoughts on stats that held or broke, and so on:
– Again I got Best Picture wrong due to (among other things) not correctly predicting screenplay at the Oscars. Or the virtual, all-eligible WGA. About that: The Favourite now looks like it might have actually lost to Eighth Grade as well, since 4/5 BAFTA-only screenplay winners that didn’t win the Oscar and went up against the Oscar winner at the WGA didn’t win there, and the fifth one is Up in the Air, and everybody knows why that lost. However, Eighth Grade IS still the only WGA winner in ages to have no Oscar nomination for screenplay, and of course the movies those other four lost to all did, so one just can’t be sure…
– The PGA is currently crushing the DGA in the preferential era. It’s now 2-0 to the former when they’ve split (I’m including the tie year, since a PGA winner beating a DGA AND PGA winner is even stronger evidence of how much more relevant the PGA is), and of course the one year when both got it wrong. This doesn’t surprise me one bit, but there might be some out there that could use the reminder. 🙂
– The late October stat (which says the Best Picture winner is always among the top 3 predicted at that time) has prevailed yet again. Will this one ever break in our lifetimes?! 🙂
– The NBR-GG-DGA-WGA stat also held (the BP winner has won at least one of the top awards at these for the last 70 years, now).
– As did the stat about the BP winner having at least one BAFTA acting nomination. (With this year, I think it’s now the last 21 or 22 years in a row this has been true, or something like that – with the obvious and irrelevant exception of Million Dollar Baby, which wasn’t seen by voters.)
– A movie getting extra acting nominations it wasn’t expected to get is YET AGAIN proven to be a bit of a red herring, not the major “Eureka” moment some people assume it is every year.
– Since Roma lost, the stat about the Best Picture winner never finishing exactly second, or tied for second, in any of my preferential ballot simulations, has also been confirmed. Which is SO COOL!…
– Like I said yesterday, this result also basically vindicates my theory that there’s no significant difference in strength between the editing stat and the directing stat. I’m sure this has already been pointed out, but there are now THREE exceptions to the directing stat since the early 1980’s, and only one for the editing stat (and an extremely easy one to explain away, to boot). But I’m sure people will again be indignant next year when I dare to suggest editing might be as relevant as directing, stats-wise…
– The Phoenix Film Critics Society is getting more and more impressive… 8 of the last 10 Best Picture winners won there first, with this year. Do we need to stop following the Best Picture race in December, from now on? 🙂
There are clearly many other stats that held, and some that broke, as there are every year. These are just the most important ones I could think of today…
I just want to remind you that I won our mini-bet. Green Book won and The Favourite didn’t. Even though I went with Roma and that lost but anyway. ☺️
I know. 🙂 I’ve acknowledged it twice, by now. Well done, again!…
[#2:]
Some more preliminary stuff before diving into the Best Picture stats (I did decide to work today, in the end, which is why writing these is taking so long):
First off, I’ve now gotten my last four official Best Picture predictions wrong. (And three of my last four unofficial ones. Which I don’t care about that much.) Which is… not making me very happy… However, I was mostly resigned to that happening again this year, once I was more or less forced by the WGA result to pick The Favourite, based on stats. (I wasn’t FORCED, I could have pre-adjusted the system a lot more than I did, but I wanted to give it a chance to surprise me, in more or less its current form.) Not because I didn’t think there were sound arguments for why it might win, but because I didn’t REALLY think it WOULD win… 🙂
And, if my system can’t learn what the right tie-breaking procedure is from THESE crazy races, where every stat comes into play and they’re all butting heads, then there probably just isn’t ANY tie-breaking system that can help the stats predict the winner close to 100% of the time. Even then (and I’ve definitely not yet given up on that project), they would remain indispensable for figuring out what movies definitely can’t win, as well as indicating how far ahead a big favorite is, just how vulnerable a slight favorite is in a close race, and all sorts of vital clues like that. Which, for some reason, a number of people are still ignoring, even to this day, after all my nagging :), and predicting stuff like Bohemian Rhapsody or Black Panther…
Also, mad respect towards Sasha for calling the upset right yet again! (AND for being so incredibly right about The Favourite almost being blanked. Though I still think having Weisz in fifth for a while, for example, was a gross exaggeration.) There’s a reason she’s the boss around here. (Well, there are many reasons…) Speaking of upsets, like I did the year of Spotlight, when people were calling that “dead” and such, after the ACE snub and PGA loss, this season I once more copy-pasted the comments by, this time, people calling Roma a lock, or things to that effect, into a little database. Now, like the Spotlight year (I’m pretty sure), I’ve decided against naming names, for obvious reasons, but I do want to paste here some of the things that were said, because they’re kind of funny to look at, in hindsight – as, I’m sure, it would be to look at some of the comments where I was saying how confident I was about The Favourite winning screenplay. 🙂 Gotta be able to laugh at oneself, like I’ve said before… At least I never called that a lock, nor ever considered it to be one. (Maybe I have a different definition of ‘lock’ than most people – I don’t know…)
I’m only doing this as a bit of a cautionary tale. People (myself included, perhaps, though, again, I’ve at least never called something a lock, nor implied that it was a lock, that wasn’t, as far as I can remember) really should be WAY more responsible in what they choose to deem a lock… Especially after La La Land, The Revenant, Boyhood at some point, and so on. WILL they ever learn?! It’s surreal, but the jury really is still out on this one. The quotes (I may or may not have straightened out the grammar on one or more of these, for extra anonymity reasons – but no correctly spelled words/sentences or their order were changed):
“Roma has had this thing locked up since December, no matter what the guilds and BAFTA do. Easiest call since Argo.” – January 22nd
“The acting nods for Roma show just how strong the support for the film is. It’s a shoo-in for best film and director.” – January 22nd
“ROMA will win Best Picture. The fact that it got not one but TWO acting nominations speaks volumes.” – January 22nd
“I’m sure Roma will win” – January 28th
“So, unless Spike Lee wins at DGA, it’s safe to say that Roma will close the deal.” – January 28th
“This race is ROMA, signed, sealed and delivered at the risk of sounding smug and obnoxious.” – January 28th
“I think Roma just became the official front runner, thank you very much. Green Book is a dark horse but without a Best Director nomination, it will not win.” – January 28th
“Cuaron wins DGA and Roma wins Best Picture and Director at the Oscars. I don’t see a good argument for any alternative.” – January 29th
“After BAFTA’s – Best picture: Roma ….%100” – February 11th
“I’m comfortable predicting her [I believe this was in reference to Regina King] as I am comfortable in predicting Roma as BP, which is pretty comfortable.” – February 11th
“No matter what happens I am picking “Roma”. I don’t think I was this confident of the BP in the last few years. It’s weird because “Roma” is in many ways weaker and not a natural BP winner. The cards have just fallen in its favour, in that all of the other contenders have pretty much been eliminated. That’s my last official prediction for BP.” – February 12th
“People are trying to make a horse race out of this when there isn’t one. “Roma” is the lock to win Best Director, it has the most nominations, and therefore should be considered the overwhelming frontrunner for Best Picture.” – February 15th
“Roma is so winning. Period.” – February 20th
[Likely the final re-post:]
I guess the best way to go about this is to get the overall impressions and stuff about predictions out of the way first. I’ll start off by saying that, of the things that seemed like they could win (it, Roma and The Favourite), Green Book was the one I liked the most. Looking back, I was surprised to see that the movie I was most rooting for out of the 2-3 most likely has won Best Picture five out of the last six years. (Although I only marginally preferred Moonlight to La La Land, and that might be reversed for me now – if it’s not, it probably will be, over time, as La La Land is just so much more rewatchable, even if it’s clearly more flawed than the movie that beat it.) So, that’s pretty cool! It’s in keeping with my generally very high agreement rate with the Academy’s winners. Of course, it would have been even better had A Star is Born won, but that was never happening after the SAG defeat.
With my Oscar bets, I basically broke even. I had under $40 placed, in total (I never bet much, plus, for me, $40 is a not insignificant amount of money), and lost about 3% of my stakes. (About a dollar.) Minor loss on Best Picture. (I caught 8 to 1 odds on Green Book early on, when I made my October stat-based bet on that, A Star is Born and Roma, and placed a little bit more on it later on, in increments, though in the end I of course would have gotten back more of my stake had The Favourite, BlacKkKlansman or Vice – all of which I would have made a profit on, since they always had such great odds – or Roma won… The fact that I gradually stopped believing Green Book would win, due to the nominations ranking stat, cost me some further value bets I would have surely placed on its always pretty favorable odds, had that not been the case.) Minor profit on the other categories. Bets I cashed in on, apart from BP (which was an overall loss, but of course I did win my bet on Green Book, specifically): Olivia Colman, Rami Malek (both biggish wins – on the latter, because I bet hard, as I thought even the fairly low odds he was being given were value, and on the former because her odds were insanely good), Black Panther for costumes, First Man for visual effects, A Star is Born to win no more than one award and The Favourite to win an acting award. Obviously, I lost a number of other value bets… 🙂 Had The Favourite won even one other award above the line (picture, screenplay or supporting actress), I would have made a serious profit.
For easier reference, these were my final official and unofficial predictions I gave a few days ago (those I got right, in bold font), with notes on the outcomes below:
“The first prediction is the one based almost exclusively on stats – where close, I went with the stats I found to be more convincing. The one in brackets is my intuitive prediction, what I expect to see win (specified only when it’s not the same as my official prediction), sometimes in spite of the stats. Those are mostly boring, the stuff most pundits are predicting.
Best Picture – The Favourite (Roma)
Best Director – Cuaron
Best Actor – Malek
Best Actress – Colman (Close)
Best Supporting Actor – Ali
Best Supporting Actress – King
Best Original Screenplay – The Favourite
Best Adapted Screenplay – BlacKkKlansman
Best Film Editing – The Favourite (Bohemian Rhapsody)
Best Cinematography – Roma
Best Production Design – The Favourite
Best Costume Design – The Favourite
Best Sound Editing – Bohemian Rhapsody
Best Sound Mixing – Bohemian Rhapsody
Best Original Score – Black Panther
Best Original Song – Shallow
Best Makeup & Hairstyling – Vice
Best Visual Effects – First Man (Avengers: Infinity War)
Best Foreign Language Film – Roma
Best Documentary Feature – Free Solo
Best Animated Feature – Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
Best Live Action Short – Mother
Best Documentary Short – End Game (Period. End of Sentence.)
Best Animated Short – Late Afternoon (Bao)”
(By the way, for anyone wondering, the tallied anonymous voters ballot only went 11/24. Though they were really only way off about Grant, The Favourite for screenplay and Vice for editing, who had significant leads over the things that won. Green Book lost BP by one vote in the preferential tally of said anonymous votes, signalling that it was stronger than The Favourite, which was knocked out in third, because it had had a lot fewer first place votes than both Green Book and Roma, and couldn’t catch up.)
Notes:
– as can be seen, and as I’ve already mentioned twice now, I got butchered by The Favourite’s poor showing, as every single category I got wrong in feature film was one where I had The Favourite predicted (officially);
– I also got butchered by the shorts, as I’d expected, with regard to my official predictions… At least I got 2/3 of my intuitive predictions there right (it pays to see them all, as they say), and I really probably should have gotten the third one right, too, as my gut was telling me Skin (not Marguerite, one of my “won’t win” calls), which I mentioned to at least one or two people, but for some reason I didn’t go with that, even for my unofficial prediction, but committed the cardinal sin of Oscar predictions, according to Jack Matthews (was it him?!) – picking the nominee I liked more (which was also ahead on stats);
– about the documentary short 40′ rule, specifically, one of the few truly strong stats for the shorts, I also said repeatedly that I thought this year was probably going to be a new exception to it, since End Game was the only nominee that wasn’t much shorter than that in the category, which isn’t usually the case, plus Period made a lot of sense to me as the winner (hence the unofficial pick), even though I didn’t like it much myself;
– 6/8 in the above-the-line categories is below my average, which isn’t great, but, given how many of the races were truly unclear, and the fact that I called the Colman upset (well, again, the stats did, but at least I didn’t make any mistakes in reading them, like I did for screenplay – of course, there’s also the very sensible argument that I just got lucky the slight stats/precedents favorite held in that category, as opposed to other similarly close races), maybe it’s also not a catastrophe;
– however, it was really neat that I got 4/4 right for acting, especially since I went for the weird Colman-wins-but-Weisz-loses scenario, plus, of course, both those categories and lead actor, at the very least, were rather unclear, stats-wise and not only… I love the Kidman-Cotillard precedents path for actress, by the way! Streep also mostly followed that path, and now there’s Olivia, too;
– other calls I was happy to see the stats, and my reading of them, get right, were First Man for visual effects (the production design nomination was my main reason for predicting it, as well as the fact that it had the most nominations in the category, by far – also, it’s so great that it won SOMETHING, at least, and we got to hear some of that amazing score), Free Solo for documentary (ACE, especially, has very high correlation to the Oscar winner here, and BAFTA isn’t bad at predicting it either), Black Panther for original score (its only stats issue was the BAFTA snub, but the only movie to not miss anywhere else, Mary Poppins Returns, had no above-the-line nominations, and every winner in this category since at least 2000 – I don’t remember whether I checked further back – has had at least one), Bohemian Rhapsody for sound editing (all nine outright winners in this category since the expanded ballot, as well as one of the movies involved in the tie in that category in 2013, were nominated for Best Picture, which, coupled with the fact that the sound categories so often go together, I figured trumped the extra foley nomination and win for A Quiet Place) and, of course, Regina King for supporting actress (the stat about all 12 supporting actors in the BFCA era, in both categories, to win the Golden Globe, Critics Choice and at least one of the most prestigious critical awards – NYFCC, LAFCA or NSFC – winning the Oscar, as well as the fact that only Tilda Swinton managed to win only the BAFTA, but not also either the Globe, the Critics Choice, SAG or one of the aforementioned critics prizes – I don’t remember whether NBR was also necessary for this stat or not -, and win the Oscar in this category, since Marisa Tomei, I figured meant there was less precedent for Regina King losing after winning basically all of those, than her SAG+BAFTA snubs, as Marcia Gay Harden had won without those, and both Rachel Weisz and Melissa Leo had won without the BAFTA nomination);
– about The Favourite’s many losses (it becomes, I believe, the first movie with any Oscar nominations at all to win six or more BAFTA awards but not win at least three Oscars, which is SO bizarre, ESPECIALLY since they still awarded Olivia Colman) in categories it might have won, had they liked it more (it clearly, and sadly, WAS just an internet thing – by the way, my thought as I was watching one of the clips for it early on in the ceremony was “this movie is just too cool to win Best Picture”!):
…….. – Best Picture I will address later, of course, in a larger post about the stats in that category, what adjustment(s) I’ll be making to my system, and so on;
…….. – Best Supporting Actress, and Rachel Weisz and Emma Stone’s defeats, I’ve already discussed (see the stuff about Regina King’s win, directly above);
…….. – Best Original Screenplay… This obviously was nowhere near a stats lock (the fact that I was so confident The Favourite would win wasn’t based on stats, but just – now, obviously faulty – logic), with The Favourite only winning BAFTA, of the major precursors… The fact that all of the Golden Globe winners that didn’t win any of the other major precursors in the BFCA era went on to lose the Oscar (plus some critics awards nomination stats working against Green Book) seemed to me like it should at least marginally make it the front runner here, as BAFTA-only winners have also mostly lost in the same time period, but some of them had actually won before – the ones in the BAFTA-as-an-Oscar-precursor era being The Return of the King and Talk to Her (which were a while ago, but that’s still more precedent). However, I realize, looking back on my file, that I made a fairly serious error here, overlooking one of my strongest stats for this category: the only movie since 1993 to win the Oscar over a movie that had beaten it at the Globe for screenplay, WITH BOTH NOMINATED THERE, was La La Land. I don’t know if being reminded of this stat would have made me predict Green Book instead, but, at the very least, it would have made me waaay less confident that it was going to be The Favourite… (Which might have factored into my precedents analysis for Best Picture, as well, since it would have meant Green Book was significantly stronger for screenplay than I thought, so I might have given it more than 11% chances, based on that, and The Favourite less than 26%.)
…….. – Best Film Editing… was just a painfully difficult category to call. Bohemian Rhapsody was the only one with the sound mixing nomination, a stat I was very much aware of, but it had also been snubbed by the BFCA (which was on 100% in 9 years). The main reason I went with The Favourite was that it was the only one nominated for the Gold Derby award in that category (also a 100% stat, until now, over 16 years). Had I not added that into the mix, I might have gone for Vice, anyway, because of the Critics Choice thing. It’s not clear what I would have done. Anyway, I don’t think this is a big deal, as a Gold Derby stat definitely helped me get Best Actress right, so the jury’s still out, as far as I’m concerned, on whether Gold Derby Awards stats are helpful or just random and misleading;
…….. – Best Costume Design was another very tough one (though The Favourite was ahead), as Black Panther’s only real problem was the BAFTA snub (BAFTA’s bizarre aversion towards “black” movies screws me again), and its Critics Choice win was a very strong precursor;
…….. – Best Production Design was roughly the same thing, as Black Panther again had only the BAFTA snub to worry about, and had, in fact, won more relevant precursors than for costumes (since it also won ADG and LAFCA, in addition to the Critics Choice award in this category).
And, last but not least, I also give my full list of “won’t win” calls for this year’s Oscars (all of which I got right, maintaining my – as far as I’m aware – all-time record of 100%):
“All “won’t win” calls for the 2019 Oscars:
These are, again, for the record, the things I’m claiming with great confidence definitely won’t win (I’ve added some at the last moment, but not gone back on anything, of course) – only the stuff somebody might consider actually predicting to upset:
Best Picture: A Star is Born, Bohemian Rhapsody, Black Panther
Best Director: Spike Lee
Best Actor: Bradley Cooper
Best Film Editing: Green Book
Best Foreign Language Film: Cold War
Best Live Action Short: Marguerite (this one’s a bit crazy, as it’s the most predicted by the pundits, but I want to do at least one riskier one besides picture, and I like this call)”
So, anyway… if any of y’all know any of the people who get nominated next year and see that I’ve called it that they absolutely are not going to win, be sure to let them know not to bother preparing a speech! 🙂 Save some time and energy…
Lots of people like Green Book. They are right.
Lots of people hate Green Book. They are also right.
I fear that a lot of Sasha’s discussion against people being vocal about Green Book is diminishing the reasons why they were angry about Green Book (and Bohemian Rhapsody). I do not think this is what Sasha is saying, but I fear it may be construed this way.
Completely agreed. She can’t see critical analysis without the lens of twitter. You don’t read about what your reaction to a film should conform towards, you watch a film and come to your own judgment, using your own critical thinking skills. Or you watch something which allows you to leave your brain at the door, which doesn’t require critical thinking skills from its audience, like Green Book.
Regd Green Book, If the movie is good enough for John Lewis, It is good enough for me.
“Olivia Colman, as good as she was, was nonetheless a supporting player in The Favourite”
Who was she supporting? I think it’s honestly a tough call which category is more appropriate. The most egregious category fraud was Ali for Green Book, this one didn’t bother me since she really was the “main character” even if she didn’t have significantly more screen-time than her two co-stars.
For me in as much as all The Favourite ladies were co-leads, Emma Stone is the supporting. I see the The Favourite as a love story between Weisz and Colman’s character. But Colman is the main lead as the story revolves around her queenship.
What?? The movie literally opens and closes on Stone. I mean, you can classify the other two however you want (it’s really more of a theoretical/semantical argument than anything else), but the picture is structured in such a way that you cannot argue Stone is supporting.
It’s like some of you people never took took a single film theory in college or something. Sheesh.
An argument can be made that Stone and Weisz are the two leads as the main thrust of the narrative is their back and forth war for power and control, with Queen Anne merely a fickle figurehead that’s in the middle of all of it. And it’s a view I fundamentally agree with.
I miss the days when films could have multiple leads without anybody being bothered by it. I, for one, think all 3 are leads.
I’m not quite sure who’s bothered by multiple leads, but I can understand why producers would want to split co-leads between categories to avoid them splitting votes between each other.
Sure, category splits will happen and are somewhat ok unless they are very blatant. But all these endless discussions about “who’s the TRUE lead of The Favourite” prove that some people are clearly bothered by just simply calling them all leads and being done with it.
To me the three performances are in a grey area between lead and supporting, so the decision on how to split them between categories is clearly a matter of personal appreciation. I personally agree with putting Colman in Lead, since her performance is the one that affected me most, and I think she owns the film. Apparently, many in the Academy agree with this assesment since they gave her the sole Oscar for ‘The Favourite’. I can understand why others would disagree, though I don’t see the point in discussing it endlessly.
Edit: seeing how the three actresses seem to genuinely appreciate each other and considering that Weisz and Stone already have Oscars of their own, I would not be surprised to learn that it was these two who insisted on making Colman the sole lead.
That was one of criticism against Stone and Weisz – that they didn’t belong in supporting. Whereas King was clearly supporting. She’s not in a film a lot, but she has that powerful Oscar scene.
I agree with this too.
indeed
Ali was also delivering a leading performance, true. The Academy should make a rule forcing studios to deliver nominees in the right categories
Keep in mind, Sasha just didn’t like the Favourite which has been clear in her dismissals of its chances (she even had Weisz dead last in the Supporting Race).
Green Book is a regressive movie. To say that it’s merely a story about friendship is wildly disingenuous to the film’s goals. Yeah, lots of different people like Green Book, but many folks have legitimate, good faith arguments–with Justin Chang, in particular, writing a very insightful commentary on the win.
I mean, seriously. All of the many critics who have come out against Green Book in such force, do you genuinely think that they’re too clouded or incapable of overcoming their own biases to intellectualize or articulate their feelings against a movie?
I think the critics are, in part, raging that they’ve lost their power in setting the Best Picture table after being in that position for most of this century, starting with the date change from late March to late February in 2005 that took the public out of the picture. Ever since then the critics have had outsized influence that they never enjoyed before in Oscar races of years past, especially before the advent of the internet and social media.
The industry usually would oblige the critics – maybe they wouldn’t pick their consensus choice (The Social Network), but they’d pick a well-reviewed film nonetheless with few exceptions. Not this year.
Much in the same way that Sasha might be upset that First Man didn’t get enough traction in the way other films that she has pushed on the site did in the past?
I seriously doubt, as great as she is, that Sasha would think that she has some serious influence over what the Academy will pick.
Agreed. Just like many other critics and people who discuss film 24/7, I do not believe that they ever think they have an influence over the Academy.
Jesus Christ, do you guys from Awards Daily have any opinion that doesn’t go along with Sasha’s? You are like Minions.
Jesus Christ, do you guys from Awards Daily have any opinion that doesn’t go along with Sasha’s? You are like Minions.
If you can find a friend who agrees with you about anything, Igor, you are more than welcome to bring him or her around to mingle.
I don’t need that, thanks. I can stand with my own
My opinion is that you’re an insufferable pendejo who continually tests my patience as a moderator. How’s that?
Somebody lost it
Also, if you want to offend me try using some term according to where I come from 😉
I’ll stick to using terms from where I come from, thanks!
see, that is your problem. you should expand your viewership of the world. maybe this way you can understand why people criticized Green Book
I understand legitimate criticisms of Green Book based on the actual content of the film. I will never understand criticisms that directly are related to and impugn the integrity and intentions of the filmmakers involved.
And I’ve lived in Japan, the Phillipines, and El Salvador, among other places. I stood in the mass graves of El Mozote listening to the now-deceased lone survivor of that massacre recount how she hid in the bushes while she watched death squads murder her husband and children and then unceremoniously dump their corpses in a pit.
But of course, it’s my “viewership” of the world that’s myopic.
Sasha (and the rest of us) were certainly upset about First Man’s fate this year. But we don’t operate under any presumptions that we actually influence voters and voting outcomes, certainly not to any significant degree. I really can’t say the same for a lot of other people in this field.
We argue, we promote, we advocate. Assertively and passionately. While still realizing whether anyone listens is completely beyond our control.
You just said that:
“I think the critics are, in part, raging that they’ve lost their power in setting the Best Picture table after being in that position for most of this century”
Sasha is – from my perspective at least – a critic (not here, but has certainly reviewed elsewhere). I would say that many critics don’t actually feel they’re influencing the race at all, but merely pushing for the films that they love. I don’t think that critics have ever felt they were influencing the race in any way.
Plus, as per this…
“The industry usually would oblige the critics – maybe they wouldn’t pick their consensus choice (The Social Network), but they’d pick a well-reviewed film nonetheless with few exceptions. Not this year.”
Green Book sits at 79% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Is that not a well-reviewed film?
FWIW – I agree with you that critics like to push films they love (I do it, it’s part of the reason I got into criticism in the first place), but I honestly do not believe that any of us feel we have an influence over voting bodies at all.
Sasha has NEVER considered herself a critic when ever since she started Oscarwatch 20 years ago.
“Green Book sits at 79% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Is that not a well-reviewed film?” If you look at the nearly unanimous condemnation of Green Book winning Best Picture by prominent critics online in the past 24 hours, apparently not.
No, Sasha may not consider herself a critic, but the mere fact that she has reviewed films does make her one.
The louder the noise does not signify a bigger army.
I’ve reviewed films too for AD and elsewhere, I’m not a critic, largely because I don’t believe reviewing films is the main thrust of what I do when I write about film. Which is pretty much the same approach Sasha has.
But you see how people who read Sasha’s, and your, reviews can feel that she is part of the film criticism community? I am sure that there are people who may have only ever read her reviews on The Wrap, and not visited Awards Daily. Yes, it may not be your main vocation, but it is a part of what you both do online.
As Jack Nicholson said in The Departed, “I don’t want to be defined by my environment. I want my environment to be defined by me.”
what’s an insufferable pendejo? where are you from?
https://mexicanspanish.com/pendejo/
Are you from Mexico? From Roma?
Sasha may have been rightfully upset but she was never « raging » about ‘First Man’ being criminally ignored this season. She supported the film, yes, but her support was very subdued and respectful of others’ opinions. She took very great care of not venting off when it got the shaft and she never attacked the films she didn’t like on this site. That’s why she is legitimately annoyed by all those who take no such cautions and throw a tantrum because they didn’t get their way with the Academy.
Edit: she did express her displeasure on Twitter when Glenn Close lost but it seems she got over herself by now, enough not to disparage Colman or the Academy in her articles, which is the decent thing to do: calm down and accept other people may have different opinions, and their opinions may be as valid as ours, or at least accept that it is best for the sake of civility that we should not be at each other’s throats over such trifles as film awards.
If only someone like Mark Harris knew that
I mean, that’s a very possible explanation, but it totally ignores their qualitative approaches to Green Book that is in question.
Hence the qualifier of “in part.”
You are the only one who truly gets it. As I’ve said, you’re seeing the critical meltdown because the Academy told them to bascially piss off and they turned into Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. Same thing happened when King’s Speech won. Critics sure are whiny little bitches, aren’t they?
In Brazil we have this saying “Hell is full of people with ‘good intentions'”.
This is exactly what It feels like reading you about Green Book. It’s not because you felt good watching the film should all people feel the same, specially black people.
Perhaps in Brazil that’s the quote, but the most familiar version of the aphorism is “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Which has multiple meanings, including warning against consequentialism (“the ends always justify the means”), or that unintended consequences happen.
The saying could very well apply to Green Book and its defenders. But concurrently, the saying certainly applies to the furious backlash against Green Book and other films that do not meet an arbitrary, mercurial social wokeness quotient.
First of all, the “the most familiar version of the aphorism”. I mentioned what the saying is in my country, so this is the most familiar for me.
And about the good intentions, a film that keeps using white protagonism as point of view to talk about racism. All the criticism came from a wide range of voices, especially black voices, that are entitled and empowered to do it so.
For Christ’s sake, the producers couldn’t even thank Don Shirley during their speeches. Talk about erasing black’s protagonism
In America we have this saying where “Well-meaning fimmakers who try to do something noble and heartfelt but inadvertently upset some people don’t get condemned to burn in hell.”
America? I’m from America too, dumbass
Hoooray, yes let’s honor the well-meaning filmmaker who made a mediocre film with the highest award of the evening.
And btw, he just ended racism by being well-meaning. Of course, he completely erased any type of protagonism from black individuals but that’s just a tiny detail.
Still thrilled that Regina King won despite those SAG and BAFTA. However, it makes me wonder how many Movie Academy members are also Television Academy members. Apparently if SAG alone could not bother to nominate her, she must of had strong support from those craftspeople (perhaps those that work in television).
It was reported that a lot of SAG voters had not seen If Beale Street Could Talk at the time of nominations in early Dec. But she had won the most critics awards of any of the 20 acting nominees and had the Globe and Critics Choice.
Yep, a few SAG voters commented and admitted they just hadn’t gotten around to it as they were looking at bigger names in bigger movies. Glad to see that didn’t cost her the Oscar she deserved.
Thrilled to see Rami win, he is no overnight sensation and I hope his career is long. He wants to move over to UK so hopefully he will do more great work over there…
Ah, here’s the column Ryan got mad at me for anticipating was coming.
Sasha,
Last time, some people honestly disliked Green Book because what was on screen just didn’t land for them (and politics aside, that fried chicken scene was so badly written I wonder just what was left OUT of the final cut to keep it in there).
Smearing all of the critics of the film with the snotty “hive mind” broad brush is doing EXACTLY the same thing towards the critics that you are insisting was done to Green Book. Moreover, I don’t particularly remember you being THIS angry and confrontational towards people in your columns when it came to Three Billboards last year. Feel free to refresh my memory with links, because I want to be wrong about that.
By the way you said something about Roma on FB today that you had never hinted at as an opinion of the movie on this site. It was a pretty dismissive thing you said, and I’m legitimately curious as to why you never brought it up here during the campaign. And it was definitely a lot more of a serious swipe at the film than “it didn’t win DGA” or “a foreign language film won’t win BP”.
I get that people are passionate about this stuff, and god knows we all get angry and say things that we shouldn’t (present company included), but in all honesty this site is a lot more enjoyable when you back off from telling us how much we suck because we don’t hold the exact same opinion that you do. It gets weary to read which only fuels bad feelings.
Honestly a lot of Oscar arguing would go away if the Academy “declassified” the vote totals for the winners and runners up to show just how close or decisive controversial or surprise victories were. Less “hive mind” grousing that way, eh?
“…Back off from telling us how much we suck because we don’t hold the exact same opinion that you do”. Gee, I sure hope you’re practicing what you preach by going after Film Twitter and all the cranky critics who are doing just that today.
Realizing that Twitter is just white noise is the key to dealing with Twitter. And if I don’t like being told that I suck over and over, I just don’t go out of my way to hang out in that part of the interwebs anyway. Kind of a nice way to be, no? My comment was an expression of disappointment at how much Sasha has been yelling at us here this season.
(not anger, Ryan, disappointment, so don’t worry).
Exactly. I don’t see why twitter noise even needs to be dragged into awards season coverage, it doesn’t warrant more than a cursory glance and feels irrelevant. Sasha can’t complain about a hive mind when she is obscurely obsessed about it, then tars discerning critics with that same brush.
You put way too much time on that.
Took all of three minutes to write
To be honest I did not read it since you keep repeating the same comments over and over.
Then fuck off then
Thanks for chronicling this whole season. Your lively writing is a daily highlight for me. And your beloved First Man was even in there; it was nice to see all the Best Picture candidates win something. Thanks for what you do!
I still can’t get over the fact that Glenn didn’t win. I was so disappointed, even though I really liked The Favorite.
I feel the same way. I actually may have liked The Favorite most of all the nominated films (I still think If Beale Street was the best movie I saw last year), but I loved Close’s performance–not just because I think she is the best working actress alive (and I do, Meryl and others be damned), but because the specificity, the intensity, and the range of the character, even within a wintry palette, astonished me. I could watch her face forever
As for Green Book as BP–it’s not as simplistic as saying “I’m a lefty, so I hated it.” I am a lefty, and was disappointed by it. Not by the actors–I think Ali is one of the best actors working (though I would have been equally delighted to see Grant win–for a very different kind of performance) and I think Mortensen is a fine actor, but was limited by the script in terms of what he could do, beyond the standard “goodfella” role. I do wish there had been more nuance to the film and that the complexity of Don Shirley had been given more space–Ali seemed to me to triumph over the writing. I don’t have any quarrel with a film that endeavors to tell a story of a journey that culminates in reduction of racism and alienation (which, by the way, I think BKK did better in its own way)–I just didn’t think Green Book was especially artful as a film. It really is that simple for some of us. It had none of the visual appeal of Roma, nor the invention and creativity of Black Panther, the wit and queerness (in the broadest sense) of The Favourite. Vice was limited to me by the too-easy target of the Cheneys as banally evil figures (though well-acted and entertaining on some levels). Bohemian Rhapsody was, for me, a film that was about a very interesting actor doing captivating work in the impossible (inhabiting someone as …er…mercurial as Freddie) and about a thrilling concert sequence near the end. I’m just not a fair critic of ASIB, as I have seen the earlier versions so many times that I could not be moved by this one–though I thought it was one of Cooper’s best performances and Gaga is someone I would be interested in seeing again. Truth be told, the Leading Actor slate didn’t thrill me (whereas for Actress, I would love to see Close, Colman, and McCarthy each win for their performance–just in different years). Ethan Hawke should have been a nominee and should have won. Sez me. But it’s not about the politics of the film for me–it’s about the absence of what makes a film interesting and gripping to me as art.
All of the this!
The next time I see Jaime Ray Newman in one of her countless TV show appearances (as fun as she always is any show), I have to remember she has one more Oscar than Glenn Close does.
Very astute observations about the hive mind regarding GB. The bottom line is Roma was NEVER going to win BP, not in this or any other universe. Critics were trying to will it into being and are now freaking out because their pipe dream didn’t come true, and the sight of it is very ungainly or professional.
Respectfully, Cuaron won his second directing Oscar, was the first director to win for a foreign language film and became the first director EVER to win for shooting his own movie. All pretty large achievements and ones that happened because he brought the goods, not because of some shadowy critics conspiracy.
Yes, and he won his first directing Oscar also for a film that didn’t win Best Picture. The Academy clearly LIKES him a lot, but doesn’t LOVE him
It’s an interesting..um…evolution of the Oscar that Best Director is now seen as a consolation prize the way Screenplay used to be.
It’s not a consolation prize. Votes are just counted in a different way than Best Picture.
Of course, it was my response to the Like/Love comment above. I do worry that now that studios have correctly figured out how to game the preferential ballot we’re going to see a lot more Oscar seasons where everyone comes away from the ceremony mostly confused and/or underwhelmed.
I was wondering if Brokeback Mountain would have won on a preferential ballot, but with Roma losing to Green Book, I’m thinking that Brokeback Mountain would have still lost due to some voters placing it last.
Ranking a film last on a ballot in a preferential system doesn’t penalize it further. All it means is that your vote gets transferred to that film last if your #1 choice gets eliminated.
Thanks.
“All it means is that your vote gets transferred to that film last if your #1 choice gets eliminated.”
If the voter has ranked all of the films, their ballot NEVER gets transferred to their 8th place pick. Their 7th place pick, at worst. And even that only if precisely those two are the last two standing. A movie placed 8th on a ballot (when there are 8 nominees) can of course never get that person’s vote. So it’s definitely not good to be ranked 8th. It’s the only position that guarantees 0 points from that voter. 8th is worse than 7th, 7th is worse than 6th, etc. [I’m sure you know all of this stuff, and this was merely a poor choice of words – I’m just clarifying for anybody else that might read this.]
It’s not a poor choice of words. The single transferable ballot design of instant runoff voting would require exact knowledge of voter’s preferences in order to game the system. Outcomes are dependent on the order in which contenders are eliminated – another thing which no one really knows with any certainty in this context.
Your ballot belongs to only one film at any given time – other films not receiving your vote isn’t an additional “penalty” or “gaming the system” – they’re just not getting your vote.
O.K. 🙂 – maybe I’m misreading something. In any case, the last place on a ballot with all nominees ranked never gets that person’s vote, and 7th place is definitely better than 8th place, on the whole. I don’t know whether that means the system can be “gamed” or not, but fact it is…
Which effectively isn’t different if it was a plurality system where you only listed one film.
I think it is, actually, because when your first place vote went to a movie that had no shot at winning, under the plurality system, your vote would never, instead, go to any of the movies that COULD win, but stay with that one, and be wasted, effectively (helping whichever of the front runners was doing better already), whereas with the preferential system, it does go to whichever of those movies you have chosen to rank highest. It’s when a person doesn’t like either movie that can win (or something like that) and, in an attempt to block whichever of the two they think is more of a threat to the movie they want to see winning (and think has a shot, though in reality it might not – I’m sure this happens A LOT, and I’m positive this year it happened even more than it normally would, since the race was seen as so wide open, while at the same time Roma was the perceived front runner), they rank that movie last, whereas, if they’d not cared whether it would win or not, and voted purely on preference/merit, they might have ranked it ahead of the other movie that can (actually) win. So, the system CAN be gamed a bit by the people who, in our case, didn’t vote for either Green Book or Roma in 1st place. (Say they were voting for Bohemian Rhapsody, which I’m sure many people thought could win, voters included… Or The Favourite, or BlacKkKlansman or Black Panther. That’s a lot of voters, and Roma might not like the outcome if any significant number of those voters decided to give it a little extra push away from Best Picture, to give a better chance to the movie they had in 1st place. Even just subconsciously, if not consciously…)
All due respect, but this is an incorrect assessment that again generally ignores the unpredictable elimination aspect of the instant runoff system.
“that again generally ignores the unpredictable elimination aspect of the instant runoff system”
How? Do tell!
I’m not even saying you’re wrong – you’re probably right, since you know more about this stuff than I do. But you were the one who entered this discussion, of your own free will, and, while you’re not obliged to finish it, if you don’t have the time/inclination to expound on this claim, doing so would be kind of the more considerate way to go. Plus it’d be a whole lot more convincing than just stating it. 🙂
There’s no law that states we all have to know advanced math or the inner workings of electoral practices that don’t even apply to our own country. 🙂 None at all… Or that we have to just accept it when somebody claims they understand something better than us because of it. I think an explanation, at the very least, is always warranted. If the other person is too dumb to understand even then, O.K., duty done, moving on! I’ll accept it if I see that I can’t understand your terms and concepts in explaining why I’m wrong. (Though of course, again, if you have the time and good will to do so, a more simple, logical explanation would be even better.)
But, in case I wasn’t clear, I do BELIEVE you’re wrong, because I don’t see the flaw in my argument. (Whereas I have already seen a probable flaw in what you said above, if it means what I think it does – which is the part I can’t know for sure unless you explain it to me.) I’m just not MARRIED TO or particularly invested in the idea that you’re wrong, and I wouldn’t mind being convinced otherwise one bit.
I’ll preface this with all respect again – you can believe I’m wrong, but I’m not. The information asymmetry between us on this topic is very wide.
There is a wealth of academic and empirical literature on instant runoff voting and how its design allows it to be very resistant to tactical voting. A good start would be Wikipedia.
Back from dinner…
I figured it out on my own, after a few minutes’ extra thought. No reading required whatsoever. I just understood the very obvious flaw in my argument I wasn’t seeing before. It blows my mind that anyone could think this “concept” would require actual study to understand. To me it seems like a matter of elementary logic. If it does to you, too, then, I’m sorry, but I call bullshit on the stuff you wrote above!
Try pretending this is some advanced mathematical/statistical concept to a smart 8th-grader, see how that works out!… (“You see, Billy, this is all very complicated, but, basically, it doesn’t matter whether you rank any other movie second or eighth, because it won’t help the one you have in first place one bit…” And the kid goes: “Y’ah. Obviously.” And rolls his eyes and shakes his head in disbelief…)
I assure you, there is an entire academic field out there of political scientists, mathematicians, etc. who studies voting systems comparatively for a living. There are ways to empirically study these things and their theoretical vulnerabilities.
Oh sure, I can go ahead and talk about criteria like montonicity, Condorcet, resolvibility, and later-no-harm. I can talk about Gibbard-Sattherwaite too, which holds true for all single choice electoral systems. But that is way beyond the scope of the comments section of a film blog.
You can certainly call all of this bullshit and stick with your intuition. But just because you say its bullshit doesn’t invalidate it in reality.
Try reading this and get back to me if you can actually parse it.
:)) You didn’t even understand what I was saying. Again, what I said was: you don’t need any of that to understand what I wasn’t understanding at first about why you couldn’t game the system no matter what. In case I wasn’t clear: OBVIOUSLY you can’t help your #1 movie’s chances no matter where you rank anything else. Because the ballot will always go to that movie, regardless, UNLESS it’s eliminated, in which case nothing can help it anymore, anyway. Do you disagree?… What I was calling bullshit was the notion that you DID need any of that hoity-toity stuff you keep bragging about, for whatever reason, to understand it. I’m very eager for you to tell me exactly what part of my explanation above requires advanced mathematical formulas and hours of study to be even microscopically more crystal-clear and logically unassailable than it already is. 🙂
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said before the ellipses. I disagree with everything else after. But let’s stop there for today. 🙂
It would have shocked me if you hadn’t found something to disagree with…
Me being disagreeable on a comments section is a characterization I will not disagree with.
🙂 Strong finish. I’ll take it!
2019 Nominees for
Best Foreign Language Film
Montonicity
Condorcet
Resolvibility
Later-no-harm
Gibbard-Sattherwaite
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/82ae04b6b23451bb8ca7ce5e29fcec1183d1105cd6f8a31e6321891d0fc75dd8.gif
The only ballots on which it doesn’t (ultimately) matter whether a movie is ranked 2nd or 8th are those of the people giving first place to one of the two movies that end up in the final round.
It absolutely would have lost.
There’s no real gaming to be made of the preferential ballot. Especially not compared to the old plurality system.
You are very wrong. All the hardware that Cuaron has won clearly shows that the Academy ADORES him. What yesterday proves is that they are not quite ready to embrace Netflix just yet.
the academy adores more Peter Farelly than Cuaron..he has an oscar for best picture. Cuaron doesn’t and probably never will…
“Critics were trying to will it into being and are now freaking out because their pipe dream didn’t come true, and the sight of it is very ungainly or professional.”
Yeah… Moonlight and Spotlight didn’t happen. If those two hadn’t barely won BP people would just be written this same cliched stuff about them.
I don’t see what the critics have to do with Roma’s campaign at all. The awards shows clearly have a blind crush on the ‘3 amigos’, regardless of the quality of the individual films. Naturally, they tend to win more in Best Director than they do in Best Picture. To say critics are responsible for Roma’s Oscar prominence is completely false. You need much more than critical acclaim for a netflix foreign film about a house servant/nanny to really get Oscar traction.