The game is the game. Everyone plays it. It started early this year with two films that everyone expected to be successes that weren’t: Booksmart and Late Night. A similar fate has plagued a few films that popped up here and there at the festivals in the recent years that seemed to be getting a pass, or reviews that felt lenient. The boost being given these efforts is at least partly driven by the push for gender parity in Hollywood.
The industry, critics, and now even Oscar bloggers have rolled up their sleeves to try to make this happen, as fast as possible. Studios hired women to direct or co-direct movies like Captain Marvel which made a lot of money. Happily, it wasn’t just white women being given new opportunities. There are brilliant women of color, like Melina Matsoukas, whose Queen and Slim has been largely ignored by critics, despite being the best film directed by a woman this year. And The Farewell. Now comes Greta Gerwig’s Little Women, which hasn’t yet been seen by the public but has earned a spot on the AFI’s Top Ten, and both Manohla Dargis and A.O. Scott have named it one of their ten best of 2019.
As soon as the Golden Globes nominations were revealed, the furor broke out about the absence of significant women behind the camera in the major categories, though two films — The Farewell and Portrait of a Lady on Fire were nominated in the Foreign Language category, alongside Parasite, Pain and Glory and Les Miserables – not bad company, by the way – the HFPA is given no credit for that because everyone knows the Oscars are a power game – and if you don’t have power, you can’t play the game.
The thing is, though, in this climate it’s hard to know whether all of the films in this debate are genuinely as good as they’re made out to be, or if critics, film twitter, and the industry at large is simply trying to cure the problem of gender disparity for the sake of appearance, by including women among the best of the year’s very best, deserved or not.
“Pick a woman, any woman” seems to be the message. Because if that happens they are shielded from attacks. The Gothams went ass over elbow for Marriage Story, a film not only written and directed by a man but a film that sympathizes with the male character during a divorce (debatable, perhaps, but that’s how many see it). Why weren’t they attacked? Because buried within their wins was Mustang, which won for Breakthrough Director for Laure de Clermont-Tonnerre. The Farewell was beaten by Marriage Story but they didn’t get pounced on because all that mattered was that there was some representation so those involved could sleep at night that yes, Virginia, there is gender parity in Hollywood.
I have no doubt that the clickbait cycle so prevalent today will seek to put Oscar voters on notice in the 11th hour, urging them to choose one of these movies for good optics, to shield them from the kind of heat the Globes got burned with today. But from what I’ve been reading, the reaction I’ve been seeing makes me think that the only way to solve this is to have a separate category for women directors, something I have resisted for many years. Why?
Because if I were a woman filmmaker I wouldn’t want anyone to do me any favors. I would want to make a movie SO GOOD that its value was undeniable. Like Kathryn Bigelow’s Hurt Locker, like Jane Campion’s The Piano, like Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation, like Ava DuVernay’s Selma.
But that isn’t what awards voters are being asked to do. Voters should focus on choosing the best films or the best directors or the best scripts. But none of that matters to Film Twitter – which then is the feeder trough for clickbait all over the web — this story will make it to the New York Times guaranteed.
Instead, it can feel like voters are under pressure to pick women, no matter if their movie might be just outside the top 5 or top 10. Many prominent voices refuse to accept the possibility that the 5 best movies of the year might be directed by men. Thus, they require a woman to be named, just to quiet the noise. ANY WOMAN. Doesn’t matter which woman.
That’s the game we’re being corralled into playing, and it sometimes seems that many critics groups are simply too afraid to be on the ropes, with all of twitter slamming them for their all-male choices.
Well, I’m here to propose that if any of the five Best Director Golden Globe nominees hadn’t been nominated today, the next in line would be:
Taika Waititi, Jojo Rabbit
James Mangold, Ford v Ferrari
Rian Johnson, Knives Out
Fernando Merielles, The Two Popes
Noah Baumbach, Marriage Story
And that’s all before we even get to:
Pedro Almodovar, Pain and Glory
Clint Eastwood, Richard Jewell
Josh and Benny Safdie, Uncut Gems
Even if you see these films as not cool enough, watch them. Sit down and watch them. These are masterful films in the hands of people who really know what their doing all the way through (I would quibble with Marriage Story myself but I know Film Twitter would never do such a thing).
Would I love if When They See Us had been nominated as one of the year’s outstanding television milestones? Of course. Did Ava DuVernay make one of the best films of the year? You bet. Other than that bizarre blind spot by Globes voters, the rest of the complaints I’ve heard all day make me wonder what the game is, how long we’re going to be playing it and what we hope the outcome will be.
It seems like in our overriding desire to level the playing field we’ve decided that there is no absolute measure of what’s good and what isn’t, and that’s been replaced by a sliding scale that adjusts to factor in equality, parity, and inclusion. I’m not sure I believe that’s what film awards should be about. I think once they take that attitude they mostly become meaningless.
The solution isn’t to pity-vote women in. The solution is to not give up on women. Men get many at bats after their movies are made, whether they succeed or not. Women tend to disappear. Look at what a hard time Jane Campion has had even making major movies now. And Kathryn Bigelow has been overly criticized for every movie she’s made since The Hurt Locker BY THESE SAME CRITICS who are bloviating today. Sofia Coppola was also taken down by the outrage machine for the last film she made and the ones that came after Lost in Translation didn’t really seem to land either.
Make more movies, fail harder, try and try again – just like those who DID make it into the race. Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino have been making movies a long time. You want to argue about Bong Joon-Ho’s masterpiece, Parasite? And Sam Mendes made a movie about WWI in one continuous take that is near perfect. Any women come close to any of that anywhere? Show me. And finally, the wagons are circling Todd Phillips because even though Joker won the Golden Lion in Venice, it wasn’t Film Twitter approved and thus, they tried and failed to kill it dead. So THAT is the one they feel is expendable. Did any film directed by a woman this year shake up culture like Joker did? I found the incredibly disturbing but thought provoking and guess what? It was DARING. Give women the chance to be that daring. Give them the chance to make bad movies and good movies and great movies.
You might say, well how can they do that if we don’t give them awards? I would say if you hand out awards to people who don’t necessarily deserve them that hurts their reputation in the long run, and thus, the reputation of all women. This should be a year that was celebrated by everyone. Hustlers became a $100 million hit. Booksmart and Late Night are revelations. I wish they’d made more money considering what they were trying to do. Little Women is a solid follow-up for Greta Gerwig who I hope continues to make more movies, to fail harder and grow as an artist. The Farewell is successful and funny and tells a great story about family. It’s good. But it doesn’t need a pity-vote. No woman director this year does.
The Globes nominated Ava DuVernay for Selma when the Academy didn’t, and Kathryn Bigelow for Zero Dark Thirty when the Academy didn’t. Globes voters go their own way, like it not. I don’t think it’s fair to expect they would mirror what the critics have done this year, which is to bend their choices towards a Utopian dream we wish we had instead of the continuing struggle that we do have.
I’d say if we’re going to go into full-blown advocacy mode we should create separate categories for women, maybe even separate awards shows, to ensure they all get recognized. After all, that is what people seem to be suggesting here. Make it like sports where men and women are separated. I don’t want that. But the message that should be taken away from yesterday is that pity-votes are bullshit and women should continue to keep making movies, asked back to the table, even if their films aren’t the top five of the year.
You want to do women a favor? You want them to grow and excel in film as directors? Then respect them with an honest critique of their movies. That way they will know when they win an award it will truly be because they deserve it and not because those who handed them an award did it to feel better about themselves and their industry.
For the record, the critics would agree with Twitter here, as 3 of the top 6 highest-scoring movies on the 2019 list at Metacritic are directed by women:
https://www.metacritic.com/browse/movies/score/metascore/year/filtered
Of course, non-critics sometimes feel very differently about many movies than critics do, so to use only this as the barometer would, I think, be sub-optimal. (As is using only one’s own opinion – unless one is writing an opinion piece, not claiming fact, in which case it’s perfectly fine.)
nice try….who are these critics ? did they make any movie that is worth watching in their life ?
I don’t care. 🙂
Sasha, Selma ain’t on par with the other films you mention. Not even close.
Except for that, I agree.
Indeed – it’s better than all of them. 🙂
Selma is better than The Piano? Yeah, right.
For me, easily. It’s the other two that are closer…
AMPAS probably agrees with you, given the number of nominations and wins they gave the two and all that. (Different voters, though, different year and field, etc. – hence the “probably”.) Critics think it’s close – Selma has a Metascore of 88 (from 2.5 times the number of reviews, though, which makes it harder to get a very high score, statistically) whereas The Piano has a score of 89.
On the other hand I probably won’t end up agreeing with her that the top 5 movies of the year were directed by men (so far I haven’t seen enough), given how much I loved The Farewell (not to mention how I might feel about Little Women, once I see that).
I just meant that this kind of thing is happening in general – I can’t really speak to this year’s situation until I will have seen all of the movies in question.
“A similar fate has plagued a few films that popped up here and there at the festivals in the recent years that seemed to be getting a pass, or reviews that felt lenient. The boost being given these efforts is at least partly driven by the push for gender parity in Hollywood. […] Many prominent voices refuse to accept the possibility that the 5 best movies of the year might be directed by men. Thus, they require a woman to be named, just to quiet the noise. ANY WOMAN. Doesn’t matter which woman.”
THANK YOU! So it’s not all in my head, that this kind of thing is happening. Or at least Sasha agrees, which is something. (For which, before even reading a single comment, I’m sure she’ll get criticism aplenty…)
“It seems like in our overriding desire to level the playing field we’ve decided that there is no absolute measure of what’s good and what isn’t, and that’s been replaced by a sliding scale that adjusts to factor in equality, parity, and inclusion. I’m not sure I believe that’s what film awards should be about. I think once they take that attitude they mostly become meaningless.”
Couldn’t agree more.
Uuuuuuuum this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You repeatedly, year after year, criticize various nominating bodies for not nominating black actors, even when it’s a case of “pity voting” or “trying to cure the problem of (insert minority here) disparity just for the sake of appearance”, as you so eloquently put it. I am all for gender, LGBT, and minority inclusion, which is a huge problem in Hollywood. But you can’t speak up for one group while criticizing support for another. I mean, you can, it’s your blog, but it just comes off as disingenuous and hypocritical.
False. I’ve never know Sasha to advocate for any person of color to be nominated unless she absolutely believes that person is as good as—or better than—the other nominees.
agreed. Sasha has done a respectable turn on the issue as her peers got too intense
I agree with this post. Give women the opportunities — not simply the nominations. Not as affirmative action and not at the expense of giving them opportunities to do more great work in the first place. While I got more out of and enjoyed The Farewell more than OUATIH and Irishman put together, voter politics is nothing new. I wouldn’t blindly nominate Little Women either. Let people SEE this movie before we start treating it as the great snub.
The only sensible arguments I’ve ever heard for affirmative action are to do with opportunity, not outcome. Like Sasha says, more women need to be given the opportunity to direct films and, perhaps more importantly, to keep making them. And to take risks. It’s happening, but it will take time to reap results. It will take time for some of them to become master directors. Shoehorning good-but-not-great work into awards categories where umpteen master directors are vying for a few slots is undermining the progress being made, not helping it, IMO.
If there’s an obviously egregious snub in a category, noise needs to be made. But I don’t see any this time in the directors category. It’s faux outrage because it’s not based on quality. It’s about inclusivity. And that should be addressed at the start of the process, not in the end results.
So I assume you have already seen
The Nightingale
Little Women
Honey Boy
Portrait of a Lady on Fire
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
Queen and Slim
The Farewell.
Because if you haven’t seen them all, then that statement lacks credibility.
Besides, women have been directing since the silent days, and also have been working behind the scenes just as long. Critics and film twitter deliberately ignore film history to push their PC narrative.
Indeed. Good points . I want to add Jeanne Herry’s ‘In Safe Hands’ and Mirrah Foulkes ‘Judy and Punch’ as exemplary films released this year. The former her 2nd feature, the latter her debut.
It’s the cult of personality with the HFPA. Always has! They’re star f#@ckers. Narratives for Tarantino and Scorsese began months ago. It’s all the publicity machine. I have never seen hoopla of this kind for Jane Campion and Sofia Coppola arguably two of the highest profile and successful female writer directors . The male dominance of the culture will take another generation to shift . It was only 2 years ago that Harvey and the domino of abuse was brought to light. Change is glacial in this realm.
Thanks for the tips ! I booked a ticket for the last ever screening of Judy & Punch in my area last week but I nodded off around the time I should have left to go see it so I guess now I will have to wait for it on iTunes / Netflix.
The Nightingale, Portrait of a Lady on Fire and Queen and Slim are better than most of the top picks these critics have, by far. As for Marriage Story, watching it I was conscious every moment of how predictable and carefully laid out the story was, the “big” scenes so anticipated and staged, as opposed to feeling like it was some kind of organic, powerful thing.
Marriage Story doesn’t belong in the same paragraph as those far, far superior films
Phantom, with all due respect, it doesn’t matter which films I’ve seen. We’re talking consensuses and awards predicting. You know how this game works. Which names were in the conversation as genuine contenders for a GG nomination? A snub in this context isn’t someone who was never expected to make the list.
Gerwig was a possible contender, not a lock. She likely just missed out. Heller was in the conversation, but no one is surprised that she didn’t quite make the list. There’s no outrage over any one specific female director being omitted. It’s a general moan about lack of diversity. And this time it isn’t credible.
And with all due respect you weren’t talking about a snub based on hype or probability, you were talking about not seeing a snub “based on quality”.
Great comments, Robert. Thank you
“Shoehorning good-but-not-great work into awards categories where umpteen
master directors are vying for a few slots is undermining the progress
being made”
About master directors: in terms of importance to film of the directors in the race only Scorsese deserves to be considered in the level of mastery as Agnès Varda, and her movie this year, like every single one of her movies, will most likely be ignored by the Academy. Instead if you speak about the brilliance of the films by these directors that were released this year, at least Portrait of a Lady on Fire, The Souvenir, Varda by Agnès, Little Joe and High Life are masterpieces by master directors. So your basic presumption that there are no female master filmmakers who deserve nominations this year is false no matter how you define that phrase
We’re talking consensuses and awards predicting. Were any of those female directors you mentioned expected to be nominated for a Golden Globe? Is there genuine outrage that any one of those names was left off the list? Of course not. They weren’t in the conversation. Arthouse films and directors (masters or not) aren’t usually included in the glitzy awards. But of those female directors that were in the running this year, none was considered a lock for a GG nomination. And with there are only being five slots, and so many quality films competing, it’s perfectly feasible that the likes of Gerwig and Heller missed out without sexism being the cause.
But the Film Twitter narrative would have us believe “women” were robbed. Not Gerwig. Not Heller. But women. Pick a woman. Any woman. It’s faux outrage fuelled by identity politics.
I’m not shocked by the Globe nominations. I was predicting this to happen. So that isn’t my point.
The thing is, you don’t mention that it’s in the awards conversation and thus your comment on some level reads as if in your opinion there was only good-not-great work by female filmmakers this year and that the male directors who were nominated are deserving masters. Either we should be talking about what should be acknowledged (which is my main point of frustration, that “male important” and “male brilliant” is always considered to matter whereas “female important” and “female brilliant” are never, people feel they need to award certain masters but female filmmakers are never included in that, no matter what they do) or the point of view should be very limited to what’s in the race this year, at which point the discussion about what to do isn’t answered by complaining that no one is worthy but to look forward, at which point the discussion shifts back to the first point of view
“The thing is, you don’t mention that it’s in the awards conversation and thus your comment on some level reads as if in your opinion there was only good-not-great work by female filmmakers this year and that the male directors who were nominated are deserving masters.”
I was responding to Sasha’s post, which is entirely in the context of the awards conversation. Pretty much everything on this site is. And that means we’re talking about (mainly) mainstream filmmaking. So yes, there was good-not-great work this year from female directors making the kinds of films that are usually considered for these kinds of awards.
But in a wider context, I agree there are definitely female directors out there doing masterful work. The more women given the opportunity to direct, the more we’ll see making mainstream awards-worthy work, and the more will crop up in these end of year awards conversations.
well said
Women got 15 acting nominations at the Globes! It was a great year for women in film.
lol
It’s always a great year for women at the Globes, in fact. 🙂 At least in the acting categories…
My life is better by barely ever going on Twitter. Highly recommended.
Same. I have an account I never really use (maybe 3 tweets in 3 years or something) and while I do check what people are saying about certain films / current affairs / news stories every now and then, I avoid it as much as I can. While the platform could be used for a lot of good and sometime it is, more often than not all I see is toxic horseshit on there from wall to wall. Life is too short for that sort of soul-crushing nonsense, I mean if I wanted to have my soul crushed on the reg I would just call my mean af aunt more often. Though I would have to get her number first.
No, I assure you that places like the-solute, the dissolve (if that exists on FB), the Avocado, current events are insular bubbles of wokeness and dogmatic thought and there is an equal bubble on the left. Twitter is a great levelling ground
“I have an account I never really use (maybe 3 tweets in 3 years or something)”
Same. (I don’t even check what people are saying about movies – or anything else – there.)
What is this Twitter of which you speak? 🙂
Basically, the media (not Sasha though) is arguing that every time a woman directs a movie, she gets an award, period.
No.
The argument is that in an awards season context if a female director delivers a film that is considerably more acclaimed than a film that a male director delivered in the same year, then former shouldn’t be snubbed in favour of latter and if for some miraculous reason she isn’t snubbed because her film did get the (critical) acclaim and the nomination, then her accomplishment shouldn’t be automatically diminished by screaming tokenism. It is ignorant, sexist and dated.
And if the counter-argument to this is somewhere along the lines of “reviews aren’t everything” then no flip-flopping is allowed : ALL contenders from then on should be either expected to have the critical seal of approval as a pre-req for awards consideration or none of them do but claiming that some do while others, that just happen to be films from and about men (Joker, Jojo Rabbit, The Two Popes), do NOT, is unacceptable.
My two cents.
P.S. And yes I included The Two Popes there with an otherwise very good 75 MC and not only because it is considerably lower than the 91 Little Women has – the film that wasn’t deemed worthy to make the cut in the same BP category TTP was – but also because Queen and Slim with identical MC (75) was automatically deemed by everyone “good but not good enough for awards consideration”. It never even stood a chance with the exact same critical reception plus two things TTP will never have : decent Box Office and a timely topic. THAT’s the problem.
Just have to disagree with your last sentence. The Two Popes indeed deals with a very timely topic. It’s all about the transformation in leadership and positioning of the religion with most followers in the world. How many compelling mainstream movies have been made about popes that lived in the twentieth century on? Zero. It’s very sensitive.
You are one of the best commentators here. But be careful. This problematic statement is a fuel to people that, unlike you, have prejudice against two pretty much neglected groups in all the diversity discussions. The first is the elderly. The fact that the film is about two men above 75 years old doesn’t mean the topic is not timely. How many awards movies lead by two actors above 70s have you seen? Ever, I mean. Probably very few. Jonathan Pryce could become the 6th or 7th oldest nominee in the category’s history. Anthony Hopkins? 7th oldest nominee in Supporting Actor’s history. If the Oscars were held in their usual date in late Feb, he would be number 5.
The other category is foreigners. The Two Popes is a film that means A LOT more for people from Latin America and Western Europe, heavily catholic countries, than the US. Saying this thing about the topic may fuel whoever has an aversion against immigrants, for example.
I have to own my embarrassing ignorance on this one. I didn’t factor in neither the age of the leads nor the foreigner status of the director. I also haven’t seen the film yet (I definitely will when it is on Netflix in a week or two) and didn’t care to explore its premise further once I made the accurate but ignorant “ugh two white guys UHHHGAIN ?” observation. Clearly it is problematic to judge any book by its cover to that extent. I think we all do it every now and then but it is regrettable and we shouldn’t. I definitely shouldn’t.
I’m sure it is a film I will enjoy or at least appreciate and I’m sure it will explore topics and themes that are considerably more relevant than I gave it credit for. And for the record as long as it is a great film I will have no problem with it securing any kind of awards consideration in any category.
Sight unseen my only issue with it was that as a film about and from men, it overindexed at the Golden Globes with a considerably lesser critical reception than that of several films with female directors and female leads and once I also looked at the troubling past of the HFPA and their apparent problem with recognising female directors, I simply connected the dots.
But thanks for the heads-up, much appreciated.
Right, because currently awards are given completely based on merit for outstanding cinematic achievements only, like Green Book.
i know, thank god for sensible people on here
Wow! I’m impressed. The article was not about voting for female directors regardless. This is when you shine Sasha.
If film twitter had any real power, the Charlie’s Angels movie would have been the biggest box office hit of all time. Truth is they don’t. SJW’s don’t care about movies/TV. They care about clicks and ideology, and they are not that huge in numbers.
Exactly they want to talk more about how nobody is watching Booksmart and how the female Ghostbusters didn’t get a fair shake rather than truly support it all with their dollars. It’s all a big joke.
Apparently if you are a man you CANNOT champion women’s causes. I guess the same applies for white people and POC causes and straight people and gay rights. Stay in your lanes, children.
Actually, there has been some controversy because the Globes were just asked to comment on it. I love their response too.
“What happened is that we don’t vote by gender. We vote by film and accomplishment,” Soria said.
“Every year, somebody gets left out,” Adelman added.
Then sadly they went on to say they might expand the category in the future as to include everyone. Welcome to the age of participation trophies. I guess you all really don’t like the hobby of predicting award winners cause eventually there won’t be any.
Maybe the Academy needs to do away nominations. Just let people vote for whatever and tally them all up.
“What happened is that we don’t vote by gender. We vote by film and accomplishment,” Soria said.
And we concluded that there were no films by women that we deemed good enough to be nominated in our three major categories, despite having ten slots for Best Picture. This male-wash is completely by chance.
“Every year, somebody gets left out,” Adelman added.
Yes, and they are usually Women and POC. Pure coincidence, am sure.
Of course it’s not coincidence. But I think most people can see that the root of this problem is that every year the awards films that are being talked about include roughly: 3 films by people of color, 3 films by women and 50 films by white men. When only 5-10 can make it it’s not going to be all that rare that there are few to none of the films that fall into the two former groups.
That’s part of the problem. The other part is that even when a film by a minority director DOES get the acclaim, or at least more acclaim than its competition, that film still won’t get consideration for top prizes.
Little Women has much better reviews than The Two Popes and Joker yet latter two secured BP nominations at the Golden Globes without breaking a sweat (confirmed by the script, directing nods, respectively) and Little Women got nothing in picture, directing, writing.
Selma was one of the most critically acclaimed films in 2014 and DuVernay didn’t get a BD nod at the Oscars yet an average white guy with a good-not-great film did (Morten Tyldum).
So while the problem starts with the low number of films that even get the greenlight with a minority director, a number that gets even lower once we exclude the films that never got proper support upon completion (distribution, marketing, awards campaign money), that’s not where the problem ends.
It ends with films about and from women getting the greenlight, getting the critical seal of approval, securing a big studio willing to support its general release and potential awards campaign and STILL getting snubbed by awards organisations in the end meanwhile films about and from men with considerably fewer or at least less impressive accomplishments, sail through without breaking a sweat.
That’s the real problem. That when a film from a minority contender almost miraculously manages to rise above against all odds and major obstacles that only a film with a minority director is forced to deal with in the first place, the industry more often than not STILL finds a way to drag that film out of serious awards consideration and replace it with a lesser film from and about a white guy. And for the record films from and about white guys can be masterpieces, problem is when one isn’t and still gets more serious awards consideration over a film that is better but with the nerve of having been directed by someone who isn’t a white man.
Wait, now we’ve crossed over from gender to race. If that’s the case, I believe Mexican directors won the Oscar in 2013, 14, 15, 17 and 18. That’s five out of the past six years! And I think there’s a lot of talk about an Asian director winning this year.
There’s no pleasing some people.
When I say minority directors that includes women and people of all races. It is great that three Mexican male directors broke through in a big way this decade but that still doesn’t excuse the fact that female directors and especially female directors of colour can’t seem to catch a break when it comes to awards even when their films in question are universally acclaimed. The most recent examples that come to mind are Duvernay (Selma) and Rees (Mudbound) and unfortunately Wang (The Farewell) will probably join them soon, too.
So let me ask you this, I just checked the last Oscar Squad picks from Dec 2 on this site and out of the 8 contributors (including 3 females), 8 different directors were selected as that person’s top 5, and guess what? None were women. Now you are going to say, “well they are trying to predict the Oscars and know the Oscars hate women” but I don’t buy that because just like how Sasha has been championing Dolemite against everyone else’s better judgement, it doesn’t stop her from listing it in categories.
But the 8 directors chosen were QT, Scorsese, Joon-ho, Mendes, Waititi, Baumbach, Mangold, and Almodovar. And that simply proves my point. This isn’t about trying to be diverse for diversity’s sake, as much as it rubs you the wrong way. If females make less than 20 percent of the films released in a year, how do you expect them to show up in a field with 20 percent representation per person?
You are completely ignoring my point that is this : even if women only direct 20 % of the films released in a year, there IS still a chance that one of those very few films will get the kind of acclaim that would warrant serious awards consideration.
This year there is a film like that : Little Women. I haven’t seen it, I don’t know if I will like it or not and I definitely don’t know if it is a great film or not but I do know that it is highly acclaimed critically, that is a fact.
It got better reviews than several films about and from men that received top nominations at the Golden Globes and will probably receive top nominations at the Oscars while at the moment LW is struggling to say afloat enough to secure a filler BP nod.
And to me that discrepancy is the problem : less acclaimed films by men doing better than more acclaimed films by women.
And yet I kinda think the opposite. I think foreign films that are halfway decent get built up to more than they are. Case in point, all the Roma lovers from last year are like, “well, Roma was more respected than loved. Not like Parasite this year”. Huh. Respected. And the guy gets his second Oscar?
The key word there is : guy. Yes, he did get a second Oscar for a film that while universally acclaimed, didn’t seem to be “loved”, it seemed to be more “respected”.
But can you imagine a female director winning a second BD Oscar with a foreign language film, zero star power and unreported Box Office ?
So then please tell me which directors you would throw out and which women you would put in, purely based on the quality of the film? And even if you can do this with ease, I’m sure the next guy/girl won’t agree, and so on and so forth. So now you have some sense of being in a diverse voting body and having to come up with 5 best.
I am making a very simple, general point here. If Film A is considerably more acclaimed then Film B then don’t snub the director of former if you will nominate the director of the latter.
Ideally the gender of the directors in question wouldn’t even be a factor but in this case of course it is : the directors of highly acclaimed films (Little Women, The Farewell, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood) didn’t get the nomination while a director of a considerably less acclaimed film (Joker) did.
So to answer your question I would replace Todd Phillips with any of those four directors who just happen to be women.
And I don’t have issues with directors based on gender, I wouldn’t snub anyone from the Mendes-Bong-Scorsese-Tarantino quartet from any BD lineups, I just want the fifth next to them to be someone whose film is actually acclaimed. If it is a woman with an acclaimed film, great, if it is a man, just as great. As long as the film warrants that BD nod on merit. Trouble is acclaimed films from women don’t seem to have a fair shot at this while acclaimed films from men do.
P.S. And if the counter-argument to this is somewhere along the lines of “reviews aren’t everything” then no flip-flopping is allowed : ALL contenders from then on should be either expected to have the critical seal of approval as a pre-req for awards consideration or none of them do but claiming that some do while others, that just happen to be films from and about men (Joker, Jojo Rabbit, The Two Popes), do NOT, is unacceptable.
So you are saying you would be perfectly fine with the Safdie Bros getting the 5th slot since Uncut Gems has an 89 on Metacritic vs an 87 for Little Women? If that was the case we wouldn’t be having this argument?
That’s exactly what I’m saying. That as long as the 5th slot goes to a universally acclaimed film, I’m OK with whatever the film or its level of universal acclaim is.
P.S. For the record, Little Women has a higher MC than Uncut Gems, 91 vs. 89. It doesn’t make it better or more deserving, just a simple fact.
There are probably thousands of foreign films made every year, yet at most one film can break into the general awards consideration in a year. Either every single one of these thousands of films suck or they don’t get built up enough
SO agree with this!…
I don’t know how you come up with that number, but it’s ridiculous to use that as an argument. We are only talking about the films that are contending for the major awards. Some of the best acclaimed are films by women or POC. Don’t play a stupid numbers game and start looking at the quality of the films by women and POC. You cannot tell me there isn’t enough quality. I mean, that would be better answer than saying there’s enough films by them. That’s a lame excuse for not being nominated for major awards. I mean, where the heck are the critics find these films by women and POC? Tell me the difference between the major critics and major award shows like GG? Do they look at different type of films? or do they like different types of films and why is that? Aren’t films supposed to be universal and appeal to everyone?
The number was pretty clearly an estimation to prove a point. And we play stupid numbers games every year, so calm down – In every one of these threads we talk about “nominees from this group go on to be nominated for the Oscar X out of Y times.” It’s all a numbers game to a certain extent.
But lets take a look at this year and be specific, if it makes you feel any better. On Gold Derby for Best Director the experts are predicting 12 different people on their top 5 for director. 1 of those 12 is a POC, Bong Joon Ho. 3 of those 12 are women. And of those 3 women they appear on a total of 13 of 31 lists and take up 15 of the 155 slots (9%).
Sticking on Gold Derby, for Best Picture predictions there are 51 films to select as options for predictions. Of those 51, 9 are directed by POC (17%) and 8 are by women (16%). 14 of the total possibilities (27%). And this includes films that I think everyone would agree have absolutely no chance of being nominated, like “Gemini Man” and “Harriet.”
Dismiss it all as “numbers game” if you want, but the discussion starts there, like it or not.
If they are going to expand the categories, there’s no point to it anymore. They should do what the Academy has been doing in recent years and expand the voters by bringing in more diverse people, especially women. Some of these people don’t have clue, and I bet they don’t even look beyond the obvious nominees. No one will accept being told to shut and know your place anymore. The critics get right, so why can’t they?
It would seriously suck if they expanded… Their stats are SO helpful with only 5 per category.
We don’t need another BFCA, as useful as they are themselves!
Two points, there was no huge furore as far as I can see, that’s a beat up.
And secondly, Sasha seems to play on the gender and race issues when it suits films she’s pushing, and not when it doesn’t
Very misogynist
And how is that misogynist?
Are we not allowed to criticize a woman? If so,
that is so sexist.
Also, Sasha does push films in order to have races other than white represented even when they are clearly not as good. Ie: Dolomite
FRICKEN THANK YOU SASHA!!!! I 100% agree with you.
Southeastern Film Critics Association winners:
Film: Parasite
Directing: Scorsese
Actor: Driver
Actress: Zellwegger
Supporting Actor: Pitt
Supporting Actress: Dern
Original Screenplay: Parasite
Adapted Screenplay: The Irishman
Best Foreign Film: Parasite
Best Documentary: Appolo 11
Hi Jhonny, I’m updating the chart now, can you remind me which groups announced since Sunday ? Last I processed was WAFCA but I think New Mexico, Detroit and now Southeastern have also announced since, any others ?
Apparently that New Mexico was just ONE guy. Please use real ones only when compiling lists.
I am.
I don’t understand why Sasha thinks critics picks are somehow tainted but GG and other non-critic groups’ picks aren’t? I don’t understand her point that recognising films by women isn’t based on merits and it’s some kind of tokenism. Unfortunately, that seems to be her opinion, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. GG don’t have the truth of what is “best” anymore than critics do. There is no truth to these awards. It’s all opinions. However, I am more inclined to believe that great films come from all kinds of people, including women and POC, not just from major Hollywood filmmakers and studios and white men. There is no truth to what is the “best” as each person/group has a different opinion. It’s really about recognition. That’s why I love it when major critics spread the wealth and try to recognise as many films as they can.
“There are brilliant women of color, like Melina Matsoukas, whose Queen & Slim has been largely ignored by critics, despite being the best film directed by a woman this year.”
They are being ignored even more by major award shows like the GG who have ignored films by women, period. On the one hand, you say recognising films by women is tokenism, and on the other you say critics should recognise films by women of colour instead of films by white women? They should recognise this group because that other group is tokenism.
“I have no doubt that the clickbait cycle so prevalent today will seek to put Oscar voters on notice in the 11th hour, urging them to choose one of these movies for good optics, ”
You mean films like “Dolemite Is My Name? It would help your point if you were more consistent. Or making outlandish claims that films by women are as good as those by men and to recognise their achievement is unwarranted and tokenism. Does Sasha not realise how sexist that sounds? I think some misogynists would shy away from making such a blunt statement.
“the only way to solve this is to have a separate category for women directors”
That’s just dumb. Why stop there? Why not make a separate category for all the categories because they are also mostly all males. It’s not sports, and there is not need for separate for genders. The GG should learn to watch and appreciate films by women, that’s all. It’s not that hard because women do make some of the best films of the year and they’re getting a lot more as more and more women step behind the camera.
“Voters should focus on choosing the best films or the best directors or the best scripts.”
When you choose the “best” films and they all happen to be films by white men, it’s not just coincidence. And this happens every damn year.
“Well, I’m here to propose that if any of the five Best Director Golden Globe nominees hadn’t been nominated today, the next in line would be:”
Taika Waititi, Jojo Rabbit James Mangold, Ford v Ferrari Rian Johnson, Knives Out Fernando Merielles, The Two Popes Noah Baumbach, Marriage Story
I wonder who made that list? On what criteria is it based? None! The only i can make out is that some of those got more nominations at GG than films by women. Claiming why women had no chance of being nominated in GG because they were shut out by GG?
“I would want to make a movie SO GOOD that its value was undeniable. Like Kathryn Bigelow’s Hurt Locker, like Jane Campion’s The Piano, like Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation, like Ava DuVernay’s Selma. ”
Why does no one ask similar question to male directors? Why doesn’t Todd Philips make a film like Scorsese’s Taxi Driver? Why didn’t Farrelly make Schindler’s List? Or why didn’t they make the those great films by women directors? They don’t have to because they are men and their inclusion is accepted as justified because they were nominated. Compare Lynn Ramsey’s You Were Never Really There and Phillips Joker. It’s not comparable, yet Phillips is the one getting GG nomination for BD.
Perfect example.
Agree with this 100%. I didn’t love nor hate “Joker” (although the more time I’ve spent with it, the less I’ve liked it) but Phillips getting nom’d Is laughable. If you want to award the film for its influence and financial success, go for it, I guess but let’s not act like Phillips didn’t just crib from better movies.
Exactly.
Phoenix nod or even win ? Deserved.
Filler BP nod for cultural impact ? Trickier but still tolerable.
One of the best scripts / directors in 2019 ? Oh hell NAW.
Agreed.
Cultural impact didn’t come out of nowhere, people loved this movie, it resonated with them and it’s worth a lot, film and Phillips totally deserve noms everywhere, no matter if you liked it or not.
Cultural impact and Box Office doesn’t prove a film is good, it just proves a film is successful. If it gets a filler BP nod, so be it, it is a film many in the world could relate to after all, but saying its script and directing are among the best of 2019, now that’s where I draw the line. To me that insinuation is completely ludicrous.
Phillips direction was superior than Ramsey’s. Her flick was super pretentious and empty. But because it was directed by woman of course you praise it.
While it is all subjective I’m still calling bullshit on this one.
“Why doesn’t Todd Philips make a film like Scorsese’s Taxi Driver?”
He tried.
And failed badly, sadly.
WTF are you talking about? Joker is better than Ramsey’s flick in every single aspect. YWNRT was very pretentious and empty.
WTF are you talking about? Joker is better than Ramsey’s flick in every single aspect. YWNRT was very pretentious and empty.
I disagree. It was my second favourite film last year. Phoenix was dialled down and nuanced. That’s the kind of performance he is known for. Tell us why you think Joker is such a great movie? For me, it was nothing more than a sensationalist film.
I thought Joker is powerful and emotional movie with top tier filmmaking across the board. And what’s great about it is that it’s not pretentious, it has simple and effective message with additional themes to support that message. And there’s no pretentious directing when characters stare at sky for 5 minutes for no reason because director is full of himself, the story moves at good pace and it doesn’t waste time on things that don’t matter, it’s just very rare to see that kind of movie. And with Ramsey’s flick I had kind of the opposite reaction, to me it was very pretentious (both in terms of direction and story), thin on plot and character development, and in the end I felt nothing about it. I know it’s all subjective, but I honestly don’t understand critics’ praise of it (wouldn’t be surprised if that’s because director is female, they do it every year).
Greta will have a chance at being nominated for writing directing is another animal. The field is way too packed. Also there’s not a lot of heat behind the project. A new version of a Jane Austen story. I’m looking forward to it but there’s a lot going on this year. Somebody has to left out.
Huh ? To be fair there isn’t a big time gap between Louisa May Alcott and Jane Austen and they both wrote in English and about similar themes, too, but that’s where the similarities end.
Well said, Sasha.
On this occasion, I have to say I disagree very much. So sad.
Most of “film twitter” are not real movie fans. You can tell in a second.
film twitter and woke twitter have become interchangeable and woke twitter doesn’t watch movies. they just scream bloody murder over anything sight unseen.
If film/woke twitter had any real power, the Charlie’s Angels movie would have been the biggest box office hit of all time.
then it’s good they have no power and Hollywood is bowing to their pressure less and less. GB win was big fuck you as were Bo Rhap noms and wins.
They were. GB winning was a huge fuck you to them. The twitter scum were really after that one.
and after Joker. They really thought people would stir clear of seeing that one. Hoo-boy were they wrong. I still remember goalpost shifting. “it’s gonna drop hard in the second weekend”. It held spectacularly. “it’s only white incel thing, international markets will ignore it”. It clobbered Black Panther and Captain Marvel without China and 3D which those movies had. “It’s never going to make 1 billion are you kidding me?” It blew past the number. Now I guess it’s “but but Tod Philips stole a woman’s spot”.
Couldn’t agree more. Many of them are just click bait journalists trying to stay relevant and appeal to their followers to get more followers and stay employed. Sasha is one of the few who kinda stays unbiased and stays with the movies she likes till the very end however sweet or bitter that might be. I am not saying she doesnt get paid for the ads on the website but she like what she likes and stays with the movie like first man last year.
It takes one to know one. If you’re there, then you’re part of it. I am not there.
the problem is messed up take on inclusion. it isn’t about icluding but replacing. Nobody cheers the fact that Lara Croft (female archeologist/adventurer) exists but they would cheer if Indiana Jones was made female aka man replaced by a woman even though the character was made with a man in mind and works as such. And if you tried to point that out you’d be cancelled. Same thing with James Bond. they wouldn’t cheer an original female spy character headlining her series of movies. they want Bond replaced with a woman (but keep the name). They replaced John Connor with a woman named Danii even though John Connor = JC = Jesus Christ. There’s a reason why the savor was male and had those initials. Female replacement had no deep meaning whatsoever.
So to tie this with your point, splitting director into male and female categories wouldn’t satisfy outrage culture for that would guarantee inclusion of 5 women. they don’t want that. they want to replace people, not include them. And then, when they succeed in full replacement, they’d find another opressed/underrated/marginalized group that they think should replace the one that is mainstream now, and we’d have outrage all over again. Line has to be drawn somewhere for this will never end.
BD is a man’s thing and women shouldn’t be there, right?
Mad Max: That’s a bait.
Random movie quotes is your thing, huh?
ha ha yes
Very well said Sasha!
For a while now, politics rules. Social media bullies demand things. Lots of the public is oblivious. They don’t care. Those of us who do care are constantly being told what to think. Being told that things are good, and they aren’t. Everything has gone to shit for a while. Awards have become meaningless since no one respects anyone’s opinions. The world will be coming to an end soon. All we can do is sit by and be disgusted.
Cheer up. You sound very depressed.
The main issue is that there aren’t enough films directed or written by women.
But probably awards bodies as important as HFPA nominating and celebrating the few films made by women who are actually in the awards conversation will lead to more opportunities for women.
I don’t agree with the notion that there are no female nominees because award bodies simply pick their favorites and they happen to be all male. HFPA (like Guilds & BFCA) are trying to predict & influence the Oscars. They are PRE-cursors. And they could have decided to use that power to champion women this year and they didn’t. A lot of acting categories are all white, too. I’m glad that there is a backlash to all this.
Award bodies awarding stories of women, LGBT & people of color can actually lead to real systemic change and that is, to me, much more important than awarding Scorsese or Tarantino an umpteenth time.
More men need to “identify” as women and/or non-binary and the problem will solve itself (example: the directors of The Matrix) 🙂
The five BD nominations they chose were fairly reflective of the general consensus around what the major Oscar contenders are likely to be give or take a Todd Phillips. So a lot of this sudden shock that it turned out this has a bit of “I’m shocked that there’s gambling in this establishment” to it.
well said.
The interesting this is the major Oscar contenders claim. Who decided that? But the big point is that it is more than missing BD. None of the films nominated for screenplay and BP are directed by women. I don’t think there was such a consensus. Was there a consensus on Joker or Two Popes? Yet they somehow popped up at GG. You don’t see any such surprises for female driven films. If the could keep with the consensus that would a start. But the problem is that consensus itself since it’s all about which major filmmaker or studio film will be nominated.
Scorsese and Tarantino were not going to miss. Those are respected veterans making major films and if either of them had missed it would have been viewed as a major snub. Parasite is one of the most critically acclaimed movies of the year and there was extra pressure to give it a major nomination given that it was eligible in the two big categories. And with all the major production value accomplishments in 1917 it was very unlikely that Sam Mendes was going to be left off for a more character based film like The Farewell. So that’s four slots more or less set. That’s the consensus that was set. From there it’s basically just a big crapshoot as to whether or not that fifth slot was going to be filled by a woman and for whatever reason HFPA felt more interested in trolling film twitter with that Joker nomination.
As for the other categories. Three of the five screenplay nominees are the same as their director counterparts and the fourth was Marriage Story, which was probably sixth place for Best Director, The Two Popes getting the fifth slot is weird but what are you going to do, HFPA seems to really like it. Probably doesn’t help that two of the strongest female directed contenders (Hustlers and The Farewell) fit really strangely as “comedies.” So again, their choices make sense.
Well, it’s all about perception, isn’t it? 1917 was put at the top of BD winners before people even saw it. You rarely get a film by a women being put at the top of the list like that. Films by white men are percieved to have the right ingredients even before they are seen, but films by women struggle no matter how hugely acclaimed they are. The consensus never seems to be set so that films by women are perceived to be “locks” for nominations. I think there’s a bit of a leeway for LW missing because it came very late and it’s not an obvious male driven technical film like 1917 that pushed up to the top. But that still doesn’t explain the complete absence of any film by women in either Best Picture. The system is fixed against women filmmakers as films by white men are somehow perceived to be more worthy and type of film that will be nominated. If films by women and POC are perceived to be unlikely to be nominated, they will place them lower in predictions. That’s the consensus. These are the kind of films they like, so there’s no spot for women. And if they get in, it will be called tokenism.
“Films by white men are percieved to have the right ingredients even before they are seen, but films by women struggle no matter how hugely acclaimed they are.”
I’m pretty sure that if Kathryn Bigelow had been the director of 1917 the film would have still been put at the top of the prediction pile regardless of gender. Similarly, I doubt that Hustlers would have even gotten as far as it did if Todd Phillips was the name associated to it. And there’s very little chance that The Farewell was going to be predicted sight unseen regardless of whether its unknown director had been a male or female.
Most of the big female directors this year are not big names, many are only on their first or second movies, that probably does speak to all sorts of inequalities in the film industry but it is not a grave injustice that their names alone don’t lead to massive Oscar buzz. Similarly, the fact that most of them are making small indies is always going to be a disadvantage when you’re competing against giant well funded movies. Again, that’s not a gender problem, that’s a marketing/taste problem.
Exactly…
Being shocked about this happening is absurd. Being annoyed/angry about it is not
So, applying the Green Book rule that Academy voters resent these Twitter campaigns, which film will be the beneficiary this year?
Joker
Like I said before… Only 3 female directors were maybe in the top 20 for BD and only 1 in the top 10 (Gerwig) so even she had at best a 50/50 chance at getting in foe a film they obviously didn’t care too much for… The worst thing you can do is vote based on agenda rather than quality. Even if that quality is subjective
Whose top 20? And why was Gerwig the only one in the top 10?
Good article, I did not expect that from her
Get rid of the separate awards for male and female actors. There are too many acting awards, anyway, and too many actors in the Academy.
Add an award for publicists. Pull the puppet masters out of the shadows.
It’s not about the Globes, it’s how the “awards conversation” never seems to include any women in general. No film directed by a woman was top5 in the awards race, or even particularly close, so none got in. To imply that that was because the films directed by men were just so much better is ridiculous to me.
In other news, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is worse on second watch than on first. Without the tension of not knowing how it will play out it just feels much more boring and meaningless. This is especially true at the ranch scene: while I was on the edge of my seat the first time, now I just completely didn’t care about it. I thought I don’t care about which one of this or The Irishman wins, but I’m now firmly with the latter.
Speak only for yourself. I’ve seen Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood four times and it’s grown and become richer, deeper, more poetic and affecting each time. The effectiveness of the movie has very little to do with how you describe it in terms of “what will happen” and “tension.” You’re missing the entire point of the film.
Of course I am speaking for myself, lol. Who else could I be speaking for?
I understand what you mean, and I’m happy to say that I did understand what the film was about. And I still think it succeeds very well at most of the things it does. But some parts, like the aforementioned ranch scene, was all about tension, which I didn’t get on my second viewing.
The ranch scene I didn’t know much about at all (wasn’t aware of the ranch thing), as I had never looked very closely at the Tate murder story. I knew none of the details and only suspected who the people on that ranch were in the movie. As a result, that was my favorite part of it. 🙂 The stuff I didn’t like was the overlong movie set stuff. (And the ending. I didn’t think he earned it this time, nor did I think he built the tension that well in that part of it – irrespective of whether or not one is spoiled. This might change on rewatch, though, as I now know A LOT more about the people involved and how things went down in real life.)
I think I’ll like it more the more I watch it too. That’s how most Tarantino films are to me.
that is called brain washing….”ooh its tarantino movie ? I am gonna love it. If I didn’t then there is something wrong with me. I better love it. I watch it again and again till I love it. Tarantino can do no wrong.” This “opinion” of your will change on a dime if it was directed by Michael Bay.
I don’t normally reply to those widely considered to be inept trolls but nonetheless, you’re a moron. And that’s putting it kindly.
did i hurt your Tarantino loving feelings ? reservoir dogs might cheer you up.
It will do well with the craft voters, and maybe with actors too who can identify with Leos character
Funny, to me it was totally the opposite. The fact that I knew how it will play out helped me focus on so many details that I overlooked at the first time. And even though I liked it quite a lot at first sight, the second viewing was clearly a “Wow”-experience I don´t have that often in the theatre. It´s such a marvel (at least to me)!
“In other news, is worse on second watch than on first. Without the tension of not knowing how it will play out it just feels much more boring and meaningless.”
Wow, so you were lucky enough to see it without knowing what kind of ending it had!… Yeah, I guess I should’ve tried harder to see it when it came out – it wasn’t the best time for me. I didn’t realize accidental spoilers for this would be much more harmful than for other movies. Yet, somehow, since my first viewing was also spoiled on the ending (in general terms), I expect to like it more on rewatch. 🙂 (I liked it just fine the first time, even if I didn’t think it was above-average Tarantino.)
So I completely agree with you that the virtue signalling is ridiculous and we should hold films directed by women to the same standards as films directed by men. For some reason Gerwig has totally been overhyped because of this.
However, I would argue that 2 of the year’s best films are regardless directed by and about women – Portrait of a Lady on Fire and The Farewell. I kind of understand why nobody is talking about Portrait of a Lady on Fire (it is an artsy French lesbian film) but the fact that The Farewell is not in top 5 consideration just baffles me – it is so brilliantly made from the ensemble to the way its shot to the script and it absolutely won my heart. Also everyone I speak to in real life whose seen it feels the same so I’m really not sure why it’s kinda just hanging out in the outskirts of the awards season looking in.
Maybe Gerwig is overhyped when it comes to award consideration. I don’t think the critics are giving her any underserved credit for her last two films. They might push her like they push all their favourites films or filmmakers, but that does not mean they are favouring her over more deserved filmmakers. Remember Gerwig was being talked about as a potential contender way before her films was seen and critics had a say. I was wondering why people were predicting her and her film when there were great films by other women that needed a push and should be in there. Actually, I always wonder why people predict films sight unseen. It just means that as long as it’s not bad, it will probably be nominated because it has the perception early on. It’s the perception giving by the pundits in the awards season and those around the major award shows that’s real problem. We are condemning her for receiving an unfair attention, but we don’t do the same when it comes her male counterparts. Scorsese, Tarantino, Mendes and other big names are always ranked high on the list no matter whether they deserve it or not. Angelina Jollie gets a lot of attention when ever she directs a film, but her films aren’t as highly regarded by critics. I feel critics rate Gerwig’s films fairly and not different from other women directors, but the award race is a different issue. Meritocracy has nothing to do with award shows. The more you are seen and talked about the more chance you’ve got of being nominated by these major award shows.
Critics love her movies but actual voters and a lot of awards people don’t get them because they don’t appeal to a certain understanding of tone, style or plot that “Oscar movies” should have (read as “masculine topics presented with very obvious use of some stylistic element and considered by the movie to be the most important thing in the world”). And since people seem to have this weird attitude that “I don’t like this movie or get this movie” means “no one likes this movie genuinely and those who say they like it are just pretending”, they start making stupid claims
I think the term they used to use is pretentious. You have to make the type of film these people like and it’s tough to do that when you are a women. That’s why the questions must hammered home. It’s sexist, even if it’s not intentional. Breaking the ceiling is not an easy task. I remember when Sasha used to talk about the kind of film that appeals to the Academy, but she hasn’t done in the last couple of years. She hit the nail on the head. That was one narrative that helped drive changes in the Academy. Now it looks like she has reversed herself on that.
This post understands the whole situation (and specifically the situation on this blog) better than any other post here.
I must say I totally agree that we should stop predicting films to be in before we’ve seen them but that just means awards season must start way later because you need to have seen most of the contenders before your predictions mean anything. That’s probably for the best anyway. But I still think Lady Bird was over hyped because people love Gerwig as a person and wanted to see a female in the race and be mentioned as one of the best of the year. Globes didn’t give her the nom because she didn’t deserve it but then she was pushed along by the outrage machine.Strangely though it’s just the one token female is chosen and it obviously has to be the quirky white it girl and then film twitter doesn’t care about the rest of them which is why we get into this mess when film twitter’s favourite isn’t actually the best of them – which appears to be the case this year. I say this without having seen Little Women just based on reactions I’ve seen.
It’s too quiet (The Farewell), that’s the problem. Too intimate. And doesn’t have the additional flashy technical qualities of a Roma to be among the critics’ favorites, which is what such movies tend to need to break into the race for major awards (even major critics’ awards), especially if they also happen to be in a foreign language (without well-known actors) and have comedic elements (which is still something of a bias, however slight, even for critics, not just for AMPAS). It’s only tied for 8th-11th for 2019 in the Metascore standings.
So the reviews for Bombshell are finally in and while the critical response is a little weaker than what I expected, pretty much everyone seems to agree that Charlize Theron and Margot Robbie are terrific in their parts. God, I want the former to win so badly. She looks phenomenal as always, she’s ridiculously overdue for a third nom and much more overdue for a second win than Renee as far as I’m concerned.
I have been getting the feeling that Bombshell was an acting and nothing else film for a while. Globes and now the reviews seem to have confirmed this.
I had a feeling the acting would be singled out as the best thing in it but I expected the reviews to be just slightly better.
Good on ya Sasha calling it what it is activist fuelled resentment which what scewed awards season ever since deserved hurtlocker won best picture it didn’t win cos bigelow is gorgeous very talented woman wasn’t cos gender it won cos it was best directed film amongst them that year regardless gender academy need fast get back on judging by merit not activist fuelled gender agenda.
Anyway I calling this my double header awards night in cinemas now to relish power and emotional impact of Joker. Then tonight much l8tr on blu ray I got today as i told you I would (I man of my word) I got once upon a time in Hollywood once see these two or( in case joker again ) I give u update on my ratings awards season and share compr9hensive reviews both films what night for me tnite lol
Inside the bubble any awards season, there’s predictably a fairly small bunch of movies that suck up all the oxygen. Even smaller number directed or written by women. I spend more of my time chasing interesting films, irrespective of whether they’re on lists or award winners. Awards Daily has been a wonderfully motivating force for me to do just that and great input from our hosts and commenters.
In 2019 among my favourites are Jeanne Herry’s ‘In Safe Hands’, Sara Conlangelo’s The Kindergarten Teacher, and Sophie Hyde’s ‘Animals’ . 2018s Private Life from Tamara Jenkins, Debra Granik’s Leave No Trace feature strongly too for me. I don’t necessarily seek out films by women but definitely drawn to their narratives.
In Australia we definitely have always punched above our weight with female directors . This year 3 of our 6 best picture nominees were women. Jennifer Kent, Mirrah Foukes (Judy and Punch) and Rachel Griffiths (Ride Like A Girl)
More advocacy!
And Jennifer Kent (the nightingale) the first woman in AFI/AACTA history to win best film, director and screenplay in the one night!
That’s great. Some people still keep peddling the sexist narrative that films by female filmmakers are not as good as those by white men.
I tend to agree with you, Sasha more often than not but I must say I don’t think I can agree with your argument here.
First of all I would like to say that 4 slots in BD are rather obvious this year : Scorsese, Tarantino, Mendes, Bong. Whether one likes their films or not, it can’t be denied that what they delivered are very special films with complex, challenging and ultimately incredibly impressive directorial achievements.
BUT that still leaves one slot open and if the bar for that slot was Todd Phillips’s work in Joker then we do have a problem. Sure, you can argue that if not Phillips than the next ones in line are Waititi, Mangold, Johnson, Meirelles, Baumbach, Almodovar, Eastwood and the Safdie brothers but that’s where you lose me with this argument. To suggest that nobody from the Matsoukas, Heller, Wang, Har’El, Sciamma, Gerwig sextet should be even top13 let alone top5 is just not something that I can support.
Because the God honest truth is that while I haven’t seen Little Women, I have seen several of the rest and I find it insulting that someone like Sciamma can’t even be in the conversation with a towering artistic achievement but Phillips can just make the cut with a film that at the end of the day is just a Scorsese rip-off (mostly Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy) helped out at the Box Office by IP. I’ve made this point before and I will make it again : if the exact same film had been made without the Joker connection and instead of a clown he would have been a mime and the film had been called The Mime, it wouldn’t have even made 50M worldwide let alone a billion and nobody would rush to shower it with awards and nominations as they are at the moment. Even a film like Queen & Slim, that for the record I found to be good not great, is considerably more accomplished and deserving of BD consideration than Joker as far as I’m concerned. And it’s not even that I find Phillips’s directorial achievement horrible, I don’t. I firmly believe this is his strongest work to date. But I also firmly believe that his personal best does not measure up to the best of 2019.
I also don’t agree with this generalisation that female directors apparently have it super easy because critics are just hellbent on showering their films with (unearned) praise whether they like the film in question or not. This clearly stems from the conviction that films you didn’t like, like Booksmart, The Farewell, Bombshell and Little Women, got better reviews than you thought they deserved. And while clearly we are all entitled to our highly arguable, subjective personal opinions I find it odd that you would dismiss entire critical consensuses that are based on the opinions of top critics, simply because you don’t agree with them. Is it really that impossible that critics may have loved Little Women more than you did for whatever legit reason other than “agenda” ? That they gave the film rave reviews on merit ? I’m only asking because that 91 on Metacritic can’t really be explained away with “yeah it’s positive discrimination because it is a female director”. It is an umpteenth adaptation from a director who received rave reviews and strong awards play only two years ago for, what I thought to be, a pretty average film so not like critics had to have the overwhelming feeling now that they owed her anything, not to mention even if they hated it and wanted to overpraise it, the MC number still wouldn’t be 91, it would be more like 70 : respectable, good enough but no raves. That 91 suggests critics love it and not just because it makes them feel good about themselves that they love a film directed by a woman, they seem to ACTUALLY love it.
Truth is there are probably some critics who praise films more than they should because the director in question is female BUT on the flip side there are definitely critics out there who, consciously or not, diss films more than they should for the exact same reason. The argument according to which it is always positive discrimination, simply isn’t supported by the numbers. If female directors have it so easy then how come even when they do get the raves, deserved or not, they still can’t get the awards ? There are still only 7 who received BD nominations from the HFPA and only 5 who pulled off the same feat at the Oscars, out of hundreds and hundreds of BD nominations. If women have been positively discriminated against lately where are their Oscars and nominations from this decade ? How come Ava DuVernay has never been nominated for Best Director at the Oscars but someone like Morten Tyldum has, for example, and someone like David O. Russell has THREE times in four years ? How come when Kathryn Bigelow delivers a critically acclaimed Box Office hit like Zero Dark Thirty she can get snubbed in Best Director even though she not only would have deserved the nod she would have made history ? And how come that when in the same year someone like Ben Affleck got snubbed, he got a full-blown “poorben” treatment that landed his lesser film Best Picture ? Where was all the “sorry you got snubbed” sympathy for Bigelow ?
And if critics are so hellbent on showering films from female directors with unearned praise where is the 91 MC for A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood or Queen & Slim ? How could they trash Jolie’s Unbroken and DuVernay’s A Wrinkle in Time and not just trash, but trash with the kind of disgusting glee that tends to be reserved specifically for the artistic miscalculations made by female directors ? Based on your theory shouldn’t critics have just gone overboard in these cases, too ? And if they didn’t and they did for a few films you happen to dislike, is it possible you may be wrong about the films you are so sure deserve to be dismissed this season ? Not wrong in the sense that you don’t like them and you should because that’s nonsense we can clearly all hate and love whatever films we want, but wrong in the sense that just because you didn’t like them, doesn’t mean others couldn’t on merit alone. It is all subjective after all, no one opinion can (nor should) trump the rest.
Long story short I find your argument problematic. The insinuation is that if you don’t like a film from a female director and others do, then the others are basically lying to themselves because they just want to praise the film due to an agenda. It is a dismissive and ignorant argument and takes away from the accomplishment of not just the film in question that may or may not be a great film, but from the NEXT film and the film after that, that very well could be a masterpiece from a female director but now will be dismissed by some people based on your argument that suggests that if a film from a woman gets raves (or awards attention) then that should be automatically questioned. It shouldn’t. The acclaim films from male directors receive aren’t automatically questioned so neither should films from female directors be. That would be completely unfair. And gender-based discrimination, as well.
P.S. I’ve been reading your articles here on AD for over a decade and it has been my pleasure. However all these years reading your stuff also gave me the impression that you lean toward male perspectives from male directors. I mean the films in BP consideration this year that you are on record not being impressed with are the only films with female leads or co-leads : Marriage Story, Little Women, The Farewell, Bombshell, Booksmart. Meanwhile you seem to have no problem with 12 of the 13 films you listed as the top BD contenders above, all stories of men from men. I have absolutely zero problem with your personal preference and taste, we all like what we like, there is nothing we can (nor should) do about it, and I’m also not saying that your dislike for the female-centric films isn’t warranted in every single case, but the very least we should acknowledge the fact that the films you dismissed this season are the only films with female leads. Doesn’t prove bias at all but it does suggest your personal preference just doesn’t favour these kind of stories at all to begin with.
Interesting essay here Phantom. The fact that the same half a dozen movies show up in any given season for awards shows me it is more about ‘the business’ than it is about ‘the show’. If critics and guild members looked a little further afield there would automatically be a more diverse selection of films and different films would show up rather than the same set. Tarantino’s film is bloated and indulgent. Brilliant but flawed yet it will show up everywhere. The group think each season is par for the course. When a movie managed to squeak in like First Reformed in a category it is so welcomed. I’m bracing myself for 3 and a half hours of The Irishman. I know I won’t agree with most of this year’s nominees or winners but they provide barometers and comparisons for what I think is truly great. We all want our favourites and agendas to prevail.
Fair point about the sheep mentality that really is getting old (and annoying).
I think my problem here is that I think films of female directors are judged considerably more harshly than that of male directors and this article claims the opposite of that. Films about and from men can have (many) flaws and still get rave reviews and Oscar love without breaking a sweat (or at least mediocre ones definitely do every single year) while at the same time the (potentially fewer or smaller) flaws of films about and from women, are analysed to death and more often than not result dismissal by critics, audiences and awards voters. That’s the double standard I can’t stand.
“I’ve made this point before and I will make it again : if the exact same film had been made without the Joker connection and instead of a clown he would have been a mime and the film had been called The Mime, it wouldn’t have even made 50M worldwide let alone a billion and nobody would rush to shower it with awards and nominations as they are at the moment.”
Maybe, but why is that a bad thing? It’s like saying The Patriots would suck if they didn’t have Tom Brady… but they do have Tom Brady so it kind of doesn’t matter (feel free to swap that for whatever sports analogy works better for you). The movie plays off iconography that people understand and relate to and did it in a way that was different than most other filmmakers working with similar properties have, that’s not something to be dismissed.
I don’t think that analogy works for my argument. My point is that if The Patriots had a guy who played exactly as well as Tom Brady and delivered the exact same results Tom Brady delivers, that guy still wouldn’t get the acclaim and money that Tom Brady does because he wouldn’t be a household name. The Joker film made money because of IP and if the exact same film had been delivered without the IP, I don’t think it would be getting half the recognition it is getting at the moment.
No it made money becouse of phenomenal reception around the world, everybody knew that film has Joker IP in it before release and yet most of the expert predicted that it won’t make more than around 500-600 mln.
It made more than a bilion,.
Stop writing alternate history.
I’m not writing alternate history. I’m saying that in my (highly arguable personal) opinion the film is a hit because of the IP and not because of quality.
And for the record the 1B is very impressive indeed. I’m not trying to dismiss that accomplishment, I’m trying to understand it.
Joker transcends its comic book origins and its homage to early Scorsese. It is an artfully made film with a haunting score and several instantly iconic scenes (the bathroom, the stairwell, the blood smile) that other filmmakers will be referencing for decades to come. It is a beautiful film that explores the ugliness of the world. A lot of progressive critics reject it because the film asks you to have empathy for a person who does terrible things and who is also a white male. But the film has resonated with people from all backgrounds who feel that their society and government do not care about them. That turns out to be a very large demographic globally.
And that is your opinion you are entitled to and I respect.
Mine is that while the film has certain scenes and aspects that work well (Phoenix, score), overall it doesn’t, at least not for me.
And I wasn’t going in expecting to hate it, I was hoping for the edgy, cool take on the comic book genre that could win the Golden Lion and for whatever reason I didn’t think I got that film in the end. I went back for a second time to double check and nope, still not for me.
It’s fine to say that the film didn’t work for you. The Irishman didn’t work all that well for me, and I wish that Tarantino would stop making glib fantasies about real-life horrors. Tastes will vary.
But to me it’s absurd not to acknowledge that Joker has had a massive impact worldwide, an impact that cannot be reduced to the durability of the IP. It made a billion dollars without a dime from China, and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why the Chinese censors will never let it play there. The Joker has been appropriated as a symbol of protest in Chile, Lebanon, and Hong Kong. This is the big cultural zeitgeist film of the year. That doesn’t mean that you have to like it, but it seems silly to me not to acknowledge that it is a significant film to a lot of other people.
And when did I ever say it wasn’t “significant to a lot of other people” or that it didn’t have “massive impact worldwide” ?
But the point I’m making is that the way the film uses IP is a big part of the appeal and that the “same film” without the IP wouldn’t be the same film.
And his point is that the films box office success is due to its IP. That’s the point.
Completely agreed, on all counts. I remember having this exact discussion on this site re: Lady Bird, a movie which I adored and which I still do (I think it was just as deserving of BP as Shape of Water). The issue boils down to a pretty clear double standard which movies directed by men simply don’t face on the same scale. Movies by women are damned if they do, damned if they don’t – if they don’t succeed, it’s because they’re not good enough, but if they do succeed, that success is ONLY attributed to “woke twitter” (which has emerged as such an odd boogey man on this site) …
“This clearly stems from the conviction that films you didn’t like, like Booksmart, The Farewell, Bombshell and Little Women,
got better reviews than you thought they deserved. And while clearly we
are all entitled to our highly arguable, subjective personal opinions I
find it odd that you would dismiss entire critical consensuses that are
based on the opinions of top critics, simply because you don’t agree
with them. Is it really that impossible that critics may have loved
Little Women more than you did for whatever legit reason other than
“agenda” ?”
I argued this very same thing back when similar things were being written about Lady Bird’s success and the backlash against Gerwig’s snub at the GG that year. Maybe, just maybe … some of us actually DO think that movies like Lady Bird are, in our genuine opinions, cinematic masterpieces, and we side with opinions/backlashes on “woke twitter” not because of blind allegiance to a nefarious agenda, but because there’s been a very clear, undeniable, historical pattern of awards bodies consistently overpraising movies by men (especially movies many would agree, albeit subjectively, are fairly mediocre) at the expense of movies made by women, even when taking into account how few movies by women get made in the first place; it’s worth taking a stand to try and rectify that instead of waiting around – in the year 2020!!! – for everyone else to figure it out for themselves, while women’s talent continues to go unrecognized.
Obligatory-but-still-true addendum about how much I still love this website and respect Sasha’s writing and opinions (if I didn’t respect them, I wouldn’t take the time to read and reflect and respond to them as much as I do most years) ….
I will always believe that the sneering and hectoring Golden Globe ceremony that year (including Portman’s infamous introduction of the nominated directors) coupled with Gerwig’s foolish and ignorant disavowal of Woody Allen (seen as a cynical attempt to #MeToo extra votes) stopped her momentum in its tracks. Woody Allen has a LOT of friends and admirers in the Academy voting bloc, and people who actually study the evidence figure out quickly that Mia was full of shit.
She was EW’s annointed “Oscar Frontrunner” the week of the Globes, and then proceeded to die with the Guilds. Hell, I think Portman’s petulant display HELPED Shape of Water, because GDT was clearly rattled in his acceptance speech he gave 90 seconds after she said that, I bet he got a ton of DGA sympathy (and frankly, HIS run ins with Weinstein were legendary, so Harvey’s downfall was a plus for him anyway)
It seems like you’re lost in your own world. Stats said no such thing. I am not the only one who believes Gerwig’s best chance was screenplay and she was third favourite behind Peele and McDonagh. They were stronger BP films and won the major screenplay awards. Early frontrunners means nothing. She didn’t win most critics awards for screenplay either. It’s just all in your mind.
You’re an idiot. Gerwig DID get a director nom after the Globes speech by Portman, so that can’t have hurt. Most of what you said was nonsense, but it’s understandable. You spend too much time soaking up the poison on H-E (as do I, to be fair.)
JOKER IS A BAD MOVIE. Or at the very least we can recognize that it is not worthy of a directing nom, good LORD.
LOL. It’s a great movie and is worthy of all the awards it gets. 🙂
Nah, you’re wrong
disgruntled Marvel fan. I’m a marvel fan but credit where it’s due.
‘From The State of the Race – The Globes Drop the Hammer and Now the Race is On
“Dolemite Is My Name also has a shot as the lone nominee with a mostly black cast”
????????
Sasha, like most of us, mixes her advocacy with prognostication. She wants Dolemite to be nominated because she thinks it’s a great film, and she thinks that it might still have a chance because some voters might want a black film among the nominees. She’s not actually saying it should be nominated BECAUSE it’s a black film.
I think what Ali meant was that it doesn’t make sense to promote one form of advocacy supporting one underrepresented group and condemn another form of advocacy supporting another underrepresented group.
In principle there should be no difference : one either factors in advocacy based on minority representation or one ignores that aspect and focuses solely on the artistic merits of the film in question.
But opting to use it when it helps the narrative around a film you like and condemn it when it helps a film you don’t like, simply won’t work in this context.
I think that when Sasha discusses what she personally sees as the best films of the year, Dolemite is up there.
I don’t think she was saying it was a good thing that some people might support Dolemite because it is a black film but rather that people potentially doing so is a factor that should be considered as a prognosticator.
As you know, Hollywood awards are as much about campaigns and narratives as they are about quality. That’s really the only point I’m trying to make here, that Sasha’s comment is not hypocritical if you separate her personal tastes from her prognosticating.
I think the difference she sees is that ones she likes deserved it and the ones she doesn’t are tokenism or woke twitter or some shit. There is not “best”. It’s all about opinions. I think it’s terrible that you can believe that only great films are made by white men
Wow. When did I ever so much as vaguely suggest that the only great films are made by white men?
Moonlight is my favorite film of the past decade. On a side note, I’d argue that Moonlight and Joker are great films for exactly the same reason- they are beautifully made films that show the ugliness of the world as experienced by a violent protagonist, urging the audience to feel empathy for a character they would ordinarily loathe.
.
I don’t think the Globes can be blamed fully (they’re not going to think outside the box, the system that chooses contenders, meaning producers who make movies, publicists and pundits seem to be able to seriously consider only one film directed by a woman each year and having just one contender each year isn’t going to fix this situation) but to me it seems like this piece implies that there simply were no deserving films by women this year, or that if there were the critics somehow ignored the few “correct” ones and that the films that they champion aren’t actually worthy. I find this very odd. There are deserving films by women every year (I’d argue that if one can’t find any, one is not looking enough) and while sometimes even the critical consensus paves over them (Mia Hansen-Love for example still hasn’t recieved the credit she deserves), the films they champion that are directed by women are usually incredible nonetheless. We shouldn’t consider there to be only one or two films that are “acceptable” to be nominated that are by women, we should try to turn attention towards as many films as possible so that the Academy can’t just pretend that female filmmakers don’t make deserving films by just saying “no” to one director, which is not a difficult thing to do.
I haven’t seen Little Women or The Farewell yet (terrible release dates around here) but Portrait of a Lady on Fire might be the best film of the year, The Souvenir, Varda by Agnès and Little Joe are also completely worthy of best picture nominations. These are films that if they were awarded it would be because they’re genuinely worthy, because they are undeniable, not because people want to support any female filmmakers. The level of quality among the films by women that get into the critical best of the year and Oscar discussion is too high for them to be there just because of political reasons
Well, she’s not saying there weren’t any deserving movies directed by women this year – just that there weren’t any better-directed than the five movies nominated for directing at the Globes. (If I understand what she wrote correctly.) A notion with which, by the way, based on what we’ve seen so far (which, in my case, is very little), we both already disagree, but this is her opinion (not an unreasonable one, I suspect, whether one agrees with it or not) and, since she’s writing the thing, it seems fair to me for her to go by that measure in her opinion piece. 🙂 She could’ve also chosen to go by the consensus five best-directed, instead, if there is such a consensus (Metacritic and such rate the movies – which is close to the same thing as rating the direction, but not quite). She just didn’t. (Evidently, there most likely would have been no article at all, in that case.) That’s how I see it.
My complaining about her not considering any of those films deserving is based on this part of the text: “Because if I were a woman filmmaker I wouldn’t want anyone to do me any
favors. I would want to make a movie SO GOOD that its value was
undeniable. Like Kathryn Bigelow’s Hurt Locker, like Jane Campion’s The
Piano, like Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation, like Ava DuVernay’s
Selma. But that isn’t what awards voters are being asked to do. Voters should
focus on choosing the best films or the best directors or the best
scripts. But none of that matters to Film Twitter – which then is the
feeder trough for clickbait all over the web — this story will make it
to the New York Times guaranteed.”
This in my opinion read as something along the lines of that there wasn’t any movie this year that was so good that if it would get in, it would get in just because it was considered to be deserving by voters (undeniable in other words and that the films mentioned were examples when female filmmakers were actually deserving) and that choosing any female filmmakers this year would be going against the idea of choosing the best films or the best directors or the best directors or the best scripts. This would not only express that she personally wouldn’t nominate any female directors this year (which isn’t a problem) but that the very act of voting for a female filmmaker this year is to make a political statement rather than assess quality and that there is no way that voters could sincerely nominate a film by a female filmmaker this year, meaning that there were no deserving films by female filmmakers this year, not only in terms of her personal taste but also on a level that anyone else’s love for these films would be believable.
But now that I’ve been writing this reply, I see that she probably meant something else, that the “undeniable” refers more to the idea that voters felt like they needed to vote for this film and that those films managed to get out of that situation on their own. So I guess I overreacted. Sorry to everyone.
And about measuring consensus among film people, on top of Gerwig’s movie’s high MC score (if that’s what you’re referring to in terms of the article not being written in that case) one could refer to the Sight and Sound list this year, which ranked a film by a woman as the best film of the year and also ranks films directed by women at positions 5, 7, 11 and 15. But such assessments of consenus often feel pointless as they’re too stiff on some level to work as a reason for saying that someone deserves or doesn’t deserve a nomination
No, that’s O.K. – I didn’t realize that was the part you meant! 🙂 I can totally see how you might read it that way.
About the consensus thing I posted something related to what you’re saying at the top of this comments section. I definitely agree with you in that sense. Although, as I said there, critics don’t (and probably shouldn’t) hold a monopoly on appraising works of art. They should be the most respected/trusted voices, no doubt (logic suggests it), but in my opinion not the only ones. People making movies should also have a big say. Some professions more than others, but that’s another discussion. 🙂 Journalists, I don’t know – probably not as big a say, but still some. The general audience should have a say too. That’s why I think consensus votes, while not optimal (because the weights are all skewed, pretty much by definition, because it’s always some subsection or another), should also be taken quite seriously. Biases will be there regardless of what group you go by – presumably fewer and less pronounced when it comes to critics, but still some.
(Edit: I withdrew my quibble in the meantime and forgot to delete that sentence. Did it now.)
I guess she did also claim there wasn’t one in the top 10. 🙂 Which is still a reasonable opinion. Controversial (perhaps very controversial), but reasonable.
Then why there was outrage on this site when Dolomite is My Name couldn’t make AFI Top Ten. The argument of inclusivity was used in that piece ……. So why not same inclusivity applies on Women directors……….
https://media2.giphy.com/media/3ohc19ji86SAqT7JKM/giphy.gif
Long time reader here, I’m just a bit confused. At times I feel like Sasha advocates for more opportunities and visibility of women/poc but at other times she seems to dismiss the very real pain that many of those groups feel when their work (i.e. their voice) is ignored by the industry at large. But anyway, I personally feel like we can’t rely on awards shows and certainly not the Golden Globes to reflect the plethora of fantastic women/poc filmmakers. It just isn’t going to come from them. These awards aren’t for that, they are a way for a select few to create a perception of what is great cinema. It’s showbiz and we have to accept that showbiz can be superficial. I hope people that feel upset take that energy and turn it into action. Don’t let the Globes have that much power over your art.
I think Sasha is making two main points. 1) in Sasha’s opinion there weren’t a plethora of truly groundbreaking films make by women that she felt realistically had a shot at Top 5 directing. 2) Her irritation at Twitter campaigns boosting filmmakers based on who they are instead of what they submitted isn’t some deeply held secret here.
Yes, she thinks women have to make ground breaking films to be nominated. She is right, unfortunately. But the same isn’t true for white male directors.
i thought Sasha was being very clear. She wants women and people of color to have more opportunities to make great films. However, she believes it is counterproductive and misguided to give awards on the basis of some informal quota system.
I would agree with you … if women weren’t snubbed on such a consistent basis. The problem is the history of movies directed by women being consistently overlooked. It’s not about “filling a quota” – it’s about addressing the reality and history of what can only be called a prejudice against movies made by women (or about even movies simply about women). If the Golden Globes consistently nominated female directors who produced movies consistently judged to be mediocre by critics and the public, then again, I might agree with you – but the Globes don’t even consistently nominate female directors who produce movies consistently judged to be masterpieces. At the end of the day, the GG have nominated less than 10 women directors in its history – so I don’t see what all the pearl-clutching, red scare nonsense about “woke twitter” is about. The men are still being nominated in droves. What’s wrong with pointing out the pattern?
If you’re talking about the history of these awards, I wholeheartedly agree with you.that Hollywood is and has been sexist to the core. In an ideal world directors like Debra Granik would get the same level of studio support that someone like Alexander Payne has enjoyed, and studios would be throwing money at Kathryn Bigelow given her track record. I’m not at all denying that change needs to occur.
But look at the films this year. Gerwig’s film is a remake of a remake. The other two really highly regarded films directed by women were both nominated for foreign film. Booksmart is awesome for what it is, but teen comedies are not award season darlings. A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is a little too schmaltzy.
There’s nothing wrong with pointing out the pattern. It’s a question of how best to change that pattern. Given studio support, a Dee Rees or a Patty Jenkins or a Jennifer Kent is going to knock one out of the park. There’s no need to settle for tokenism.
“But look at the films this year. Gerwig’s film is a remake of a remake.”
It’s not a remake of anything since it’s an adaptation of a famous novel. They don’t have a problem nominating remakes. I mean, what do you think A Star I s Born was? And that was nominated just like in multiple categories. Cooper is nowhere near the class of Gerwig yet he and his got nominated pretty much every. After awhile, you just have see it for what it is: The game is fixed against women. I hope the Academy’s direct branch comes to the rescue as it has the last couple of years by nominating truly deserving directors.
“There’s no need to settle for tokenism.”
Interesting line. So, nominating women for BD is regarded as tokenism because you think no women has done a film you deem good enough to be nominated for BD but nominating men who have worse films and aren’t good let alone great directors is fine? The problem is that there’s no criteria in which you can say a women should be nominated for BD. It’s not about the “best”. If you can, I will happily accept it, even if I disagree with judgement.
IMHO, no woman THIS YEAR has made a film more powerful than Joker. And as others have pointed out, the other four nominees from the GGs are not really being questioned by anyone. It really seems like the perception that Joker is a white male privilege film is driving a lot of the outrage, at least on this board.
If it were up to me, Jennifer Kent would be nominated over Tarantino She made a historical epic with a strong female lead that wasn’t grounded in male fantasy or fetishism.
But that’s a statement you can only make if you have already seen not just (the by the way brilliant) The Nightingale but also
Little Women
Queen & Slim
Portrait of a Lady on Fire
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
The Farewell
Honey Boy.
So have you ?
3 of 6. I’ll see the other three when they become available here.
So let me amend my statement. Of the several good to very good to excellent (The Nightingale) films I’ve seen made by women and released in 2019, I have found none of them to be as powerful as Joker.
Is that better?
Yes, it’s better. Thanks for being honest.
But Bradley Cooper was NOT nominated for director.
I agree that the game is fixed It’s a question of whether awards quotas are the best way to address the problem.
I think the point is that it shouldn’t have been considered to be tokenism when the female-centric film that was expected to make the cut, has better critical reception than several of the male-centric films that sailed through to the BP Top5 (Drama) at the Golden Globes without breaking a sweat.
I am aware reviews aren’t everything and that they are just as subjective as everything else about an art form like film but I think it’s unfair that critical consensus is widely considered to be an unofficial pre-req for BP consideration and yet some films get a pass in that department (male-centric films) while certain other films (female-centric films) that excel in that department, get snubbed in favour of considerably less acclaimed movies, citing something vague as a reason like “they just liked those (coincidentally male-centric) films more”.
So if female-led films can
1. barely get greenlit
2. if they get greenlit they may not get rave reviews
3. if they get rave reviews they may not have good BO prospects
4. if they somehow have #2 and #3 they will still place in the awards game behind (several male-centric) films that only have one of the two or neither
then WHAT else will be expected of a female-led film in order to secure some proper awards season love ? The expectations are simply different : a female-led film must finish first in every aspect to be even considered to have a shot at top5 while male-led films more often than not just have to somehow get to the finish line and their top5 consideration will be a given. It just doesn’t seem fair at all.
And the gap isn’t small, either.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/579eb83c14a64699e7d7e66e4b5a84b7bd5c976d41f081c83b702955a579b2c7.png
Great post. Well done.
Can I ask why is there a picture of Little Women not from Gerwig’s movie?
I do not think it is misoginia, Sasha, it is just a matter of % of women directing and also landing Awards-caliber projects, and THEN, having their studios or distributors doing a rightful awards campaign.
Gerwig had an uphill battle because Little Women has been done so many times before, that interest in actually watching ANOTHER version, was always going to be limited.
Heller was directing a Mr. Rogers film that wasn’t actually having Mr. Rogers as star. Hanks got the nom thanks to star power and curiosity about his portrayal, but probably there was disappointment about the focus of the film rather than pleasant surprise about Mr. Rogers being supporting and the film being more than expected.
I agree that When they see us is an amazing achievement that should have sweep noms all along.
The only real case of misoginia I have seen so far this year, anyways, is Marriage Story.
Have you seen Little Women?
nope. And honestly, not on my top priority list, same happens with Ford v Ferrari, not my cup of tea.
I am really interested in Jojo Rabbit, The Two Popes… and to minor extent, on Uncut Gems, Richard Jewell…
If I was a professional film critic, I would see everything, but I am not, so I see only what interests me in advance. If they did not engage me… well, it is not my fault.
This is a great piece. Just add a point here:
“Thus, any woman has to get in just to quiet the noise. ANY WOMAN. Doesn’t matter which woman.”
Not any. It does matter when it’s the white, blonde, young actress turned-into-director. When it is Dee Rees and Ava DuVernay snubbed for far more deserving achievements in their years, there is no such loud complaint. Or Marielle Heller for Can Your Forgive Me?, a better directed film than most of the BP nominees last year.
Yeah when Dee Rees and Carry Mulligan brought story of Mudbound through Netflix…. no body took it……….
But for Scorsese and De Niro, now standard are changed
I am still heartbroken for Mudbound …..
It wasn’t quite nobody. There was more resistant to Netflix at the that time so it was always going to struggle. But you are right being a major filmmaker does help. The major filmmakers working with Netflix has helped to build up it’s reputation.
you are onto something. take this for example. woke media beats the drum that women should lead more action movies and play badass or gun-totin characters in general. so when Dark Fate and cahrlie’s Angels bombed, woke media was up in arms blaming sexist men for the debacle of movies that women wouldn’t touch with a pole for they recognized a turd. However, quietly, because woke media still doesn’t pay attention to them, two movies headlined by black actresses (harriet, queen&slim) are doing healthy business at the boxoffice. yet woke media doesn’t care to hype these examples of successful headlining by a WoC. Woke media often laments the lack of WoC leads but now that 2 enjoy success, woke media is silent. So yes, you are onto something. It isn’t women snub but particular woman snub. there was far less outrage over Heller not making it at all last year than Gerwig not making it with HFPA the year before and now.
They could’ve nominated them. Who is stopping them? It’s your opinion. You can’t let your own opinion cloud your judgement. As Ferdinand points out, the focus should not be on one women. It’s not about snubbing one women, but about snubbing all women.
The outrage is ENTIRELY different when THAT one women is snubbed. Were there pieces and pieces of outrage when Kathryn Bigelow missed for ZDT? “She won before” Or when Ava DuVernay was ignored for Selma? “It came too late”. Or when Dee Rees directed a tremendous picture and all the conversation was about Gerwig. Or when Marielle Heller’s Can You Ever Forgive Me was ignored all over In best picture despite coming out in a mediocre year for film? No. When it’s the blonde, young, cool it’s all different. Privilege.
It doesn’t have to be that women. It’s just women missing BD. There is not a single film in both BP that is directed by a women. You are putting the focus on THAT woman. I think there were less pieces about that kind of thing when those films missed BD. I think Oscarsowhite started afterwards. People are upset because films by women have been rejected, not because Gerwig isn’t nominated. You have an issue with her. But then some people have issues with some of the male directors and they still get showered with honours. I find you have no leg t stand that you can criticise her for being privileged just because she is blonde and young women. She’s just being snubbed. She’s not that privileged, not compared to white men anyway. I don’t think DuVernay and Bigelow are slouch when it comes to looks. It still doesn’t mean they don’t make great films or that they won’t be snubbed for undeserved white men. You are too focused on Gerwig and that’s distorting your view on the issue. I hope you understand it’s massive problem for women, even you don’t like Gerwig or her films.
There were indeed very loud complaints when Ava DuVernay was snubbed and Selma performed weakly at the Oscar nominations, which led to the OscarsSoWhite campaign the following year.
“white, blonde, young” is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Gerwig’s films are hugely critically acclaimed, more so than most other films in their respective years. They are respected for their *content*, although it was not obvious to me the first time I watched Lady Bird. I must have been slow.
Not loud, James. Complaint was all towards the all-white Acting lineup. Nobody was talking about the lack of female representation then. This started to become big after Harvey Weinstein and after Gerwig was a contender in the following year.
Yes, race (2015) became an issue before gender (2017). We all know this. However, it wasn’t right to say that Ava DuVernay’s snub wasn’t noticed – even though race was more of an issue than gender then. It was noticed. It is also unclear that any of the films you mentioned are better than Gerwig’s films, both of which received much higher critical ratings.
Ironically, Sasha pushed for The Shape of Water to win in 2017 mainly because it was female-led. I wouldn’t expect consistency from a friend of Jeff Wells, anyway.