The question now isn’t how to save this monster, it’s how to put it down before it can do any more harm. The Oscars have become the birthday cake that has turned rancid. It’s as if our own promotional campaign became self-aware and turned against us, Skynet-like. – Richard Rushfield, The Ankler
Probably one of the worst things that can happen in an Oscar race is what I call the “Don’t Think Twice” bait and switch. It comes from the line in a Bob Dylan song Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right:
“I ain’t saying you treated me unkind.
You could have done better, but
I don’t mind.
You just kind of wasted my precious time,
But don’t think twice, it’s all right.”
The night before the BAFTAs, I was having a conversation with a friend about the acting categories. This year, because the BAFTA had been accused of racism, their privileges were curtailed when a jury was brought in to select the nominees for the acting categories and Best Director. The jury was made up of a small number of people, and only some of them were BAFTA members. That meant there was to be a healthy amount of nominees of color and women in these categories.
I said to my friend, “why would they have gone through all of this trouble only to then pick white actors?” And my friend said back to me something that stuck with me and should have stuck harder, “That’s WHY they would do it.”
From then on I was thinking about the “BAFTA revolt” and wondering if it would play out at the Oscars and to what degree. What I didn’t expect was that they would match the BAFTA 100% in the top categories. Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Adapted and Original Screenplay. They matched the BAFTA with editing, going with Sound of Metal instead of the Ace winner, Chicago 7.
True, many of these wins were consensus picks already and weren’t surprises. Actor and Actress, though, were. What makes the Academy and BAFTA different from almost every other awards bodies? Their demographics. True, the Academy has roughly 3,000 more members and many of them younger and non-white voters – if you split up those extra voters (Boseman vs. Riz Ahmed, Davis vs. Day) you are left with the BAFTA, more or less. They basically showed their defiance for a season that was mostly telling them what and whom to vote for and they clearly resented it and decided to do whatever the hell they wanted.
That is sometimes referred to as “white privilege” and sometimes referred to as “white fragility,” but to me, removing the prestige of being a BAFTA member at all and forcing them to pick from a hand-picked selection of nominees to change their own image for the sake of their own image was a bridge too far for them and they just said, “screw it” and “screw you.” Not to the people of color but to the higher ups who made them comply with a mandate that stripped them of their privileges as honored members of their industry.
Hopkins beating Boseman and McDormand beating Davis (or Day) is a bad look for an institution that just sold you for a couple of hours on who they wanted to be. It is a Crash-like bummer that unfortunately erases the legacy of Hopkins, who delivered maybe his best performance in The Father, and it erases the legacy of McDormand who is largely responsible for the existence of Nomadland at all.
For Davis, that makes it twice she’s won the SAG and twice she’s lost it to a white actress, Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady and now, McDormand. There is no other actress in all of SAG/Oscar history who has that happen to them.
The Golden Globes, who ironically were hounded all season as racists, ended up with two black actors winning in lead, and the SAG ended with all four acting winners people of color.
The award ceremony itself had a few great moments, like Yuh-Jung Youn’s hilarious speech where she said the quiet part out loud, “maybe you are showing American hospitality to a Korean actress.”
https://youtu.be/syrGt0fpffY
Tyler Perry’s speech was a plea for unity – the kind Joe Biden should be making and never has wherein he asks us not to hate each other – not to hate people for skin color, not to hate cops because they are cops – to meet him in the middle. It was powerful and memorable and exactly what this country, and this industry, needs.
https://youtu.be/pZVvH3HvyNk
But it didn’t really matter how great the individual moments were. Because it ended on a bummer note, that is likely much of what people will take away from this year’s Oscars after such a hard year, a year where the black community rose up and demanded to be seen and heard and the Academy, the institution itself, tried to show it was listening.
Perhaps they tried just a little too hard to portray themselves as something other than what they actually are. So who are they? Well, they are more like the BAFTAs than anyone wants to admit. According to Statista, as of February 2021, the Academy is: 84% white. That would mean the BAFTA is probably, I’m guessing, site unseen, something like 90% white.
As Rushfield put it, in another beautifully written piece of savagery (of the kind rarely seen in journalism anymore):
The whole proceedings were fueled by this magical elixir of self-absorption and self-importance mixed with incompetence. A more potent potion to chase away audiences it is hard to imagine; and not just chase them away from the Oscars but to disgust them with Hollywood itself and all its works, above and beyond the normal sea level of disgust with Hollywood.
I think I liked the whole show better than Rushfield did. I think they did a decent enough job, given what they had to work with. But the decision to scramble the awards order turned out to be an honest mistake. But it was disorienting and, frankly, messed with the one aspect of the Oscars that wasn’t broken. I appreciate the daring choice, however, to shake the tree a little but again, when your two top winners are Hopkins and McDormand it makes it all the more strange with the categories scrambled.
The Academy itself, and the producers of the show, are not the voters.
They had every reason to think that this year, 2021, a black actress would finally beat Halle Berry’s record of being the only one to win in 93 years of Oscar history, so she was invited to present an award. They had every reason to think Chadwick Boseman would win in Best Actor since he’d won the Globe and the SAG. That is why they saved his award for last, to put his win in the highest possible place of the night — these are the two awards we think will top the night, those choices said.
Hopkins clearly not only didn’t think he would win, but he didn’t really even want to compete, out of respect, with Boseman so he never showed up. He didn’t get his moment for the performance of his life, but at least he wasn’t Chadwick Boseman’s widow, brought all the way there only to watch him lose. She was very likely thinking, “I ain’t saying you treated me unkind. You could have done better but I don’t mind.”
And he wasn’t the many fans of Boseman’s who’d tuned in specifically to see him win the Oscar at last to complete the circuit of award wins posthumously. The Academy was somehow making their whole show about appealing to the black community, but like ABC’s The Bachelor, they somehow managed to fumble the ball in the final play.
Despite it all, I would advocate for more understanding of what the awards are supposed to be – they are not supposed to right the wrongs of society, though it would be great if they could. Their purpose is to award high achievements in art. But of course, Boseman and Davis and Mulligan and Day and Ahmed and everyone else – these were high achievements in art and therein lies the problem. Did they pick the best or did they go with the one the most people (the BAFTA voters, essentially) thought were best?
I did do an actual happy dance when Mank won Cinematography and many here at AD also predicted that tough but right call. Citizen Kane lost that Oscar in 1941, Mank just won it back. And as we know, it’s all about me.
The joke about the Oscars is that they are just the industry patting itself on the back. That is what they are, what they are designed to be, and they have to be honest about who they are and not necessarily try to present themselves as anything else. This is why we need honesty in art, journalism, humor – sooner or later you figure out the ship is sinking, despite your best efforts to tell the passengers it isn’t.
All things considered, I thought the producers of last night’s telecast really do deserve a pat on the back. They made something out of nothing and did the best with what they had. It was mostly a disaster of a year all around, that’s true, but they can be proud that they stitched it together and presented something resembling the Oscars. And that’s not nothing.
We’ll close out this year’s Oscars with a farewell note later today.
Even though McDormand has more Oscars than Davis, Davis still has more SAG wins!
I’m going to post this in a few places, then I’m semi-officially on break – apart from reading the post-Oscars articles and comments (which I haven’t yet had time to do) and posting a few comments and replies of my own… I would normally stay on longer, but this year there just isn’t time. There’s still too much going on.
I’m here. Not for long, but I’m here. Not unexpectedly (after the major effort I made to get everything done in time for the Oscars), I just could not stop sleeping… 🙂 In a number of spells. I got up, did some things, got too tired again in a few hours, went back to sleep, got up again, and so on. Repeated 2-3 times, at least. Got some work done and all of the other things in the meantime, but this week is still very busy. I do have a bit of time now to put together this stats round-up I’ve been meaning to get to for many hours, then hopefully reply those who have written to me since I went off grid, a few hours after the ceremony – we’ll see if I can get that second part done today as well. If not, over the next few days. Just one thing before I move on to the stats: I haven’t read what people are saying and I imagine that I’m still very much in the minority here, but for me the main takeaway from Oscar night was still WE HAVE TO BRING BACK THE HOST! (Ever since they moved away from that, the Oscars have just had no personality for me, as I’ve said many times.) The best parts of the night (which weren’t many – and apart from a handful of speeches) happened when somebody acted as a host for a few minutes. (Regina King, Lil Rel Howery, etc.) But this just didn’t happen enough, at least for my liking… Worst Oscars I’ve ever seen, that’s for sure! Although the setting was brilliant. They just didn’t do anything with it. Most of the decisions were terrible. (I still enjoyed it, of course, because the main thing for me has always been celebrating the movies – which, even if not well, they still did, just about – and making history, which always happens, inevitably.) That’s about it…
Now, about the stats… There were certainly quite a few upsets – no fewer than five categories saw winners that were being predicted by under 30% of the experts, editors, top 24 and all-star top 24 (or whatever they’re called) at Gold Derby, and only one of those upsets came in a short film category! That said, the only true stats-busting winner was “Fight For You” in song. (One could claim Colette was in that category as well, but not really, given how unreliable the stats are in those categories in general. More on that below.) These are all of the categories where the stats favorite (or at least what I, based on the data available to me and how I read it, had decided was the stats favorite) did not win:
Best Actor
Chadwick Boseman was probably the stats favorite here. Leaving out all things based on both Mulligan and McDormand losing in the other lead category (which did not end up being relevant, and it was always unclear whether they would), he was mainly up against:
– of the previous 26 Best Actor Oscar winners in years with 8 or more Best Picture-nominated movies, only two had failed to be in one (Jeff Bridges – Crazy Heart – and Fredric March – Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde -, who, however, only tied for the win with somebody who was in a Best Picture nominee);
– since 2011, no Oscar Best Actor winner whose movie had been seen by BAFTA (so, not McConaughey in Dallas Buyers Club), and certainly none that was a BAFTA nominee, had failed to win the award there as well (9/9), and BAFTA significantly altered its voting procedure around 2012-2013, making this stat probably rather more meaningful than the average ordinary 9-year matching streak;
– and, finally, losing the Independent Spirit Award (not a very strong stat, particularly in that category, but a reasonably strong one overall – not many Oscar-winners are nominated there and lose, in any category the two have in common, at least not since 2009, for some reason).
His stats looked mostly beatable to me – although the possibility of Davis (or maybe Day or Kirby) winning complicated things, bringing other, stronger stats into the fold -, only the BAFTA streak looking rather concerning. I guess it’s possible that voters realizing they were about to give a movie not up for Best Picture four Oscars, including both Best Actor and Best Actress (given their SAG wins), might have hurt their final tallies in both categories, so perhaps those stats were more relevant than they seem, even with both losing.
Anthony Hopkins was second-favorite, at worst. His issues were:
– not having won LAFCA/NSFC/SAG/Critics Choice, a stat on 100% (26/26) up until this year, in the SAG era (but a somewhat artificial one, and not one I trusted too much to begin with, despite the lack of exceptions – I’m glad there is now an exception, confirming this);
– not having won SAG or the Globe (an alternative stat, at best, since it also includes SAG), which was going on 17 years, but had witnessed several exceptions before that;
– being potentially the oldest Best Actor winner ever (not a very convincing stat, for the same reason Parasite being a foreign film wasn’t much of a stat either – but one can never be sure).
His stats looked quite beatable to me as well, although slightly more convincing (in the negative sense) than Boseman’s, but I can see how this could be interpreted differently, too… In any case, I was quite clear after BAFTA that I thought this was going to be a very close race and Hopkins could easily lose. The stats paint the same picture. At best, one is a marginal favorite over the other, depending on which stat(s) one gives more credence to – I honestly have no idea what the correct answer is, if there even is one.
Best Actress
Here, there were three roughly equally stats-valid possibilities, with Davis probably slightly ahead of Mulligan and McDormand. Again, setting aside the stats based on Boseman winning Best Actor, which did not come into play (and, given the above, were never anywhere near guaranteed to – though they of course needed to be kept in mind to some extent, even so, as I explained), the roadblocks for Davis were:
– having only won SAG (not even also NBR, like Halle Berry), which put her in a-single-precedent-in-the-SAG-era territory (Susan Sarandon, back when there was no AFTRA attached to SAG, which surely was an advantage for Davis there, with her TV background and all that, and back when BAFTA was post-Oscars, there was no Gold Derby Award and so on);
– not having any particularly good excuse for missing the BAFTA nomination (which Mulligan maybe did, and McDormand, the eventual winner, in any case, didn’t need, since she was nominated and even won there), which is a must for all eligible, of course (the point is, while it’s hard to see Mulligan missing with BAFTA, had there been no jury system, it was never that hard to see Davis missing, either way – but of course one can’t be sure);
– losing the Independent Spirit Award while nominated (McDormand broke this anyway, but it was on 11/11 all-time, before this year’s Oscars).
There was some precedent, at least, so I figured she maybe could beat these. I mean, I didn’t really think she would, honestly, which is why I didn’t predict her personally, but objectively it seemed and perhaps still seems like she had the least damaging stats, just about. BAFTA and its juries really did us in this year. Had McDormand won there fair and square, this would have been so much easier to call!…
Mulligan’s issues:
– not winning SAG or the Globe (34-year streak that was just broken by McDormand, but that could be argued to be all-time, since there was no SAG the last time there was an exception).
That was it. A big one, but clearly beatable, since McDormand had the same issue. (And, since I personally predicted Mulligan, I clearly thought it was beatable before the Oscars too, especially given that Davis also had big stats issues.) Any stat that’s based mostly on the votes of AFTRA and the 90 members of the HFPA is probably beatable. Still, of course, pretty strong. Anyway, like I said, I’m just happy my two favorite groups (BFCA & Film Independent), at least, picked Carey as their winner. 🙂 As did many other groups. Pity that the industry didn’t get it… (In my opinion, of course.)
McDormand’s:
– the same no-SAG/Globe-win stat;
– the stat about losing the ISA;
– and the stat about losing 3/4 of the Globe, Critics Choice, SAG and BAFTA as a nominee, which was on 100% in Best Actress up until now (no winners had lost that many in the BFCA-SAG era), but had been beaten in the other acting categories more than once, so it never looked unbeatable, by any means.
Clearly, it’s not easy to make a case for any of these being in a much better position, stats-wise, than the others. I still think Davis had the easier stats to beat, and she had precedent for beating most of them. But who knows?! Objectively, their cases look about the same. McDormand is hardly even an upset – I didn’t think she would win anymore, I’ll admit it, after she lost SAG and beat nobody strong at BAFTA. But that’s got nothing to do with the stats. I guess AFTRA just keeps messing things up…
By the way, Andra Day was just a bad prediction, according to the stats. (Already over-explained this point, no sense going over the nearly interminable list of her stats problems again.) Even in a year with four different precursor winners, when each of the other three had their issues as well (though far, far fewer). James Coburn was the only kind-of precedent, but even he was in a movie rather popular with critics that year, which had won an acting prize (even if not for Coburn) from NYFCC & NSFC and made the top 2 with LAFCA (in the same category). Also made the top 3 in Best Film with the NSFC & NYFCC and the top 3 in directing with the latter. It also had another Oscar nomination. (Nick Nolte, the aforementioned acting winner, in lead.) Coburn also had a SAG nomination – BAFTA only had four acting nominees and took place long after the Oscars, in those days. And he was in supporting, where it’s probably easier for such major stats upsets to happen, anyway. (Or was, prior to 2005. One can’t really get away with such anti-stats predictions anymore, above the line.) History suggests it. It was nice to see most (though not all) of the pundits realized Day was just not a good call by the end – even if one thought they would want to make history, it was clear Davis, the legend, would be the one they would pick, not Day. (Another thing I argued for, earlier on.) I maintain Day was probably in fifth place. Maybe not a terribly distant fifth, I don’t know, but fifth nonetheless. The evidence is all there. The evidence to the contrary… not so much.
Best Adapted Screenplay
The only category where I, personally, went against the stats and got it right… Nomadland was the stats favorite over The Father because the latter, while eligible, had failed to be nominated for the Scripter, as well as the Gold Derby Award. There were precedents for these stats being beaten. (Individually, not together, of course, but that’s the case with most strong stats.) The main reasons I thought they would indeed be broken this year:
– not being nominated for those two also meant Nomadland didn’t actually beat it in a final vote for either; it was probably not nominated (especially in the case of Gold Derby) mostly because not enough people saw it in time, therefore Nomadland only truly beat it at the Critics Choice, but lost to it at BAFTA (and I suspect, and have for a while, it would have lost at WGA too, had they been eligible there, which wouldn’t have affected its being the Best Picture stats front-runner anyway), which is a much better precursor for the screenplay win, it’s been established;
– in the 9 years in which I’ve run my preferential ballot simulation, the winners of that simulation (The Social Network, Zero Dark Thirty, Her, Birdman, Mad Max: Fury Road, Moonlight, Call Me By Your Name, The Favourite and Parasite) have always ended up with at least one Oscar win, often upsetting in at least one category in the process (Zero Dark Thirty tied for the sound win, Mad Max: Fury Road was not expected to win six, this much I remember, and beat The Revenant in a couple of tech categories the latter was a favorite in, Moonlight upset in picture, The Favourite upset in Best Actress, even though it also surprisingly lost in a number of categories, and Parasite upset in directing – and, from many people’s perspectives, picture), and, this year, screenplay seemed the easiest category for it to win (I of course knew it could maybe win actor too, like I said, but had decided to not predict Hopkins there – I believed Boseman’s narrative would prevail, somehow);
– Nomadland just didn’t make sense as an Oscar winner in this category, as many have said, it did not feel written enough (the old “most vs. best” rule for predicting Oscar wins) and I never bought that it would win just because it was winning picture (screenplay is not the category one “drags along” that way, most of the time – bizarrely, it ended up being Best Actress, which, however, was even easier to win, surely, requiring fewer extra votes gathered and a lower final percentage of the vote) – shout out to john smith, wherever he is! I bet he would have been arguing hard alongside me that The Father was the clear favorite for screenplay (stats or no stats), due to this and other reasons! (Well, I wouldn’t have said “clear” – but he might have.) This also played a part in my decision. He was right about Get Out and others. He was the screenplay wizard…
Best Cinematography
This was another marginal upset. Mank was always clearly in it. Its only issues were BAFTA’s 8-year matching streak in this category (since 2013, so this looked reasonably strong, despite the still-small sample) and having lost the Critics Choice (only 1/11 Oscar winners since the BFCA had introduced that category too had done so). These were clearly both well in the “beatable” range, especially since Nomadland wasn’t a 100% valid winner either, stats-wise, not having won any ADG prizes (13 of the last 15 cinematography winners at the Oscars had). One other stat I discovered right after the ceremony makes Mank seem like an even better stats alternative to Nomadland in this category (which was probably always its best chance at winning a second Oscar, given the ASC result) than it already did: no lone nominations leader (as in not involved in a tie for the most nominations) at the Oscars since 1971 has failed to win at least two Oscars! (Before that year, there were 6 exceptions – so not many, anyway.)
Best Live Action Short
Feeling Through and The Present were maybe the stats co-favorites, having no issues, with Two Distant Strangers close by (its only “issues” being the length of its title – although it’s only three words anyway, plus this stat has obviously been overcome before, even recently – and the fact it didn’t have at least two other award wins listed on IMDb, but just the one – but I knew this might change post-Oscars – I’m curious to see if it does -, so this wasn’t even much of a valid stat, just a potentially valid one).
Best Documentary Short
This is probably the second-biggest stats upset, just about. All winners since 2003 had had at least a 7.4 score on IMDb. (Colette is on 7.2, so very close, anyway.) The 40 minute rule has also gone down again, but this was never a tremendously strong stat (again, none of the shorts stats I look at are, they’re just for orientation when I can’t decide otherwise – or should be, anyway, even if I sometimes have a tendency to overvalue them, purely out of habit, given that in the other categories stats actually do matter quite a bit) and it’s been beaten before, rather recently.
Best Original Song
“Fight For You” winning here was definitely the biggest stats upset, as I said. First of all, “Speak Now” had zero stats issues. More importantly, there were all kinds of rather strong stats going against the H.E.R. song:
– not winning at Critics Choice after being nominated for and losing the Globe (no exceptions in the BFCA era and, in fact, for the last 29 years;
– not winning at least one critics award for song (this was on an 8-year streak – there were exceptions before that, of course… no real 100%-all-time stats to be found for song, either);
– not winning the Globe and not being from an animated movie (only one exception since 1991).
This is one of those below-the-line wins stats just can’t explain. There are one or two every year. Can’t be helped. There just isn’t enough data, there aren’t enough strong precursors and there aren’t enough strong stats in these categories, like I’ve always said…
Bonus:
Stats broken by Nomadland in winning Best Picture:
– not having either the SAG Ensemble nomination or two or more SAG acting nominations.
That’s it. That’s the strongest stat based on the SAG Ensemble snub it was facing (any others that include that would just be “doubles”, basically) and it had no other snubs or losses (all season) that normally disqualify a movie from winning Best Picture. (The Artios “snub”, I guess, but that’s for the same thing and I don’t count those twice – anymore. Plus, its stat is pretty weak, anyway. Barely good enough to be mentioned. I’ll probably take it out of my table altogether, now that there’s yet another exception.) Fabulous run! Evidently, all of the others had several such issues. Yes, even Promising Young Woman. In the critics phase, and not only. (Let alone Trial and Minari and the rest.) All of those stats held. The list would be far too long… Oh, and it was, it seems, indeed not premature to call a lock that Trial wouldn’t win Best Picture, even as early as just after Critics Choice. Further proof that, as much as people love to ignore them, their stats are quite solid, especially in Best Picture, where the stat I based the call on remains on 100% all-time…
I did fairly poorly overall with my predictions (even if I made a significant profit in Oscar bets, as usual) – I got killed by the shorts, 1/3, and only called one “upset” (The Father in screenplay). Didn’t find the path to calling any of the others. Plus that late switch to Trial in editing… Oh well. 16/23 (same as the stats-only picks), 15/20 if we don’t count the shorts. Not terrible, but not good. Congrats to all of those who did better! And see you all in October! 🙂
P.S.: I definitely can’t get to replies today, too. 🙂 This took a while, as one can imagine… (Will do it over the next few days, as I said.)
Editor’s Note: When we saw how great this was, we had to promote Claudiu’s great work to a feature post on the main page.
Instead of commenting on this page, we think it would be better if you check out his fantastic analysis and reply here:
https://www.awardsdaily.com/2021/04/27/oscar-2021-post-mortem-stats-analysis-wrap-up/
It is hard to believe that the 86% of the Academy are white people when the worst short of the nominees won: the cringy “Two distant strangers”, the only award that is highly questionable.
The idea that McDormand and Hopkins won because they’re white is a far less prevalent part of the post-Oscars discourse than I would have anticipated. Obviously, that’s an argument people are making, and to some extent, it’s not without merit.
But let’s break this down a little: Best Actress was always up in the air. We knew this going in. Davis and Day losing isn’t that surprising. After all, McDormand was the only person in that category to get all the major precursor nominations–I mean, that’s why I predicted her, at least. The industry clearly loves her. And above all, McDormand gives an understated, but powerful and reactive performance in Nomadland. It’s a fully deserving win.
Boseman is tougher to crack. On one hand, the Academy clearly liked The Father more than they liked Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom. If The Father had been released earlier, its eventual wins in Best Actor and Best Adapted Screenplay might have been more obvious. The thing with Boseman’s win is that, as good as he is in Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, the Oscar was going to be about the career he was on his way to having, rather than the performance he gives in that film. Sadly, Boseman just isn’t in many movies that are as good as he is–hell, in Black Panther, he has the least showy performance, and he’s the lead of the film. But it’s kind of impossible to be mad at Hopkins winning. I think any of those performances were basically worthy to win by themselves, but Hopkins is giving a performance that we’ll be talking about and watching for a long, long time. And as well-liked as Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is, I just don’t see it having the same legs as a film.
Hopkins wasn’t sleeping because he thought Chadwick should win. He was sleeping because he knew the current politics would bestow Chadwick with an undeserved Oscar. The best man won which was shocking for everyone too woke for their own good. Oscars are vile for the past couple of years. Nobody wants to watch it if it continues like this. Keep politics out.
“He was sleeping because he knew the current politics would bestow Chadwick with an undeserved Oscar.”
☝️ ☝️ ☝️
Can anyone spot the flaw in this pissy little argument?
No, he was sleeping because it was 4 a.m. where he’s at.
I HAVE TO INSIST BRING TO EVERYONE I MEAN EVERYONE’S ATTENTION have you seen GREYHOUND yet?? if you want to see the quality and calibre of films..that tell every bit as important historic stories– arguably even more MORE important than MANK as GREYHOUND is based on fact and TRUTH of the events it depicts….that oscar so ruthlessly snubbed…to go along with :
in nor particular order:
– The Courier
– The Little Things
– News of the World
– The Outpost
but i decided…at long last..belatedly and only because of the ‘free trial’ period to subscribe to apple TV. i SO GLAD i did..even if it temporary that said..to Apple tv streaming great credit..they are rightfully pitching themselves as focusing entirely on original and i must say visionary content…I find myself embracing streaming services..and so long as political correctness sociological commentary drivel style films from streaming services do NOT dominate future oscar contenders in future years i all for a select small portion of overall future oscar contenders like bout 3-4 maximum out of overall SET AMOUNT OF 10 BEST PIC NOMINEES no more no less ….. that they do play a part in future awards season- but i believe the criteria and bar should be that streaming service driven movies..should be films that can be imagined experience while never same power and authority and immersion on big screen that it a film nevertheless in quality that can be envisioned as to working at lerast just as well if not better if hypothetically it were to be on the big screen- a big quotient of vision and integrity to scale of ambition and atmosphere- not just sociological supercharged drama- but real cinematic scope – and that is EXACTLY WHAT GREYHOUND ACHIEVES IN SPADES BIG TIME!!
I so glad i saw it let me tell you right NOW! A true brilliantly paced action thriller/ chase/ naval war drama hybrid movie..and add fact that Tom Hanks wrote the screenplay adapted from the ‘good shephard’ and it simply the icing on the cake.
Now..the ‘good shephard’ book this UNFORGETTABLE epic masterpiece naval war drama/ thriller is based on..derives from an author who own prior generation survived the perils of the great ocean..i believe? pls confirm if i got specifics wrong of the VERY drama depicted and that unfolded in GREYHOUND.
A DO OR DIE mission that would potentially make or BREAK the ability for armaments from GREYHOUNDS CONVOY to reinforce the successful albeit carnage laded d-day invasion to ensure that allied forces have extra reinforced supplies and weaponry and supporting equipment to enable with lesser casualties the ability to repell nazi ground force counter attacks..allow allied forces from d-day landings to hold their position and have the extra equipment to allow them to push further toward the heart of nazi territory- Germany itself..The convoy had to rendeveau with the British naval reinforcements that would take over escort of precious invaluable armaments and supplies once Greyhound entered the ‘air force patrol zone’ but the entirety of the movie rightfully was driven by the perilous turbulent..high stakes cat and mouse between exposed and highly vulnerable convoy ships headed by the Captain of Greyhound- played to oscar worthy supreme standard by one and only Tom Hanks– who’s performance has to be said is his most intense..most focused and most determined in his character since his last performance in a war movie to which he really should got oscar nominated in Saving Private Ryan..but more than that..his performance in ‘Greyhound’ i believe was on par to his performance since nearly as amazing as ‘forrest gump’ Hanks really became the true captain who once existed in this real mission…
AS far as i know there has NEVER been a adpatation – close to true re-enactment of the crucial 72 hours to get to the british fleet rendezvous point- time was NOT on Greyhound and the convots side however..and it to this day is regarded as the single most risky and perilous and pivotal mission in naval warfare since the 20th century ever..in my view..when you think about how critically important it was for Greyhound to rendezvousd with the british fleet..the only way they could was to evade 37 german uboat hunter subs….they had to navigate one most treacherous naval paths any naval warship and convoy had to during WWii it was the quickest..but tactics needed to be precise..every move of GREYHOUND would shape how the convoy formation would operate to try to minimize detection from the uboats…if d-day was arguably most dangerous brutal operation in WWII then this mission on the seas was frought with danger at EVERY moment – there was no way around..GREYHOUND had to go THROUGH…convoys were lost. big time.
But the few that survived had the most critical and largest cache of supplies to reinforce the troops via the british fleet they rendezvou with. Mission was a success tinged with epic tragedy given the extent of casualties and convots sunk..it was always a high risk mission..Hanks character knew this but he knew the ability for allied victory in Europe agains tthe nazis depended heavily on there abiltiy to have least handful of convoys to survive..
No airsupport for 72 hrs in bulk of their journey every moment in the film that tension built increasingly captured superbly by the brilliany score..intended to maximise the tension the sounds of danger if you like..the risk GREYHOUND and the convoy were taking trying to evade every submarine torpedo…the film decision to focus entirely on the naval cross battles was a masterstroke.. director Aaron Schneider who i really hope makes more action thrillers of incredible high quality and standard really understood the importance of this mission and hence to really maximize the thrills and the stakes as the 72 hrs at sea of mission counted down…The naval battles were pure spectacle..visual cinematic flair was best on show..the sound was pin point precise surely to how it would be if you yourself were on greyhound– i do not recall given there been sooo few where persepctive of this naval warfare story is from a above sea destroyer not a submarine- like so many naval warfare films have done before..this is a first in that respect..and i have to say..it really does not do full justice as i predicted to immerse yourself from small screen cos i still critical of producers decision on Greyhound to release rush it to streaming not wait till adfter pandemic cos i tell you all right now..it IS the most astonishing cinematic achievement..the cinematography is brilliant..the effects clearly the filmmaker knew with all the water explosions, the splash of water in rough seas caused by erratic sudden turning of convoys atround greyhound to evade the subs had to be as realistic as possible..everything from the technical precision and execution to the visual flair and cinematography was not just to maximise the tension but to highlight reminder when watching it that this really happened…they even finetuned the sound design for this film to maximise the extent of impact of every splash and water explosion to capture the numrous moments GREYHOUND and her convoy were at greatest threat during several moments in the film.
It is BETTER than Nolan’;s Dunkirk and easily the best naval war drama ever made..to portray it as a thriller/ hunt/ chase movie in a war time setting was a masterstroke as it really maximised to us the drama and tension in and around the cabins of Greyh0und..the film used GREYHOUND sensibly as the pivot to focus the story from..and it timed without losing focus on the films focal point..to perfection some of most spectacular incredible wide shots for a naval warfare drama movie..set in the middle of the sea…
It is a complete triumph and absolute masterpiece and it tells most important pivotal moment and event that shape ultimately the measure of success or failure for allied forces to advance in Europe. Given there been oh too few naval warfare dramas told through perspective of a ship=- as opposed to submarines..of this scale and scope and focus and clarity..
Well..i feel vindicated to myself in declaring my hope before seeing it has been fulfilled it everybit as incredible if NOT better than i hoped it would be.
It ending was fitting/ amusing – if u seeit you understand why.
Frankly i disappointed we not discussed enough about films that got snubbed..that something we MUST absolutely shift the debate to not what got nominated..but WHAT MISSED OUT!
In fact, I rate Greyhound in top 5 WWII movies i have seen at 4th place..and easily in my top 8 of top 10 WWI and WWII movies i have seen.
Therefore..taking into aCCOUNT i seen this great brilliant movie..i have no hesitation reinforcing that Greyhound should have been the MOST NOMINATED FILM OF THE YEAR.
with: 12 Academy Award nominations- incl. Picture, Director, Screenplay- adapted, Actor- Tom Hanks, sound, sound effects editing, cinematography, production design, visual effects, film editing, costume design, and original score and it damn well should have been the standout lead most nominated film of the year.
the ONLY reason GREYHOUND did not? is one of the biggest problems most us have with political correct social m3edia driven brigade dictating oscar nominated outcomes? despite the fact it true- regardless if it right or wrong that Black staff on board these destroyers in WWII were the ones that did the hard work..maintanance and cooking and serving the white crew as depicted in GREYHOUND but a true historic story must not scew historic truth by taming what can today be percieved as a form of black exploitation- we all know it not right BUT in those days this really happened..what would politically correct a holes suggest? scew truth of what happened to appease them? at expense of distorting the truth of how things were run on board a WWII naval destroyer?
Furthermore the outrageousness of the notion that as i second guess sadly accurately the social media bullshit anti- big screen historic epic campaign is only more disgusting by the fact that the black servant on board the destroyer other than fact that while status on board the vessel could bne seen as a point of contention- but it wasnot then in those days..and furthermore the crew actually were very respectful and appreciative of the i must say most impressive food he served the captain..nobody in film was rude to them and appct their hard work ethic..but furthermore,…what makes decision to snub GREYHOUND ON BASIS of this very very minor sideplot in the movie? is that it the black servant is NOWHERE near the main focual point of the film..the film GREYHOUND is about the pivotal most crucial naval event to shape the outcome potentially of the wars success against the nazi’s it most certainly contrary to social media’s grave injustice inflicted on films like News of the World AND GREYHOUND focus on black exploitation…we cannot go about scewing true historic stories in cinema..esp if they piovtoal historic shaping events that shape other outcomes..such as GREYHOUND role within WWII- for it diminishes the setting and circumstances and scenarios that drive the overall event…
So it just simply sheer insanity and disgraceful madness and huge insult to the grand astonishing cinematic achievement GREYHOUND is it should been a contender..and the lead nominee.
And yes! i would say after seeing it now- how i wish i saw it on big screen..given the nature of pivotal historic event and the epic scope and scale of the first ever entirely shot at sea from perspective of a singular ship vessel naval warfare film given it realism and authnticity and asotnishing historical precision with which it was executed and that dramatic moments were truly maximised to inrpirational – devastating effect as each close call took heavy huge toll on the cpatain and the crew…i DO INFACT ENDORSE GREYHOUND in a parallel oscar race as not only being most nomnated film but winning best picture over PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN.
To be honest..this is how finally i would loved oscar outcome to go:
Greyhound wins: Best Picture, Adapted Screenplay, Actor- Tom Hanks, Sound, Sound Effects Editing, Visual Effects, Original Score- 7 oscars
Promising Young Woman wins: Director, original screenplay, actress, film editing- 4 oscars
Mank wins: cinematography, supporting actress, costume design,- 3 oscars
Ma Rainey’s black bottom wins: posthumous supporting actor oscar- to Chadwick Boseman, PRoduction design, makeup and hair- 3 oscars
Don’t you think that thjis would be more accepted by us this outcome?
While I think this is a bit over the top, Greyhound was good and it would have done well at the box office if there had been one. More’s the pity.
I actually loved the aesthetic of the show. The on film scope look was great. The only thing that I didn’t like, besides the backfire ending of having the leads after BP of course, was not using clips.
With such a small show/live audience to work with this should’ve been “the year of the clip packages” since it doesn’t require attendees and they’re more often than not entertaining. Just don’t have any completely irrelevant ones, like the genre specific ones that have no logical place in the show.
It’s especially stupid since a lot of people who may be watching know absolutely nothing about these films and the clips are possibly the best way to advertise them to the audience.
If they did the show exactly the same next year but added clips like they usually have (and don’t mess with the category order) I’d love it.
I’m also one of the minority I guess who had loved how the show “looked”. It’s very refreshing to be honest. I love the top shot of the Union Station interior with all those tables and lights and the ampitheater design. I mean the Golden Globes could never! I like that the stage was devoid of LED walls and the LED monitor sets were spread all over the venue. It gave me an idea of how my dream wedding reception would look like. I watched Jimmys Fallon and Kimmel made fun of the stage and the ratings. Pathetic! Especially Kimmel who should have known better coming from the Oscar-gate and cutting off J. Miles Dale speech which he had lousily handled.
I have however the same sentiments on the lack of film clips. It would have promoted the films to be seen by the televiewers now that cinemas are opening in the U.S. as the films where mostly viewed via streaming. I would have preferred if they had the nominees film stills as well while introducing them.
How I wished they had reshuffled the presenters. It’s funny for Ahmed, the star of Sound of Metal to present Best Sound to Sound of Metal. Phoenix and Zellweger should have presented the opposite categories just like the tradition. I mean, why did they had Dern and Pitt present their counterparts and not the previous Lead winners?
I also have no problem with the ending. I mean, I would have preferred the BP to be announced last. If Boseman had won instead of Hopkins then I don’t think it would be a big deal for most people. And besides, Hopkins is one of the greats so I think he deserves that “importance” of the finale especially considering his work in The Father.
Over all, I love the intimate feel and look of the show. I wouldn’t mind if they have it again in there next year.
“Hopkins beating Boseman and McDormand beating Davis (or Day) is a bad look for an institution that just sold you for a couple of hours on who they wanted to be. It is a Crash-like bummer that unfortunately erases the legacy of Hopkins, who delivered maybe his best performance in The Father, and it erases the legacy of McDormand who is largely responsible for the existence of Nomadland at all.”
A It is absolutely legitimate to think that Hopkins and McDormand gave better performances than Boseman and Davis/Day. I for one think so – but maybe I am a terribly racist person. B Of course this will NOT erase Hopkins’ and McDormand’s legacy – or maybe in the eyes of the woke minority. C Should the Oscars be given to black actors, to show how woke the Academy is? (Spoiler: No.)
Nobody’s gonna watch Ma Rainy 10 years later. It won’t hurt the legacy of Hopkins and McDormand at all.
I tried to watch Ma Twice but couldn’t get by the first 15 minutes
“I said to my friend, “why would they have gone through all of this trouble only to then pick white actors?” And my friend said back to me something that stuck with me and should have stuck harder, “That’s WHY they would do it.””
Conspiracy country. Bullshit.
I also mourn the lack of the 20 acting clips. When I watch movies in the “awards season,” I sometimes find myself wondering – what is the best 20-30 seconds of this movie that distills this actor’s performance? I think these clips sell the movies in a non-trailer way and sorry that Soderbergh dispensed with them. Terrible producing call.
They did something weird like this in about 2009 where, instead of showing clips from the year’s nominated performances, they showed a compilation of the “GOATs” in each category with like 5 presenters.
The other shame is that the chosen clips are usually lost forever after the night – AMPAS’s YouTube excludes them for probably rights issues. I have wondered if these clips are selected by AMPAS producers, or are submitted by actors’ publicists, the studios, or something else?
My personal favorite acting clip is from very early in my Oscarwatching days – Glenn Close in Dangerous Liaisons. It’s the final seconds in the film, is wordless, shows no other actors, a regretful tear is shed, and if you haven’t seen it, I recommend that you do.
Not showing the clips is inexcusable. The year they had the groups doing the acting presentations had enough negative feedback.
The clips are literally the best part of the show.
At least Hopkins’ brilliant “I’m not leaving my flat” moment was shown for BP. But “I want my mommy” was his Oscar moment. Haunting & heartbreaking.
I still can’t believe Soderbergh put together this shit show
For me, the lengthy speeches, mess-up of the order of the categories at the end, and not having Acting Clips were the low points of the night.
Can I respectively suggest Sasha that you reconsider this anti-left bandwagon you’ve hitched on to and reflect on the right’s attempted insurrection & now rampant voter suppression? Not only does it alienate many of your readers, it goes against so much of what you’ve written before. The evil is the right, not the left, and it strange that in this year, of all years, you chose to beat that drum.
The whole Oscars woke/so white/whatever other derogatory thing you want to call it is so tiresome, because the beast cannot be satisfied, it’s never enough.
Last year Parasite won, this year an Asian female won director and supporting actress, a black man won best supporting actress. You can’t pick out the white winners and say AMPAS is doing the wrong thing.
They vote for who they like best, always have. Always will.
You can suggest it but it isn’t anything I’m going to go along with. Unfortunately many on the left simply don’t understand what kind of impression they are giving out to the rest of the country. You don’t see it because the news doesn’t cover it. The news is like the news about the Oscars – it is a specific bubble that feeds off of an ideology. Making one criticism about Joe Biden, a candidate I supported from early in 2019 does not make me a Trump supporter. I am trying to speak over and above the bubble and to reach people who are alienated by those locked into the bubble. I understand that you see the “right” as “evil” and the “left” as “good.” That is not your fault. That is the utopian ideal set for the left for the past many years. It is that utopia that Trump threatened which has kicked us into a ongoing cycle of mass hysteria that is, frankly, strangling the life out of art, subverting education and making it really hard to have conversations. It is very like the early days of the CPUSA in the 1930s. Unfortunately, the only side right now that can even remotely go there is either the already cancelled free thinkers like Jesse Singal and Katie Herzog or the conservatives. I know where the pendulum is swinging and I can promise you one day what I say will make sense. I understand if it isn’t status quo and that is somewhat bothersome. I don’t think Biden nor any of the Democrats have done a good job unifying this country. In fact, their line that “all Trump supporters are white supremacists” is just flat out false. If we can’t even talk about what is true and what isn’t we have a bigger problem than whether or not your Oscar blogger writes things that you disagree with
Thank you Sasha, I am one of those folks currently being alienated by one of those bubbles and it is causing intense headache and heartache and it is sapping my threshold for politics and having me question: left, right and centre . Literally and Figuratively.
Can you please cite for me when it was that Joe Biden said that “all Trump supporters are white supremacists”? I follow politics pretty closely and I don’t remember that.
“I don’t think Biden nor any of the Democrats have done a good job unifying this country.”
Truly one of the dumbest comments I have ever read.
How the fuck are you going to unite with insurrectionists and a group of mouth-breathers who were willing to toss democracy under the bus, all in favor of the rancid lies from a pathological liar and tinhorn autocrat?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/436ba49d3ace8fbf893c45e4724bb5bdbeb7bed3832c1447892574848cda7804.gif
Not really much to say in response to this. If you really think the problem in politics is the Left, there’s nothing more to say.
These conversations have happened a lot, and I don’t see a lot of people attacking you simply for contradicting leftist narrative. There have been a few, but they haven’t gotten much support. What I’ve seen a lot of is people criticizing you when you say things that are false, misleading, and needlessly insulting. But your response to that criticism is always to say you’re being persecuted.
No one here is trying to silence you, we’re just calling bullshit bullshit. If you want to contradict the leftist narrative, I’m happy to have that conversation and so are a lot of other people. But if you’re going to say things that aren’t true and then play the victim when you get called on it, there’s no conversation possible.
assuming that it you writing Sasha i presume it is what outstanding..objective..honest and realistic, measured portrayal of identifying the funfamental defimitions and portrayal of political correctness and the problems it causes..absolutely agree i dont suggest myself the left is evil and right is good- reverse what your saying but that political ideology esp driven by political correctness ought to not dictate the outcomes for best picture of the year..sure..you can and SHOULD and MUST have certain films that touch on societal issues of relevance..but the difference frankly between Nobodysland , and the other contenders.. specifically,, Trial of the Chicago 7, Promising Young Woman, One night in Miami, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom imparticularly? is that they have artistic effort and brilliance and integrity and are not just a sociological case study/ analysis/ observance ritualistic type movie that nobodys land and to lesser extent minari seem to be…you hit the nail on the head right centre on it flathead Sasha..brilliant..this piece you written should stand as testament to the reason why you DONT deserve abuse from online trolls…your accountable and magnificent and moral with how you stand up for yourself and explain your point of view..long to be admired what you written here..to your credit you are expressing the fatigue that inevitably you foresee..will emerge as frontline headache for future oscar seasons..it inevitable..but as you point out before..it did NOT have to be this way..
And frankly I, and many others, are tired of this McCarthy-esque policing of thoughts and words like you’re going to wish me out into the Cornfield if I say the wrong thing. I can’t stand it. Most people I know can’t either. The difference between them and me is that I say it. I get shit for it but I say it.
I don’t see anyone here policing your thoughts or threatening you or harming you because of your views. All I see is people disagreeing with you. Disagreement is not persecution.
There is a sports analogy that ought to be invoked when talking about this year or any Oscar year. You can only play who is on your schedule. So much of winning one of these damn things is luck and matchup. As in the film you made is resonating more than sturdy but not world beating competition. All of the winners benefitted BIG TIME from potential contenders diving into 2021, and some of the winners frankly won because they rolled the dice about sticking to the plan for 2020. Would Nomadland have won the big three in a fuller field? Maybe not. But it would have actually been MORE of a critical fave because Oscar does have a soft spot for the little film that comes out of nowhere. Would Chicago 7 have won if Paramount had kept it instead of dumping it to Netflix? This year, I actually think that might have happened. Would Mulligan have been stronger if not for that stupid fight with Variety where no one came out looking good? Very much so in my opinion. So many things have to go right and as you say, they vote for who they like best.
Diversity in Oscar will happen more and more when increasingly powerful figures like Peele, Coogler, Bong, Zhao, Fennell continue to shake up the model in projects THEY DEVELOP FROM THE GROUND UP.
I’m actually optimistic where films are going, there’s more of a sense of adventure when you get past the tedious MCU and DC tripe.
And it is their pregorative. (By the way: Who is “they”?)
This blame the BAFTAs trend I’m seeing is moronic. No grasp of the race whatsoever. Hopkins’ legacy erased? A Crash-like bummer? And this assumption that Britain is even more white/racist than the US?
You’ve lost your touch Awards Daily. You really have. You just lack perspective.
Hopkins took a hit here. Stevie Wonder could’ve seen he was winning BAFTA. You’ve badly misjudged the sentiment of this county which is outraged at the robbery that happened.
Oscars ratings:
2019 – 29.6 million
2020 – 23.6 million
2021 – 9.85 million
Ouch
We should not forget how perfect the screenplay winners were. The two actual best screenplays. Phenomenal.
If you think The Father was a better adapted screenplay than I’m Thinking Of Ending Things, I’d like the phone number of your hallucinogenic supplier.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bc4687598503cf287f597154012dc815a457bd32dbaa97577ba0315179517fd4.gif
The only good thing about that film was the title. That’s the way watching that film made me feel.
The film is genius and will be hailed for years to come. People scoffed at Blade Runner, Night Of The Hunter, Once Upon A Time in the West, etc, etc. when initially released. Time has proven the doubters all wrong.
I’d suggest far more people will hail & remember the Oscar winner
Kind of like when How Green Was My Valley beat Citizen Kane for Best Picture?
You have to admit, the screenplay, while certainly novel, was a bit bizarre. I think it worked in places but not entirely. (504) 201-8001
But if you see it twice knowing what the film is about, you’ll see all the layers and complexities to it, and realize it truly is a brilliant mind puzzle.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7fad773dfb3d3c48d7853ddc8f158304fa7a4ef6637adb0caf025f9b46f57caf.jpg
Like i said below…lol
Say what ??? Yiu mean tell me Sasha that the mirale and self belief of key components like the BAFTA of awards season are so lacking in confidence and faith in their original foundations ,goals and purposes that they need to import a fukin ‘ jury’? Oy what a dreadful sorry all time low state of a dog of a joke BAFTA has become… BOTH AMPAS and BAFTA have failed to celebrate and embrave in awards true TRUE artistic cinematically intrigiun achievements in acting AND picture / director choices at a time the world dared ro hope the arts industry would rise above the political…cross societal mish mush caused by covid instead awards season as a whole has dragged themselves knee deep in it it so appalling state pf affairs right now..i domt want to believe it but u better believe it! Rather than reform their membership base
.lets bring in some cross cultural -” immigrants ‘ like a half baked band aid solution..” fuked up BAFTA rreally half baked concept. At LEAST AMPAS reinvigorating their core membership get diverse cultural ethnic representation at last…BUT again !!! Fukin again ! What AMPAS do wrong … is letting a clearly infused political device try to succeesfully dictate who wiks in each major category.. i talking about the overtly dual politically insoired systems of : the pref . Ballot combined with the inner dangerously exvessive alignments of embracung pro – social media bullies having being overtly enabled in to have too much sway thanx to the structural set up of AMPAS votimg system…i even go as far to say the top25 shortlist before being narrowed to who competes for best pic nominations in major oscar categories is where problems begin for most of us.
So between them AMPAS fuks up the way they ‘ preference system’ to narrow doen who competes who get sidelined… and BAFTA integrity is in state of paralysis cos they cannot trust their own votimg members msle sound decisions …
If you rip of a bandaid before the wound fully heals it really painful it still bleed
.. but in this case of state of 2 supposedly omce publicly revered arts institutions in BAFTA and the Academy it take lot more than band aid solutions to stem THIS bleeding …time for i suggest a massibe dose of reconstructive open surgery…and” somebody…please out an end to that decaying smell!” ( stench of old entertainment spirit once made awards season exciting dying, decaying away) ..time to bring the cryo chamber to preserve what remains before awards season original more appealing essence completely disappears… my g-d i cannot believe extent awards season as a whole no thanx toBAFTA and AMPAS have made themselves decay so badly in our eyes…
Oh and a rancid cake in austin powers words ‘ really tastes like shit ‘ but… ‘ it is shit , austin ‘ …’ oh good least i know it just not me’ he retorts no not you my fellow blogger suckers for fools hope awards season can improve… it REALLY looks like shit, tastes like shit, smells like shit … what next yeat bring in awards season ? More shit outcomes only a fools hope whrn i say next years choices ? And years after that ? Might LEAST be lot less shitty ..well? Maybe at least wont be runny and solidify smells less bad that way ey?
Okkkeey gettin gross now lol
I felt mixed this season in terms of my interest in following the contests versus other years, but, I have to say, I was actually really happy, overall (it’s never perfect, of course), but I don’t have any issues with any of the winners in the acting, directing, picture or screenplay categories. They’re not all my favorites per se (though, many actually were for what was nominated). And, actually, in any of the feature-length categories, I don’t think there was a winner that I’d say, “That was undeserving!”
Two years in a row, my favorite choice won Picture. And, before this, none of my favorites (among the nominees) have won in the 2000s. The eerie thing is…it has me thinking: am I just getting old, ha?
There ought to be an Oscar Family Feud type contest on here where Claudiu, Sammy, Christophe, and I compete against the Awards Daily moderators with predictions. Except it can just be in writing. 🙂 I know you said you stink at predicting, Christophe—I just picked you and the others because I like you the best. No offense to anyone else.
Hey now, I want to join! But, actually, that’s just fine 🙂 I’d gladly look at your predictions without mine, then I don’t have to have any egg on my face.
I still support the notion that one of the episodes of the Podcast should be “takes from frequent forum posters.”
Hi, Ellie. 🙂
Did we watch the same show? It was abysmal. Worst ever.
Hopkins gave one of the best performances of all time and deserved his moment- why not Zoom?
And if you think Biden hasn’t called for unity you clearly have not been paying attention
Yeah that was cruel of the producers. Unless it’s because he was asleep when he won, and allegedly had to be woken up. Still that was unfair of the producers to deprive him of his moment, because they had to be politically correct. And sorry, if you’re going to lose to someone- WHO BETTER than Anthony fucking Hopkins? Seriously!
Hopkins wasn’t on Zoom because he didn’t think he was going to win and didn’t really care either way.
For the record, Hopkins was a no-show online for the Golden Globes, Critics Choice, the SAG Awards and BAFTA. At the BAFTAs, Florian Zeller accepted for him. However, shortly after his win, Hopkins was suddenly available for an online interview.
Hopkins wasn’t available via Zoom because the producers REFUSED to accommodate any Zoom hookup and Hopkins did not want to travel–with his family–to London or Paris. At 83, I would say the health of himself and his family rightly came first.
He wasn’t on Zoom for BAFTA either. And the Oscars BA announcement would have happened at 4am in Wales. No way he would attend. He doesn’t care about winning it. It’s his prerogative.
It appears to have been his choice not to be up at 4 in the morning at his age.
Hi there. Let’s talk about something else. I know that if Frances had lost actress, Nomadland would have had two Oscars, making it I believe the fourth movie to win Best Picture with only one additional award. It would have followed in the footsteps of Spotlight, Greatest Show on Earth, All Quiet on the Western Front, and something else from the early days that I looked up in my Oscar book that is falling apart but have now forgotten.
Has there ever been a best picture winner who just won director and actress along with it? I am thinking not. Generally, best pictures generally feature male protagonists—the “heroic male” that has been talked about before.
MANY moons ago Sasha wrote an interesting piece about how female led films simply weren’t winning BP anymore and cautioning the crew here to stop picking certain types of films for the BP win so much. Fully expect the trend to revert back to the mean next year when the competing field is full.
Don’t think so. Closest from what I can tell are “Annie Hall,” which won those three plus screenplay, and “Million Dollar Baby” which won those plus supporting actor
Gentleman’s Agreement actually comes closest, I would say. (Supporting actress instead of lead.) But yours are great examples as well.
If I’m not mistaken Rebecca also won only two Oscars
Thanks.
That reminds me: I actually really still love Rebecca.
I like it but at the same time its place as one of the more famous Hitchcock movies kind of baffles me (or is it just that it won the Oscar that makes me think that people know it more than several of Hitchcock’s best films like Strangers on a Train and The Wrong Man)
I love the Austrian stage musical adaptation of it!
And…
You Can’t Take It With You (1938)
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) – both won only picture and director. 🙂
The former had a supporting actress nomination too, among other things.
Thank you. I knew there was another one, but I looked it up, then kept watching the Oscars, so I didn’t remember.
Those two plus Supporting Actress is the closest to this. 🙂
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039416/awards?ref_=tt_awd
This seems close too:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023876/awards?ref_=tt_awd
Wynyard badly overacted, though, I’m glad she didn’t win. But she was almost the movie’s only other nomination besides BP and BD. 🙂
This is a great site for such trivia:
https://www.filmsite.org/bestpicsmilestones2.html
https://www.filmsite.org/oscars.html
So glad Anthony Hopkins won for The Father. It was deserved, and many people saying the academy is racist are being very disrespectful to the academy AND the actor who won. Many haven’t even seen The Father. They just want to start drama, and it’s childish and getting tired. Those Twitter accounts from those causing trouble should be banned.
The Oscar for Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role (and all of the acting honors) is just that- BEST PERFORMANCE. Not who’s due. Not who’s dead. Not who’s black. Seriously, stop. Glenn Close lost her 8th Oscar last night! HER 8TH! She’s tied with Richard Burton as the biggest acting loser. And she was still smiling. And I’m glad she didn’t win for playing a Hillbilly, let’s be honest. James Dean died young, and was nominated twice after his death. HE LOST BOTH TIMES. He was one of Hollywood’s biggest legends.
The point is, the Oscar should be about the merit- not your race or if you passed away. If you want to blame someone for being racist, blame the producers for ASSUMING Chadwick would win, and throwing best picture under the bus and making Joaquin Phoenix have to look awkward (even though it was not his fault).
Also Hopkins not showing up is NOT New. He’s from London folks. They don’t take plane rides to the Oscars all the time. In fact, Katharine Hepburn- Oscar’s biggest acting winner with 4- never showed up once. Woody Allen didn’t either. It doesn’t MATTER. What matters is the work!
With that being said, very proud of Hopkins, McDormand and the rest of the winners last night. I am glad the academy went for the merit and not what the Twitter people told them to do.
PS- I have seen Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom. It’s a good film. Both David and Boseman are strong. Many of the haters haven’t even WATCHED this movie. They don’t know a thing about August Wilson or his plays. They just wanted the politics to prevail. I’m glad they didn’t.
Good points. I agree with you but don’t want to really get into it.
Its cool Julie. I’m glad you read it and I’m not trying to stir any pots- just put things to people’s attention. Now is probably not the best time. But you’re welcome to visit me on my YouTube channel 🙂
You’re the one who did that neat film package before the Oscars two years ago, right? With all the people we thought would win, including Close? I liked that.
The predict the Oscars? Yep that was me 😉 And thanks! I wish it had been Close and not Colman, but I’ve learned to really appreciate the latter’s performance. I was glad I got Green Book right, if only because the music ended on a BANG with that title up to finish the video.
I hope to make more of those.
Yes, I went back and watched it again. The Green Book pick was good. I loved the way the music led up to Malek and Close and was sad when she won though I loved The Favorite. I will subscribe soon.
Oh thanks Julie!! I plan on putting myself out more to where you will see me talk more, do introductions, etc. I love incorporating music with the films. Barbra Streisand’s “Piece of Sky” was heavenly for that piece, I think.
Close tied Peter O’Toole, not Burton. Burton “only” lost 7 times
My mistake. Well regardless, she’s lost 8 times. And Peter O’Toole won a trophy eventually.
Questions I am looking forward, already, for 2021’s Oscars…
1) Marvel’s Eternals, directed by Chloe Zhao… will the AMPAS pay attention or overlook it completely?
2) Rita Moreno’s role in West Side Story… long enough for an Oscar reprise in Supporting Actress? Winning her second Oscar for playing a different character than the one that gave her, her first, for the original?
3) Will Sunset Boulevard, Madres Paralelas make the deadline or are they aiming for a 2022 release?
4) Netflix’s Blonde… I can see it bombing big time, and also going the different route. With Netflix, you never know in advance. Hoping the best for Ana de Armas, though.
5) Respect: now that Hudson has avoided competing with Day and Davis this year… and that both lost to McDormand, is she now the frontrunner? Oh, the irony.
6) Can George Miller, Guillermo del Toro, Denis Villeneuve, all be nominated for Director at once, for genre films? Probably there’s room for only one of them…
7) Honorary Oscars… will Close be honored? My guts tell me that they’re not going to wait for Sunset Boulevard and that the AMPAS won’t like her to wait any longer.
8) West Side Story vs In the Heights. Can both make it into Picture? Into Director? Which one will have more nominations? More wins? Is any of them going to bomb? From the trailers, while I am not in love with any of them, I think that In the Heights looks more interesting and West Side Story is more of a curiosity, to see what Spielberg can make out of it.
9) Will be having a continuation on diversity, or will we going back to the #OscarsSoWhite hashtag?
10) Will the theaters go back to normal? (Regretfully, I don’t think so, but hope to be wrong)
1. Don’t we need to know whether or not it’s good first? I’m skeptical that Disney will give Zhao the freedom to do anything interesting with it.
2. Maybe NBR or the Globes throw her a bone but I doubt much will come of it.
3. Probably 2022.
4. de Armas will get awards attention, the film as a whole is less likely.
5. Probably not.
6. No. I expect Dune will be similar to Blade Runner 2049 in that it will be quite good, do poorly at the box office, and not get much awards attention.
7. I hope not, that would be tacky.
8. West Side Story will be more popular, which will make it difficult to give In The Heights more awards, but I don’t expect either to be a major player. Musicals need big box office to compete. Miranda is a household name, but his body of work is not; I don’t expect the general public to be strongly interested in In The Heights. West Side Story has a better chance at the box office, but it’s a remake of a film that already swept the Oscars, and AMPAS doesn’t actually like Spielberg all that much.
9. Neither of these seems to be significant.
10. By October or so, yes.
The whole scripted scene with Glenn last night dancing made me feel like it was a moment to make her seem relevant and to start a good will campaign for her….so maybe they are already starting that train for her to come for that Oscar, and push Sunset through.
It’s a shame there’s not an equivalent project out there akin to Trip to Bountiful. THAT kind of film is something Glenn has grown into both in personal experience and acting chops.
GREAT list. Ok, let me try to answer each one
1. IF…big if..if the rumors about Eternals breaking the Marvel template big time are true AND if the film lands, I can see back to back nominations for her.
2. Stallone got nominated twice in two categories for playing the same part. I don’t see her winning. (btw, how many actors has Spielberg directed to an Oscar win?)
3. Sunset will be real close to make the date.
4. I see Blonde bombing. Netflix’s Oscar track record ain’t great.
5. So much of Oscar is getting the right field to compete against. Smart to move film. That being said, I fear Dewey Cox might have killed musical biopics for me personally.
6. My gut tells me Miller. Del Toro’s film will be respected but not loved. And Dune will bomb hard.
7. Three names I would suggest are John Sayles, Richard Linklater, and John Carpenter.
8. I’m having a very hard time understanding the purpose of a West Side Story remake. What’s going to be so different apart from casting an actual Latina for Maria. I think Miranda fatigue will doom In the Heights
9. I suppose the debate will always be there, but personally I’m looking forward to the day when a black, yellow, or brown face at the Oscars won’t cause culture warriors to lose their fucking minds in outrage.
10. What would be fun is if larger multiplexes booked older classics, favorites or cult films for ONE screen each week.
Is the answer to the Spielberg question “two?” Has he only directed Mark Rylance and Daniel Day-Lewis to Oscar wins. I am very excited for House of Gucci and the Robbie film. Looking forward to seeing J-Law, too, and perhaps Blonde since I like Marilyn.
Rylance is the one I was forgetting. It’s a weird little blip in his CV, especially he’s devoted more of his post 1994 output on more serious projects.
In defence of the In Memoriam clip, they did have 95 people to mention. On a “regular” year it’s less than half of that. But it still does not justify the bloated, lenghty and over the top speech by Angela Bassett. Shorter speech, longer clip whould have worked just fine. I also had another look at the list of people mentioned – holy fucking shit, this has been a terrible year 🙁
I did not like the musical selection because the images transitioned to the beat like an Apple commercial. They should not have a song you can dance to while looking at the passing of Wilfred Brimley.
I know it’s tough putting a sad song in the Oscars ceremony but sorry you gotta do it.
Use a longer piece of music so you don’t have to speed up like a Keystone Cops car chase.
I think you all are completely missing what Sasha’s point was when saying Hopkins and McDormand’s legacies were “tainted.” Clearly, the loudest portion of people that cared about the Oscars pushed their choices (Bozeman and Viola) so hard that they created a lose-lose situation for both sides. They made it seem like it was these actors awards to lose, so the show catered to the projected outcome. It guess what? Just like in our regular society, the loudest voices don’t represent the majority, so when the votes were tallied, it was Hopkins and McDormand that prevailed. But at that point, you have a bunch of people watching that don’t think they should’ve won and that’s what tarnishes their legacy. Because clearly their performances did deserve to win but history will paint this as if Hopkins stole Boseman’s Oscar when it was never his to begin with.
I don’t see that happening, at least not once everything shakes out and people calm down. It’ll probably end up being seen as a close race in a long season, with Hopkins getting just enough momentum after the BAFTAs to put him over the top. Again, wish I could see the vote totals, but I’d bet money that they were very close.
I don’t think history will necessarily paint it that way just because a vocal minority feel that way. I guess time will tell. Heck, I’m still smarting over Roberto Benigni beating Ian McKellen!
A terrible show with good winners for the most part. I’m ready to start talking about some new films.
Does anyone know when was the last time that a movie just won 3 oscars having won the Picture-Director combo? I believe this was really weird.
Why is it any weirder than 3 Oscars Picture-Writer combo though?
It’s just my opinion. I believe that when a movie get Picture-Director combo it usually has, at least, a couple more wins elsewhere. Especially in the preferential ballot era, where Picture-Director splits happen so often,But maybe it is not weird. I’m trying to think when was the last time that this happens bit I don’t know. However, I know that Spotlight, Greenbook etc won with the combo you mentioned.
Off the top of my head, Rocky won three w/ BP, BD and editing.
45 years ago. Weird enough for me.
Before 12 Years a Slave it was 41 years prior that a movie won just 3 Oscars w/ BP, screenplay and an acting.
I think it has to do with the accessibility of screeners where voters get to see more movies and therefore able to spread the wealth as opposed to sweep voting.
“Crash” and “Argo” also had only 3 Oscars, didn’t they? Between “Rocky” and “12 Years a Slave”.
You’re right. I guess I was trying to find a 3 Oscar winner BP with screenplay and acting.
That is literally the last time it happened. 🙂
The full list:
Rocky (1976)
Midnight Cowboy (1969)
Casablanca (1942)
Gentleman’s Agreement (1947)
Cavalcade (1933)
And…
You Can’t Take It With You (1938)
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) – both won only picture and director. 🙂
I guess if you don’t count the outside category that no other contenders were eligible for, then it was just last year when BP Parasite won 3 with BD and one other.
🙂 Good point, although the third “open” category it won was actually screenplay, which is the only one you would say is decidedly a greater sign of strength than even an acting win. But yes, it’s definitely a valid example.
Gentleman’s Agreement won BP+BD+supporting actress, by the way. Seems the closest precedent. Million Dollar Baby (pointed out by somebody else) won 2 acting Oscars in addition to BP & BD, which is also very close to the same.
I consider the Picture-Director combo much stronger than Picture-Screenplay combo.
Great catch! Felt weird to me too, but I assumed it happened every now and then… Turns out i’s quite rare:
Rocky (1976)
Midnight Cowboy (1969)
Casablanca (1942)
Gentleman’s Agreement (1947)
Cavalcade (1933)
And…
You Can’t Take It With You (1938)
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) – both won only picture and director. 🙂
9.85 million viewers.
Actually higher than I thought it would be given the absolute obscurity of the movies for most people.
Down 64% in the 18-49 demo.
Just remembered: Let’s not forget that Viola Davis does have one Oscar so far: Best Supporting Actress in Fences. Strictly speaking, this was a lead or co-lead performance, so she should have been in Best Actress, but she was put in Supporting Actress to improve her shot at a win, just like Alicia Vikander the previous year. Yes, it’s category fraud, and it happens almost every year, but that’s how it goes.
I still believe that had she been put in lead that year for Fences, she would have defeated Emma Stone in La La Land. That would have been an undeniable performance in any category.
It’s so ironic that she’s contended for Best Actress in roles that are smaller than the one she won for BSA.
Absolutely. She was nominated in Lead for The Help but that film was such an ensemble performance, and now for Ma Rainey, again going as lead despite a relatively low screen-time compared to Boseman. She probably had more screen time in Fences, the only role she decided to category fraud herself into the win.
It’s hard enough for any actor to win ONE Oscar, let alone multiple ones. Hell, Davis is only the SECOND black actress to be nominated for an Oscar AFTER previously winning one (Octavia Spencer being the first). That’s two obstacles right there, but I think the third and fatal obstacle was Netflix. Streaming sites have only taken home three above the line Oscars ever. The math wasn’t in her favor.
What Davis and other actresses ought to begin doing is producing and directing. Oscar loves actors who branch out. While Regina King fell short, how freaking smart was it on her part to develop THAT project after her win. How smart was it for Emerald Fennell to go the auteur route instead of handing off THAT script to someone else. The path is there for actresses now that Frances broke through last night.
All I know is this,
#1 – I only saw 2 movies so I can’t talk or express my opinion about who won
#2 – Black twitter is always upset when the Oscars are over; not enough “POC/Black” people winning.
#3 – half the people complaining about the wins didn’t see the movies nominated; see#1
#4 – I suspected that the English/Commonwealth actors played a big part in who won. Maybe next time Davis and Day are nominated they will travel to England and shake hands.
I didn’t know France McD produced Nomadland?
I confess I haven’t seen either The Father or Ma Rainey’s yet. I’m sure that Anthony Hopkins was brilliant. The fault is with the Academy in placing Best Actor award at the end to try to build momentum and keep viewers. That was just a tacky and unthinkable prop to do on behalf of someone who recently passed.
And at the expense of Chloe Zhao and the cast and crew of the film that was making history yesterday.
I’m sorry, Sasha, but this notion that McDormand and Hopkins have had their artistic legacies “erased” last night is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen you post, and I’ve been here a while. NO ONE with even a pea-sized brain is going to blame either one of them for how last night went down; it’s not as if the two of them were skulking around toilet-papering voters’ houses or anything like that. I also don’t think that it was blowback from white voters feeling “pressured” and basically tipping over the chess board in a fit of pique; let’s not forget that the various actors of color were nominated by these same people, and I suspect anyone who liked a given performer/performance well enough to get them nominated probably didn’t jump ship after the nominations came out. (Also, let’s not forget that Harvey Weinstein isn’t around to bully people into voting the way he wanted them to; after the studio system ended, he’s probably the closest thing to Louis B. Mayer that we’ve seen, and I can’t think of anyone else off the top of my head who wields that much influence now.)
My best guess is that the vote was much closer all around in both categories due to the quality of the work in question, and that the top 3 nominees in each category were battling it out at the end–Boseman, Hopkins, and Ahmad in Actor; Davis, McDormand, and Mulligan in Actress–and the eventual winners squeaked through to the top. I’ve thought for years that it would be great if the Academy released the actual voting totals, although I understand seeing the results spelled out like that could be upsetting to some losers. On the other hand, I suspect a number of them would take some comfort in seeing that their races were much closer than anyone had realized, and I think this year in particular would be a good time to release the totals. It’s possible that Ahmad’s support took away some of Boseman’s, but are we going to blame the former for the latter not winning? No, because that’s not how this works. The Academy voters aren’t some kind of Great White Monolith or Hivemind, and I think it’s mainly people on the outside who see it that way, as opposed to the actual voters themselves, the 7000 or so individuals who all have their opinions and preferences. While the commenters here probably don’t resemble the Academy all that much (and sometimes that’s something for which to be truly grateful…), they’ve made it clear that they all have their own opinions as well, and said opinions varied a great deal. One person may like one performance but think another one sucks, or vice versa, and this is completely par for the course. Besides, if there was that much of a white backlash, wouldn’t it have shown up in some of the other categories? If that were really the case, it should have; there were certainly other good candidates in those categories who would also have been worthy of winning, but that’s not how it panned out.
No one will ever be completely happy with how these or any other awards turn out; there are always people one thinks should have won who didn’t, and I can’t think of a single year off the top of my head where I agreed with all of the winners…but that’s life. Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes it eats you. I would have liked to see Davis and Boseman win, too, but that doesn’t mean that McDormand or Hopkins don’t deserve their wins, or deserve to have their legacies tarnished over something over which they have no control, and there wasn’t anyone nominated in any of the 4 acting categories who didn’t deserve to be there, and who wouldn’t have been a perfectly reasonable winner if the vote had turned out differently. It’s all a giant coin flip or dice roll, and about as predictable. Sure, you can comb through stats from previous years and say a winner needs to also win X,Y, & Z, and past results may bear that out, but past results can’t always predict the future. Perhaps the best motto for the Oscars, or any awards, or even this site, would be “Assume Nothing; Anything Could Happen,” because it’s true.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to celebrate for the people who did win that I was rooting for, and hope that most of those who didn’t get a second shot ASAP. It’s too bad Boseman wasn’t nominated for 42, or Marshall, or even Black Panther, but I suppose we don’t know what we’ve got ’til it’s gone. Rest assured, though: he will definitely NOT be forgotten.
(PS: I will never stop thinking that Colin Farrell would have been a much better winner for The Lobster than Casey Affleck was for Manchester by the Sea. Strictly my not-so-humble opinion, of course…)
Yeah probably not. I guess it’s hard to know how it will go down but upsets never fare all that well over time. Look at Shakespeare in Love. Great movie, still hated.
Well, there is the Gywneth factor for Shakespeare in Love… It’s also a comedy, which traditionally don’t do as well, and it was up against Saving Private Ryan, the film that singlehandedly triggered PTSD among God only knows how many WWII veterans. I really think the Weinstein factor was why it won; I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he actually had voters threatened if they didn’t vote for him. Yes, it’s a secret ballot, but given that we’re talking about a man who hired ex-Mossad for personal security, well…
I think Best Actor was a genuine battle, and had the war ended a bit earlier Boseman may very well have won; Hopkins was always seen as a contender, so I don’t see this as a true upset. Best Actress comes closer in that people assumed that the real race was between Davis and Mulligan, and that McDormand wouldn’t win due to winning fairly recently (tell that one to Tom Hanks…); however, she had the advantage of being in a Best Picture nominee, which never hurts, and seems to be genuinely well-liked by voters. In the end, it was probably a 3-way rather than 2-way race, and Davis and Mulligan split just enough votes for McDormand to slip through. Now, Vanessa Kirby would have been a real upset, probably on a level w/Marisa Tomei, and probably in a similar way, a 4-way split that left her standing. None of this is to insinuate anything about anyone’s performance, BTW; they’re all good and deserving of credit.
Even though I clearly disagreed with two of these three choices, please let me know folks here… Moonlight, Parasite, and Olivia Colman are being trashed becasue they won?
Two very talented actors won deserving awards, and since Viola Davis and Chadwick Boseman’s wife are compassionate adults, they are probably happy for their colleagues.
People are coming around on it, I would say. Almost all of the podcasts I’ve listened to about it and/or its win, over the last few years, are actually fans and think the right decision was made. 🙂 (I’m a big fan of SiL, myself.)
Black Panther even being nominated was a farce that year.
As I said elsewhere, after BAFTA: whenever one person doesn’t sweep the precursors (at least the big ones – I mean, particularly when SAG and BAFTA split), it’s probably always a close vote. It’s just common sense, in my opinion…
that comment about Biden was ridiculous; the President campaigned on unity, he has been a voice of respect to the police consistently and has even been criticized by more left-leaning actors for being a moderate (for years) – and this obsession of yours w/race and all things PC is sad, actually. You implied all season long that Zhao was winning because of her “narrative” (aka race/gender/demographic) and that Viola may win for hers or because they are liked and that is disrespectful to the majority of your readers and the Academy that live in the real America outside the left/right-wing bubbles of Twitter and the media. Most people were strong advocates for Boseman, Davis, Mulligan, Hopkins, Ahmed, Zhao etc because they preferred their work not because of their race or any of that bullshit. You have made this implication about Cuaron and Joon-Ho the previous years too and that somehow white, straight men are being snubbed – I’m so sick of it, it then paves the way for a bunch of stupid commenters to spew their garbage and keep those of us who want to have intelligent and FUN conversations about film and its artists.
people can bash winners or be happy for them, make the case for their favorites or against who they consider the least deserving and that’s all part of it and it should be enjoyable to agree and even disagree, it reflects passion, but make it about the work, to go on these rants, so many here about race and death status and over analyzing Academy picks by identity politics is so crass, frankly, and disappointing.
What people on the left see as unity is unifying with the far left. Actual unity would require a better bridge, which so far no Democrat has built. IMO.
Nor Republican.
but your statement was on the President not making a speech w/content similar to Mr. Perry’s and that is a lie – even republicans ridicule him or express cynicism for these. Whether it is effective or not is a matter of opinion, although the polls, statistics and the economy or by any other measure, really, he IS making progress in uniting America 100 days in; he has remained popular w/over half of Americans and was, overwhelmingly, voted in. The left IS broadening their tent while the right is losing constituents – fact.
I can’t buy this theory that Oscar voters, or BAFTA voters, picked Hopkins or McDormand as some kind of intentional revolt. The tea leaves for a Hopkins upset were there since nominations day, when The Father outperformed Ma Rainey. And again, when he won the BAFTA, and again, when Boseman lost the Indie Spirit. Not enough people took it seriously.
McDormand won, I think, because she was the least problematic nominee. I think the truth is that a lot of people thought Ma Rainey was a talky bore, and the impact of Viola’s performance relatively modest (she arrives late, she leaves early). Promising Young Woman was simply too divisive. Andra Day was in a film that was just too much of a mess to an award an Oscar to, perhaps even to finish watching. I wonder how many people saw Vanessa Kirby’s performance, and weren’t scared away by the bleakness of its subject matter–especially during a very bleak year. McDormand’s main baggage was having just won a second Oscar two years ago, but that appears to have been mattered less than all of the above.
Good sum up as to what happened. I said a week ago that any of Mulligan, Davis and McDormand could win. It’s just a small factor and here and there and it could be the difference.
Well said. That all looks about right to me.
Also on Day: “The United States vs. Billie Holliday” was her first major film role and, thus, was a newbie compared to the other nominees. True, the Oscars have rewarded newcomers before, but I guess voters this year thought bestowing the award on her would be premature.
Another factor is pretty simple and straight-forward without having to delve into demographics, perceived slights and other awards hooey: McDormand was the star (and Producer) of the Best Picture winner.
Hopkins was the star of another Best Picture nominee (which also won Screenplay over the eventual Best Picture winner).
MA RAINEY wasn’t nominated for Best Picture.
Sometimes, an Oscar winner is just an Oscar winner
Most of the reviews I read about MaRainey is that it was too “stagey”, and it came from the Stage, as did Fences and both were directed by Denzel. The same complaint was about “One Night in Miami,” which I half-saw because it was too talky. As mentioned before, I would have wanted to see it on stage.
The Black actors need to start crossing the pond to England and shaking hands and doing movies over there. Movies are “global”, remember?
That aside, one could also argue that Boseman and Davis were also supporting roles. Hopkins and McDormand were very much the leads.
I think “supporting” is less the case than “part of an ensemble” myself, but that’s MHO.
Same difference in this case.
Soderbergh decided Best Picture this year wasn’t special enough to be the last award of the night. As a consequence, that Nomadland, Zhao, Frances and co. were not special enough to have the final moment of the night. That the only Best Picture winner led by women in writing, directing, producing and acting was not deserving enough of that.
Curiously enough, I’ve seen only two bizarre Best Picture presentations that were planned (the envelope thing was obviously accidental). 2010 when Hanks spent 10 seconds on screen and opened the envelope. And 2021 when Picture was not the last. The films? The Hurt Locker and Nomadland…
Soderbergh’s disrespect to the Best Picture category backfired when Chadwick lost.
Hmmm. I just watched that Hurt Locker BP announcement clip from Tom Hanks. It does look peculiar. But do we know if they had spent minutes right before showing clips of the 10 movies and Hanks’ only job was to announce the winner? And maybe also they were running out of time, as per usual?
We know. They did. Each movie got a separate presentation throughout the whole evening.
I meant showing the clips *right before* Hanks coming on the stage. If not, and Hanks not reciting the list of nominees before announcing the winner, did come off odd and rushed. But perhaps they cut that part out at the last minute due to the showing running overtime?
They didn’t. I remember watching it live and certainly noticing the difference, but it didn’t strike me as awkward. They did spend a lot of time presenting individual movies.
We’ve seen clips presentations of Best Picture nominees in most Oscar ceremonies from the 90s to 2000s. That was the only one they couldn’t spend two minutes reading the names of the producers of the films before opening the envelope.
I think it’s b/c it was the first time that it was 10 nominees since forever. Reading off all 10 nominees and the producers before announcing the winner might be a bit laborious, especially at the tail end of a long show.
Very laborious. Anne Hathaway spent precisely 44 seconds reading the whole list of nominees and producers when she announced the 10 nominees and producers in 2010’s Noms Announcement. What a time savings thing to do…
Agreed. It was total disrespect which capped of a flat show. It’s gonna go down as one of the worst ending in Oscar history and not because of the voters, the giant egg landed on the producer’s face.
I may be the only one who thought the “shakeup” was OK. I don’t need to wait until the end to know what the best movie is. For years We’re primed to wait for the best picture as last, but really, is it as important as best actor and actress? I don’t think so. I liked the setting of the Oscars. When they’re sitting in the audience, we only see the first 2 rows. We don’t see the back or the balcony. The way it was spaced out and the camera showed you the nominees….I thought that was interesting. I hope they have another “intimate” awards show.
Not even the Screen Actors Guild Awards, the actors award, ever dared to place an individual film award after film ensemble. Film is a collective effort. No individual effort and no individual narrative triumphs that. No actors are above film.
Must have seen a different show as it was one of the worst Oscars ever. It was bizarre, flat and disrespectful in many ways. Terrible optics of presenters giving awards to their own films this day and age. Baffling why producers choose to feature clips for certain categories instead of others. Disrespectful. The pace of the show was going fine until the sudden and unnecessary “Oscar Song Trivia” segment. Best Picture given out before either of the lead-acting categories was ridiculous, pointless and ruined the ending for sure. Also it was robbing Nomadland from its historic moment really.
As of Best Actor, the backlash reaction is pathetic. I expected Boseman to win, but let’s not pretend as if he didn’t lose at the BAFTA and Spirit Awards as well. No one can say Hopkins isn’t a worthy winner. So then, what is the issue? The Father was much more liked then Ma Rainey is the truth. Probably got the second most votes for BP as well.
As of Frances, let’s not pretend as if she didn’t win the BAFTA where Mulligan wasn’t nominated, which told us that she does have the huge British backing like Hopkins and that Mulligan was hit badly missing out there. Davis and Day was clearly cancelling each other out and with Nomadland winning the top awards, how can you really deny the person carrying the film? Was she the most deserving of the 5? That was never gonna happen since Vanessa Kirby had hands down the most powerful and layered performance of all, but she wasn’t in the running for the statue. It was a strong category this year with five very strong nominees. I find it hypocritical that people bring up that its her third Oscar when for years crying out that status and name matters over performance sometimes. Ma Rainey’s simply wasn’t liked as much as Nomadland, PYW and The Father, so it’s no shock it didn’t prevail in acting. I think Best Actress was Frances vs. Day all along and as mentioned before, Davis took some votes away from Day and she was a going against a juggernaut with a film a few voters probably haven’t even seen. So no shocks here. Actually the biggest surprise of the night was Mank taking cinematography, but even that was predicted here as well.
I liked the show. It could have had more humor and the lighting could have been better….but honestly, it was different and took the TV audience out of our comfort zone.
If nothing else, after this year, I hope we’ll see the idea of people predicting actors because of their race fade away into oblivion.
That’s something.
It actually wouldn’t surprise me if “Fincher lost because he’s a white man, Hopkins and McDormand won because they’re white” continues to be this site’s official narrative, logical consistency be damned.
That’s not what I was saying. Rather, many people predicted actors this year because they were not white. In the lead categories, it did not pan out.
But this article is implying that Hopkins and McDormand won because they’re white. It’s all very confusing.
I think they picked the ones they believed were the most deserving but I also think that it required a leaning in of sorts to not go with those picks. In other words, I do not think people throughout the season were voting because they necessarily felt the winners deserved to win. I think they were prioritizing people of color. They were doing this deliberately to both get themselves off the hook and make the same kind of changes we’re seeing throughout American culture with the first woman of color Vice President, for instance. I think there is a faction of people who, quite simply, resent being called racists and resent being forced to choose actors of color just because they aren’t white. That is why I think they did it. Just my own take.
I agree with most of this, Sasha. I preface what I’m about to say with me thinking that Boseman, Davis and Day all gave very good-great performances.
A plurality vote of 90 people in the HFPA went for Boseman and Day (their narratives began then and there). I think the Globes “getting off the hook” may have created a false sense of strength for particular contenders.
Then SAG went for Viola (they love her) and Boseman (of course, the actors of film and TV would swarm for him; the respect & sentiment was overwhelming. SAG loved Ma Rainey, too — in fact, they’re the only group that truly loved Ma Rainey when you look at the Globes, BAFTA and AMPAS).
Critics Choice went for Mulligan and Boseman (an Oscar predictor voting body).
BAFTA went Hopkins (more and more people started actually watching the film as the season drudged on) and McDormand. AMPAS went similarly. Industry folk from across every branch; very similar make-up of voters, I’d say.
I just feel that a majority of voters in AMPAS felt that Hopkins and McDormand were the best of their fields. That is not to say that thousands in AMPAS did not vote for Boseman, Davis and Day — I’m sure it was very close. I don’t think Day had any wind in her sails past the Globes, and I’m sure she chipped away at Davis’ totals and vice-versa (similar type of performances as singers of a bygone era).
Did race play some part in the decisions? Maybe, maybe not. There are less POC voters in AMPAS than white people. I’m sure many POC voted for Boseman/Davis/Day. I’m sure plenty of those voters also voted for white contenders if they thought they were deserving. And vice-versa … I’m sure many white voters felt that Boseman/Davis/Day were deserving and marked them down on their ballots. I just think the chips fell where they did and it was mighty unfortunate that the producers misjudged the order of those final categories.
It just seems like a weird needle to thread to say that AMPAS awarded Zhao because they wanted to award a woman of color and also say that AMPAS awarded Hopkins and McDormand because they resented the notion that they had to award people of color. Doesn’t it make more sense to just say they award what they like, and that while racial politics may influence a few it’s probably not a significant determining factor?
It wasn’t about race when Coleman upset Close. I don’t see why Hopkins upsetting Boseman has to be viewed differently.
My personal theory is that they were thinking that no one has seen any of these movies or gives a crap about them, so instead they focused on the artists themselves and the history of film. Hence the lack of acting clips and general lack of emphasis on the nominated films. I suspect this played into the decision to do Best Picture early; they assumed that no one in the audience cared about Nomadland, and would care instead about the more recognizable actors in the Lead categories.
The Academy should look back and remember that a lot of people go back and watch these movies AFTER they win. Shape of Water, Green Book, etc. all got big viewership bumps after they won. When “obscure” films are nominated, they should treat the awards as an advertisement for them. Especially now with streaming, they don’t need to worry about whether or not the movies go back into theaters.
McDormand clearly didn’t expect to win and didn’t have a speech ready at all, which was unfortunate.
Towards the end my Mom texted me from out of state to complain about the lack of song performances. It’s weird when I see people say they should get rid of these to shorten the ceremony, because for a lot of casual viewers, it’s their favorite part.
Kaluuya and Youn gave great speeches. It’s a shame McDormand and Hopkins were such weird moments.
The “Oscar Trivia” bit…it’s so weird that every year, despite having months to prepare for the ceremony, so many of the comedy skits seem like they came up with the idea that morning and are just kind of winging it.
Hopkins gives a speech!
https://youtu.be/DMci2gisrkA
Anthony Hopkins’ role and performance are much like his The Father co-star Olivia Colman’s winning work in The Favorite two years ago: a rampaging tour-de-force that checks off every conceivable box of what an Oscar-winning lead performance is. Chadwick Boseman’s work in Ma Rainey’s Black Bottomcomes very, very close. Both performances blew me away; I would have voted for Boseman, for what that’s worth. Twitter compares last night-s anticlimax to the La La Land/Moonlightdebacle. While Nomadlandmanaged to survive a six-month stretch as the front-runner, Boseman ended up in the position of La La Land as the shoo-in whose inevitability the voters got sick of. At least one of the “secret voters” whose fancies were published in the trades and Gold Derby in the last few weeks said something to the effect of, “I know Chadwick Boseman is going to win, but I’m voting for Anthony Hopkins.” Soderbergh et al. should have read the e-zines and the papers, put the final order back where it belonged, while Sony Classics should have bought Hopkins a plane ticket, to London or Dublin, if not L.A.
The unforgivable thing is that the 2021 Oscar show has come and gone without the all-out tribute to Boseman that it would have staged had it not expected the voters to do it for them. My first Oscar show happened to be the 1967 Oscars that were postponed two days for the funeral of MLK. Much of the buzz that year was the possibility of a posthumous Best Actor for Spencer Tracy (Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner). One column, probably by Bob Thomas, quoted interviewees who said that an Oscar should be “encouragement” to the recipient, and that this quality would be wasted on an actor who is deceased. This became such a “meme” that the following year when Ruth Gordon won Best Supporting Actress at age 72, she brought down the house by exclaiming “You don’t know how encouraging something like this is.” My point is that the Academy has always been reluctant to give a posthumous Oscar just because the actor passed. Last night now makes me sure that Heath Ledger would have won for The Dark Knight had he been very much alive. That leaves Peter Finch as the only one whose death (in the midst of Oscar season; he had been on The Tonight Showthe evening before his fatal heart attack) probably caused him to win. But, in short, I’m sure Soderbergh and his team are wishing that they had observed the adage, “Assume nothing.”
“It is a Crash-like bummer that unfortunately erases the legacy of Hopkins, who delivered maybe his best performance in The Father, and it erases the legacy of McDormand who is largely responsible for the existence of Nomadland at all.”
What on earth are you talking about. I agree with you very often but this is completely deranged.
Neither legacy is getting erased, only getting cemented. Both deserved their win (I wasn’t as high on McDormand as I was on Hopkins, but clearly they won on merit.) McDormand won despite having won two already. Hopkins won despite not campaiging at all and despite the narrative building to a posthumous, emotional win for Boseman. No-one will care about who “should” have won next week, let along next year. They will however remember that Hopkins won two Oscars, 30 years apart for two breathtakingly different performances.
This is the craziest stuff you have posted in a long time.
I also hate the suggestion that white voters vote for white nominees while black voters vote for black nominees.
This!!!
As was debated HOTLY here last night with what’s their face, McDormand’s 1…2..3…4 Oscars puts her in the freaking pantheon. Being the first actor to pull off the producing win along with an acting win is not nothing. While I think MacBeth will have to be an all timer for her to catch Hepburn, being in second place with three Lead awards is not being “erased”
After spending the entire year complaining that AMPAS is alienating the public by giving out awards based on racial diversity, you’re now saying that they’re alienating the public by not giving lead actress and actor to black actors. Which is it?
Are their awards based on appeasing woke twitter, or white privilege? Have you considered that maybe they’re not obsessed with race and they just award what they like?
Amid all the allusions to important social issues in last night’s ceremony (some of which came off as genuine, some pandering) I would have loved for at least one person to use a moment of their precious time to mention a cancer much closer to home. There was a spate of articles in the past couple of weeks about the insane behavior of producer Scott Rudin towards his staff and sometimes, colleagues, for decades. It’s not news, and such conduct is certainly not unique to him alone. But it has been ignored for far too long, by many of the same people who won Oscars last night, and who continue to remain silent about it. And it is something that they have the power to change.
Wouldn’t it have been nice if one person had said, “How many of you have heard your agents belittle their assistants for simple mistakes? Or seen a PA on a set treated with disrespect? Or turned a blind eye towards the abuse of an underling by a person in a position of power because you were afraid of crossing that person?” Rudin’s case is the most public, but this sort of deeply harmful behavior is widespread throughout the industry because it is allowed to continue. Because it is sometimes even glorified.
The kindness Chloe Zhao was talking about in her heartfelt speech, the resistance to hate Tyler Perry mentioned, begins there. This is something each person in that room can do to make an immediate difference with their power, if they choose.
This is a great point. If Sasha Stone had any integrity, that’s the kind of article she would’ve written today. But she has to wait for everyone else to jump on the bandwagon first and then she’ll do it. Just wait. Fifty articles will come out about Scott Rudin, and then she’ll write about how he’s always been a monster. But not a second before.
In hindsight, I don’t think AMPAS does “narrative voting” much anymore, overdue, tribute and politics. Only when the competition is weaker perhaps.
I’m also wondering if Hopkins’ role resonates a lot this year for people, given how many old folks have died in the past year. People are more aware of the impending passing. It’s a tribute to our old parents/grandparents.
THE GOOD
The Hopkins win. Deserved.
Yuh-jung Youn’s speech. She just wanted to meet Brad Pitt so badly.
Amanda Seyfried and Maria Bakalova looking stunningly beautiful. Especially Amanda.
Susan and Bong presenting together.
Zhao’s outfit.
That lovely Mank for cinematography win.
Thomas Vinterberg’s speech.
THE BAD
The set design. Boring.
The Zoomseque feel.
The entire presentation. Using the fonts/designs from the nominations announcement. They invest millions in this?!
The lack of song performances. And the show really proved it needed those. Badly.
When you recognise Christopher Hampton, you let him speak.
Sorry, Questlove. The show needed more music – more variety.
The set design. It must be repeated. It was that bad.
THE UGLY
The Frances McDormand win – for her usual Frances McDormand trope/bore.
The predictable sweeps – My Octopus Teacher, the animated short. Sorry, there were better options.
The lack of clips in most categories.
The dull banter presenting the nominees in each category. It actually worked in screenplay but backfired later. And it was a bit stupid to pay tribute to all the nominees except for the Borat people.
The chaos. The Cesars managed to deliver a beautiful show with a limited budget (unlike the Oscars). It didn’t feel as chaotic as here. Here presenters were moving all the time (and it was visible on camera during acceptance speeches). They could have orchestrated it more carefully.
THE RIDICULOUS
Where do I start? The order of awards. Presenting director in the beginning, ending with actor. Haven’t they considered how anticlimactic this would be? (When you plan such dramatic changes, consider all the possibilities. The night was full of random decisions.)
The In Memoriam – disrespectful, rushed, and truly disgusting. And all due respect but they could have included more people. We didn’t need Angela Bassett’s hammy introduction that lasted forever. And Boseman is beloved, but Max von Sydow and Olivia de Havilland should have been last. These are GIANTS. This last spot has an extra layer of meaning.
The use of the Dolby. Why did they use it at all? They didn’t even present the award on stage.
And my big question: Why didn’t they use Union Station space more inventively? The way they did it here, they could have done it at the Dolby. Take a look at the Cesars, they could have made more space and it would have worked just fine. Why the move to Union Station when they didn’t even care about making use of the space and its unique characteristics?
The presenters: We needed stars. Bigger stars. Not the people who present every year and this year presented everywhere else.
And this was considered cinematic? Why? It was just the worst part of the Oscars x 1,000.
I agree 1000% with all you wrote from your “THE RIDICULOUS” segment on downwards.
Didnt know that Olivia de Havilland passed away last year. Seeing her name during IN Memoriam segment was shocking. Remind me a scene from Bette VS Joan TV series. That GIANT actress, as you noticed, get only 1 sec on screen and she was – probably – the last great one from the movie star era.
Yes, this offended me.
“Amanda Seyfried and Maria Bakalova looking stunningly beautiful. Especially Amanda.”
This. And most of the other stuff you said… 🙂
STAY THE F AWAY, BAFTA.
You know you’re making this comment section way funnier than it needs to be, right?:)
Kind of an Off-topic, but I just read that two wonderful, wonderful films starring Youn Yuh-jung are available on MUBI US. No other than Hong Sang Soo’s In another country, face to Isabelle Huppert and my personal favorite of this exceptional director: Hill of freedom.
Stop reading. Go watch them.
James Dean had a posthumous Oscar nomination and didn’t win (for Giant, no less). please explain to me how Chadwick Boseman, of all people, would deserve to win it more than the legend Dean.
I actually thought of that, too.
James Dean had 2 posthumous Oscar nominations. The Academy passed up both chances to honor him.
that’s even worse, now that I think of it
Boseman lost both the Bafta and Independent Spirt Award making him vulnerable to an upset. The Academy should have considered that knowing that Hopkins is not showing up. Heath Ledger won everything. First time in Sags history that two individual acting winners from the same movie lost. Despite that there was more diversity in the acting winners than last year. I think that the last African American to win supporting was in 2004 Morgan Freeman. That was also the last movie that won BP and best actress.
Ali says hey x 2
As do Viola, Octavia Spencer, and Regina King.
He wasn’t in LA, he wasn’t at the satellite location in London. There’s been zero confirmation about a death in his family outside of this forum.
Hopkins was not campaigning. Neither was macdormand for actress. Remarkable. Two people who did not campaign won.
South Wales is not close to London. Can’t blame an older man for staying home.
That isn’t what was said. Reading Dylan Thomas’s “Do Not Go Gentle Into that Good Night” at his father’s grave in Wales is not the same as a death in the family.
Definitely +1’ing you on the Netflix backlash in a year when, despite the advantage of streaming services, AMPAS seemed to want to highlight the films that waited and (mostly) released in theaters. And I think the Netflix films that mostly faltered, like Trial and Ma Rainey’s, had other, related issues against them, i.e., being un-cinematic to begin with. Of course hindsight is 20/20. And none of this explains the Carey Mulligan loss, except that we saw all along that she wasn’t winning a single industry prize despite being the critics’ favorite and a repeat nominee in a well-liked top contender.
“But the decision to scramble the awards order turned out to be an honest mistake.”
I don’t think switching the order – at least moving Best Actor to the final award of the night – was a mistake. It was a calculated, manipulative decision that bombed. The producers of the show used Chadwick’s death to try to to score a big moment and they failed. So dismissive of the other nominees were the producers that it never entered in to their heads that someone else could win, nevermind that the most likely alternative winner to Chadwick would be Hopkins who they knew wouldn’t even be at the show. And then to have Joaquin Phoenix present the award instead of Renee Zellweger? He couldn’t even be bothered to read nice things about the nominees – including honoring Chadwick? What a mess.
The entire night was a trainwreck. Of all years this was the year where we needed fun/humor and lots of clips – we got none of that. I get this was not easy to pull off, but I’ve been to conferences at a Hyatt that looked better than that room last night – why couldn’t it be at the usual venue? The presenters were stilted, reading awkward blurbs about the nominees. The lack of clips – in a year when many people have not seen these movies/performances – is unfathomable. What a missed opportunity to encourage people to find and watch these films. The in memoriam was so fast paced I could barely read the names.
I don’t agree with everything in Sasha’s post, but the the overarching theme that new blood is needed I definitely agree with….voters should be younger and more diverse and actually watch the films / understand the categories. And the show should be revamped to be more entertaining – more a celebration of movies and performances than handing out awards. They should beg Lin Manuel Miranda to host/produce next year or take queues from The Tony’s, which are always enjoyable even though I’ve seen none of the plays/musicals.
Good point. I almost never see those plays, and yet, the Tony’s make me want to see them.
Voting with the aim to diversify is a disqualifying vote. Voting for a performance because the person giving the performance died early (and/or is black) is a disgusting sentiment. Voting on merits alone is the only thing I would ask of any voting member. With that in mind, how could anyone argue that Hopkins isn’t a deserving winner? Or McDormand?
this x 100. And let me be clear. Boseman was fantastic but Hopkins was another level. McDormand was Nomadland along with Chloe and while more subtle of a performance, it was still very deserving. And I thought all the nominees were great in that category too! Although I think Davis was more supporting and maybe could have won there.
“Voting for a performance because the person giving the performance died early (and/or is black) is a disgusting sentiment.”
Here’s something else disgusting:
It’s disgusting to suggest that the only reason anyone would vote for Chadwick Boseman is because he “died early (and/or is black)”
Is it more disgusting to “suggest” that that’s what may have happened it or that it actually might have happened? Shooting down the messenger rarely alters the message.
I’m not shooting the guy.
I’m disgusted by him.
You and he can make all the ugly speculations you want.
I don’t have to speculate about you two, because you show us exactly what ugly thoughts you think.
And there’s a fine example of jumping to a conclusion based on your own bias. Try opening your mind to opinions. Tends to serve me well. And please don’t try to lecture this black man on “ugly thoughts”.
I’m not lecturing you. I’m telling you bluntly how I feel, the same way you are doing with me.
If you think being Black means I have to mince my own words and be timid about my honest feelings, you’re mistaken.
Please don’t mince your words. That’s the last thing I would want. But I would expect you to extend that courtesy to everyone else.
And…I am black, not Black.
I’ll capitalize whatever I want to, and you should do the same.
SMH. Ok, you’re the moderator.
I capitalize Asian, Latina, Native. I capitalize Black. I do it with respect.
Aren’t you the guy who just got done telling me that I need to let people write whatever they want?
I do. Nobody deleted that guy’s opinion. I just happened to have an opinion of my own.
That was not worded as a possibility. It was worded as a suspicion and an accusation. I did not like the way it sounded, so I said so.
You really don’t need to moderate my comments, alright? I bet if you check around you can find more important things to worry about and worse jerks than me to wag a finger at.
It’s ok, Ryan. Chill. No need to be so angry – said the black guy to the white guy. LOL. You’re the moderator, not me. Go do your thing.
All I suggested in my initial reply to you was that maybe you should argue the substance of the guy’s argument rather than just attacking him personally. That’s all.
Do you need a nap?
He essentially said, “It’s disgusting that people voted for Boseman just because he’s black and died young.”
I’m going to take a nap. When I wake up you can explain the “substance” of that crude suspicion.
He didn’t have any “argument” — he was trying start one. So that’s what he got from me.
He attacked the integrity of anyone who voted for Boseman and anyone who hoped Boseman might win. He sneered at our sincerity and insulted us by mocking and misrepresenting our motivations.
I don’t roll over when I’m attacked like that. I push back.
Hope you have a good nap. And good for you…never roll over.
The “substance” of his argument is “merit voting” vs. “sentimental voting”.
As you know, there have been numerous examples of sentimental votes in the academy’s history. He seems to find this “disgusting”. You seem irritated by his suggestion that the sentiment for Boseman was based on the fact that he “died early (and/or is black)”. Would you be less irritated if he had stopped at “died early”?
And if you are irritated race being bought into the “sentimental” argument, are you irritated by the entirety of Sasha’s article, which is all about voting on racial lines?
By the way…how did he attack you? Are you a voting member of the academy? (Serious question…I don’t presume to know)
Probably not the only reason, but a reason for sure. You think they pushed his award to the very end based on merit?
Don’t be coy. Everyone knows why Chadwick got the attention.
Go ahead and say what you think.
That way I can see exactly how much you disgust me.
As moderator I get sent the nastier first version of your comment before you soften it to hide your sickening thoughts:
“Don’t be coy. Everyone knows Chadwick only got the attention because he died and was black.”
Speaking as a person of color, I have to say that your argument here is so, so misguided. You seem to be suggesting that whenever an institution bestows an award to a white person over a black person, the institution must be racist. Last night we saw a young black man, an asian actress over 60, a white man over 80, a white woman over 50 and the first non white director winning awards. Sounds pretty diverse to me!
I was almost going to skip this year’s Oscars. I felt that it was essentially the age of the asterisk and the desire to award as many POC as possible at the expense of having a legitimate ceremony had been compromised and I had pretty much gotten sick of it:
https://orrinkonheim.medium.com/oscars-in-the-age-of-the-asterisk-5024f303ac53
But the results told a different story. And I was pleasantly delighted to see people on twitter weren’t that much playing the race card. It really was a certain unity. The Oscars do often surprise me as they did by selecting Green Book or Shape of Water or Mark Rylance
Glenn Close lost for The Wife — and Chadwick Boseman lost for Ma Rainey’s — because there are too many damn awards and those performances won several major awards by the time the Oscars came around. Why do we insist on the same things winning everything? Soderbergh’s screwing around with the order only made a somewhat infrequent-but-not-rare occurrence at the Oscars seem like a genuine, on-purpose slight.
Any time honoring a performance feels like an obligation, then it will lose because sometimes people remember that the Oscars are about rewarding what they think is the BEST.
Had Boseman not died, I think this scenario would have been reversed — Hopkins the front-runner scooping up all the precursors, Boseman sweeping in with a surprise win.
The Academy would do themselves a real service is they revealed the actual vote totals. I suspect Hopkins was declared victor by a handful of votes.
very nice observation.
There would be no reason for a reverse scenario and Boseman’s surprise win for a movie that couldn’t get a nomination. All 4 winners were from nominated movies which suggests that movies were big deciding factor. Strong movie + strong performance >>>> weak movie + strong performance.
Probably true. Although if Boseman were alive, he would have been out campaigning for the film and perhaps would have helped get it a Best Picture nod (we can probably agree that it was very close to getting it). Anyway, f-k cancer.
F-k it indeed!
Hopkins and McDormand didn’t campaign much tho, unlike their competition, and they still won. So their performances must have resonated big time.
I think of the opposite. If Boseman had not passed away, I think he might be on the fringes for a nomination. Hopkins would have won his first Golden Globe.
If the Oscars were held earlier than other major award-giving bodies, I think Meryl Streep would have won for Doubt and Julie & Julia and earned herself 5 Oscars already. She has won a fair share of critics precursors for those two films.
And finally, if the Acdemy will reveal the votes then I think it would be sort of World War III on Twitter or here at AD or at Gold Derby. The uproar every after nominations announcements and Oscars ceremonies were already turning people ballistic. Imagine if they found out that this film or that actor only won by this slim margin. It’s gonna be a pandemonium. Plus, the mystery of the votes makes it even more exciting at the very least.
But you’ve raised interesting points.
“And finally, if the Academy will reveal the votes then I think it would be sort of World War III on Twitter”
You say that as if it would be a bad thing…
Honestly, though, I’m starting to think that Twitter has been/is an even more destructive force in the world in general than even Facebook, and that’s saying something. There are plenty of good people on both, but Twitter really does seem to be where the howling beasts prowl, and seeing it sink beneath the waves might not be such a bad thing. Yes, I have an account, but I only occasionally post, mainly in response to others, and of all social media I think it tends to be the most toxic. Since this is a site devoted to movies, though, I’ll stop here.
Twitter doesn’t matter. At all. Most Oscar voters don’t use it. Most moviegoers don’t use it. Most Americans don’t use it. The fact that people act like what is being said on Twitter is important and influential continues to baffle me.
I wish that were true, but looking over the past five years and the previous (P)Resident, it does matter, or at least the screaming is loud enough that regular news and opinion outlets feel they need to take it seriously. It would be interesting to see what would happen if, say, the NYT and CNN weren’t so quick to rise to the bait–I suspect a fair amount of the outrage would die down.
I pay little attention to CNN these days for this very reason. If I wanted to know what Twitter trolls were fussing about, I’d be on Twitter.
At any rate, there is very little reason to think that Film Twitter has any effect on the Oscar race one way or another.
They didn’t think Crash was BEST. It was filled with their buddies, and it made for easy, if sometimes nonsensical, watching. Period. Look at it. It’s TV for freak’s sake. Almost all the setups are straight out of “daring” 10:00 o’clock network television shows. Teeny, tiny, boxy framing throughout. Look at it. Haggis came out of television. He chose a DP from television. Why? Because he was comfortable with those made-for-the-home-screen setups. And cutesy “warm” exchanges cut between two-shots and closeups. Look at the damn thing. It’s not even a movie.
That BP award for Crash over Brokeback was chickenshit. I said it then and I’ll say it with my last breath. An industry swarming with gays couldn’t Bring Itself to award a beautifully shot, written and acted gay love story spanning 20 years? Over a “hip” racially “woke” melodrama with so many actors and story lines crossing it was like refereeing a crossword puzzle contest?
I believe — or maybe only hope — that this Brokeback cowardice has haunted the Academy and will continue to do so for years to come. The POC and deserving women aspects of the industry’s awakening are gradually beginning to happen. Great. But a fully dignified gay/lesbian love story — witness what happened to Carol — is still on their agenda as far as I’m concerned. I know there’s lots of LBGTQ product around these days. And references in countless TV shows.
But a truly eloquent. resonant American gay/lesbian love story — not out of, or set in, Europe, Asia or any other country, American — lies down the road. How far, is what I’d like to know. Though if anyone wants to finally, after decades, get around to filming Baldwin’s Another Country (which is set in both NYC and Europe), I’m all the way down for that. Or Baldwin’s Giovanni’s Room, mostly set in Europe with a distinctly tormented American protagonist. Where’s the Hollywood “gay mafia” when you need it?
In what way was Moonlight not an American gay/lesbian story?
Fair point. I should have recalled that. Call me greedy. I want more. And it’s most likely going to come from indies. Focus worked hard to generate funding for Brokeback, and everybody on the project worked cheap. But with such a writing (the source, a great short story), adapted screenwriting, cinematography, directing, score and acting set of force multipliers, it deserved to go all the way and win Best Picture. That powerful combination doesn’t just happen. Somebody has to deeply want it to happen, a commitment that got Moonlight the attention it deserved.
Where’s the next set of brave, dedicated moviemakers to tell a (dreaded word) mainstream gay love story? It will require a passion that I’m not sure is out there. I enjoyed The Prom, Uncle Frank and Your Name Engraved Herein. But all three are still ultimately about gays knocking at the door to be let in. I want a story where gay love conquers all. The kind of love that brave, devoted Jack Twist died trying make happen, on his own terms.
I’d imagine the argument is that the central element of that movie is not the love story but the emotional journey of one person
Overall, the only “bad” winner was My Octopus Teacher (seriously? Did they even watch the competition?) but everything else was on the realm of possibility and deserving to bigger or lesser extent. I haven’t seen Day’s performance but McDormand had the more challenging role, compared to Davis, and Hopkins had the more challenging role, compared to Boseman. I’m all for rewarding excellence AND challenge rather than showing off dramatic chops (I’m looking at you, Joaquin Phoenix) in roles that allow the best performers in the world, to just run free and do whatever they please… talking about the last two years, just think of the roles played by Banderas, Bakalova, McDormand, Hopkins, with extremely narrow limitations of what they could and what they couldn’t do, with potential derrailling of the films they were if they hit the wrong note, acting-wise. I don’t mean that Davis, Phoenix or Boseman wouldn’t be great winners… but were they actually taking real challenges for actors as talented as they are, or were just taking roles that would allow them to increase their status with a relatively challenging, but safe, step in their careers. My picks for this year were Hopkins / Mulligan / Raci / Bakalova out of the nominees… but McDormand was my 2nd pick in Lead, Youn was my 2nd pick in Supporting Actress and Kaluuya was… my 5th pick (LOL).
If I were voting: Hopkins/Kirby/Kaluuya/Youn Yuh-jung
My predictions were: Hopkins/McDormand/Kaluuya/Youn Yuh-jung
Wow, you got both? Brilliant!
I would like somebody to explain to me why My Octopus Teacher is in any way a better movie than Collective. Maybe Oscar voters should just go buy an aquarium and get a pet octopus instead of once again besmirching this category.
“Hopkins beating Boseman and McDormand beating Davis (or Day) is a bad look for an institution that just sold you for a couple of hours on who they wanted to be. It is a Crash-like bummer that unfortunately erases the legacy of Hopkins, who delivered maybe his best performance in The Father, and it erases the legacy of McDormand who is largely responsible for the existence of Nomadland at all.”
But what do you believe? If you believe Hopkins gave maybe his best performance, perhaps he deserved the win – like many AMPAS members and film fans also believe. McDormand’s legacy is erased because Davis or Day didn’t win? I think it was simply vote-splitting in a highly competitive race. Davis & Day played singers from a bygone era and they both were very good.
SAG loves Viola, hence her win (and only win) there. Day won the Globes (SAG and BAFTA didn’t even bite), which put her on the map, but no other voting body even cared about the movie, itself.
McDormand is BELOVED by AMPAS and she was in the BP fave. I did not predict her. But in retrospect, her win makes more sense. And then there’s Mulligan, who likely took many votes from everyone based on pure merit; ditto Kirby. The category was a mess and someone amazing was going to win – and did.
I agree with you that the ceremony was not some disaster that I’ve read about here & there this morning. I loved the venue. I think a lot of the winners and speeches were great. I also agree that BP should have been the last category of the night. And why didn’t they show acting clips? That is literally my favorite aspect of watching the show every year. I hope they fix that next year.
Other musings:
-Nomadland was indeed very strong, even despite the losses in Screenplay and Cinematography.
-The Father was seen more & more throughout the season and people really responded to it. At one point, I thought it may upset for the win.
-Ecstatic for Youn. Love her and her speech. Kinda thought Minari had a shot elsewhere.
-So happy for Emerald Fennell and her brilliant, if somewhat divisive film.
-Happy for Sound of Metal and its 2 wins.
-Psyched that Mank won more than just Production Design.
-Stunned that The Trial of the Chicago 7 was blanked. I personally did not love that film, so its losses mean nothing to me. But I’m still surprised it didn’t get anything anywhere.
-Song was a HUGE disappointment for me. That Judas song was my 5th of 5 (preference and prediction). Reallllly thought Husavik would surprise over Speak Now and Seen. All three of those songs are FANTASTIC and any of them would be worthy. And then to hear that the Judas song won!? To me, that is Ex Machina-winning-Visual-Effects-level WTF.
-Odd that Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom won Costumes and Hair/Make-Up (undeserving, in my eyes), yet lost the 2 acting awards that actually would have been warranted (even though, I’m pleased with the Hopkins win). That movie had SUCH an odd season ……. started with a bang, dipped with Globes, soared at SAG, did well with CC, BAFTA didn’t bite, missed some key guild wins and Oscar noms, yet won 2 tech awards. I wonder if it really was in 9th place for BP.
On the whole, decent night. I liked plenty. Some things really irked, though. Soooo glad we’re moving on to the 2021 season.
And I will continue to look towards BAFTA to guide me in many tight categories. I don’t even think the Brit bloc has much to do with it, because there’s not a ton of them in the Academy. It is a “like” voting body en masse.
general consensus is that Hopkins’ probably his best performance in his whole career. I tend to agree. So hardly giving Hopkins an Oscar, being the legendary thespian he is, was “robbing” Boseman or anything anyone should be ashamed for. And hey, Boseman gave TWO Oscar-worthy performances this year, didn’t he? I would have not complained if he won, but honestly, the list of great names in Hollywood that were not even nominated… has way bigger names than Boseman, with all my respects.
I still give a slight edge to The Remains of the Day as Hopkins’ best performance. If (1) it hadn’t come right on the heels of Silence of the Lambs and (2) the Tom Hanks inexorable momentum hadn’t existed, I think Hopkins wins in 1993
Hopkins was superb in Remains of the Day. What a heartbreaking performance — so internal, and yet, it’s all in his eyes/face.
I’ve said this elsewhere, but I wouldn’t discount AT ALL the goodwill McDormand garnered initiating the project and hiring Zhao. McDormand has been pretty upfront that she doesn’t like the roles she gets offered and that producing was a way to regain control over her career, and that HAD to resonate with older actresses in the academy. And frankly younger actresses like Margot Robbie are already seeing the wisdom with this.
What’s going to be really amazing is the formidable black and asian talent we’re seeing rising up as the 60s/70s generation drifts away are ALREADY beginning to develop their projects from the gr0und up. The growth Shaka King has shown simply by hooking up with Ryan Coogler for instance. Michael B. Jordan has expressed a desire to produce his own movies and roles. Jordan Peele is already an auteur two films in. Some of last night was disappointing BUT the new blood and new talent just excites the hell out me.
The meteoric rise of Stephen Yeun should have been on my first post, and it’s amazing to see Bong’s ascendency. You can feel the LOVE he has for the medium in every appearance he makes. It’s the kind of thrill you get watching his idol Marty riffing on film history
[featured]
I might suggest another aspect in play beyond simple “goodwill.”
We all know that the actors branch represent a formidable voting block.
That support is made manifest whenever an actor ventures into directing and we see how likely they are to get a nomination, and even win the Oscar — as long as they don’t fumble the opportunity (and sometimes even if they do.)
Virtually no other branch “branches out” to take the reins as much as actors do. (Writers sometimes do too.)
So when the actors see this happen and watch their actor peers succeed, they’re (1) proud of their friend, and (2) thinking to themselves: “I can do that too!”
Actresses especially have been aggressively and impressively seeking ways to have greater control over their careers this way.
So it’s a lot goodwill, to be sure — and it’s also a lot of “You go girl!”
Just the story of McDormand blowing off Three Billboards campaigning in Toronto because she was so blown away by the Rider and wanted a meeting with Zhao made for great campaign material this year. Campaign “narrative” is just as important as what’s on screen, and very astute about the “you go girl” part of it.
Which confuses me all the more about the overall faceplant of Promising Young Woman. Fennell was a great narrative (and her television producing clearly shows she’s no slouch), and Mulligan is definitely a zero fucks given type. So what went wrong in the final kick for Mulligan? Was it really the Variety kerfuffle?
It’s a good question. To me, Mulligan felt like a classic Natalie Portman in Black Swan type of winner — someone pretty undeniable in an edgy, popular film.
Normally you get hints in the “anonymous ballot” articles that something isn’t sitting right with the voters, but I don’t recall seeing anything about her.
So many factors, and I don’t pretend to know or understand all of them.
One simple thing for sure. Despite all the great efforts to establish a more representative diversity, the AMPAS is still 66% male.
There are no men in the Academy who need to feel guilty that Fern shits in a bucket.
But the number of men in the Academy who has wielded his wealth, fame, power, or plain ol’ random opportunity to take advantage of a vulnerable woman is certainly not zero. It’s not 6000 either. So it’s some number between zero and 6000.
Those men might not have found the traps Cassandra set for sleazebags as amusing or as meaningful as most of us do.
Their discomfort might easily help explain why an unknown number of them didn’t vote for Mulligan’s avenging angel.
And that’s not something those male voters would be eager to tell Scott Feinberg either.
“Okay, so this is anonymous, right? Just between you and me, Scott, I didn’t like seeing Cassandra scare the piss out of would-be rapists. She was really mean to those rapists and wannabe rapists. Seems unfair, they way she went after them… Why are you staring at me aghast that way?”
McDormand can go the F away, she is all that’s wrong with the Oscafs.
McDormand’s legacy represents all that’s wrong with last night, and the Oscars as a whole.
I must say, I saw Hopkins’ win coming from miles away. The man gave a career best performance at the age of 84 that just blew the screen to pieces. He hadn’t been awarded since 1992, and I just knew that he’d win. Whilst we know full well that the best performance in the category often doesn’t win the Oscar, there are some performances that are just so technically amazing that they will almost certainly win. Hopkins’s was one. Could you imagine Meryl Streep not winning for Sophie’s Choice? That’s almost certainly the most extreme example of what I’m trying to illustrate here.
I liked the venue too – but not much else. 🙂
“It is a Crash-like bummer that unfortunately erases the legacy of Hopkins, who delivered maybe his best performance in The Father, and it erases the legacy of McDormand who is largely responsible for the existence of Nomadland at all.”
Wow, could not disagree more. How in the world does this erase Hopkins’ legacy, one of the all-time greats? And are we now to discard McDormand because she defeated someone that no one truly wanted to win (other than SAG voters)?
They voted for what they thought was best. Hopkins’ performance is objectively leagues above Boseman’s good work. Many felt that Davis was not at her career best, or even at Andra Day’s level, if we want to be crass about lumping them together.
Really surprised at this piece.
me too. It’s such a weird piece that doesn’t take into consideration what will happen in the future. which is that all this sentimental nonsense will be forgotten and what will stand the test of time is an actual great performance. And that’s Hopkins. No one will ever look back and go “Boseman should have won”.
“Boseman should have won” not even twitter is saying that. I see a lot of consensus regarding Hopkins and quite a lot of upset at Chadwick being shown last and after Sean Connery and Christopher Plummer in the In Memoriam segment.
yes it’s good if twitter is channeling their anger against the producers who came up/approved that award order change. Which would have been stupid if he won but even more so now. They never did this for anyone so why favorism now?
What doesn’t help Hopkins is that he wasn’t there. The no-show made the surprise worse than it needed to be.
he didn’t campaign and as a risk group he couldn’t travel so totally understandable IMO.
He couldn’t get a laptop open in his living room?
time zone difference? was asleeep? he’s 83.
They weren’t doing Zoom–they were quite firm on that point, and I was surprised they set up the hubs they had in certain cities, because originally it was a matter of “you don’t come to LA, screw you.”
Sasha being delusional. Hopkins “legacy erased” because of last night? What a joke. If anything, we won’t remember Chadwick in 20 years (with no disrespect but he isnt anywhere near the caliber of a Anthony Hopkins. The latter deserved to have won at the very least one other time, with The Remains of the Day). She needs to go take a walk in the park, its sunny, and we know it might not always be so.
Agree. Anthony Hopkins is going to go down as one of the greatest actors who has ever lived, and perhaps the best of his generation. By the way, if you haven’t seen him as C.S. Lewis in Shadowlands (1993) opposite Debra Winger, I highly recommend it. I am flabbergasted it was suggested that his legacy could be erased in any way, ever, least of all by a flavor of the moment sentiment that did not pan out. Quality, instead, won — imagine that in a ceremony where we are supposed to reward excellence in film. I was praying for Riz, but Hopkins’ artistry in undeniable.
No, I’m quite sure we’ll remember Chadwick–I suspect you don’t realize just how iconic Black Panther and his performance in it are, and how many people it’s resonated with. After all, we still remember James Dean and he only made 3 movies in his lifetime. I think Chadwick will go down in history in a similar way to Dean; a terrific actor with at least one performance for the ages who could have done so much more if he’d lived longer.
Black Panther was a stupid movie like half of Disney movies. Nobody will remember it.
Or, maybe, just maybe, Hopkins was better than Chadwick. This white privilege narrative of yours reeks of – ironically – racism.
Yep, Hopkins was better. Hopkins was getting GOAT raves while Boseman was still alive. And while Boseman was alive, no one was thinking that he would win. He was tipped for a nom but expectation was that Ma’s would be Davis’ play for the win. It’s after he died that prediction started to change to win and that Netflix insiders started to leak that he was the movie’s highlight not Davis. Not before.
This is all true. And I say this as a huge Boseman fan, and someone who was mightily moved by his work in Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom.
indeed, his character monologue over his experience as a child and the suffering he and his family had endured, sealed the nomination for me. it was amazing. but to be frank not anywhere near the masterpiece that was Hopkins. not anywhere near.
That’s generally not what Sasha is about though, so I trust her if she feels this way.
Hopkins was better than Chadwick.
Sasha are you freakin kidding me? Are you really playing the race card here? Oof.
Davis wasn’t the best in Actress and her movie stank. SAG-AFTRA has been a faulty predictor for quite some time cause they don’t overlap that well with AMPAS.
Day was in Top 2-3 but her movie blew and she was the sole nominee. Plus a singing performance won last year. Overkill much? same goes for Davis.
McDormand won in a Nomadland near sweep and her performance is more resonant to AMPAS than Mulligan’s #metoo avenger kind of.
Boseman wasn’t even the second best in his category and his movie stank too. Hopkins garnered ” will be a case study in acting”-level raves, not just the best of the year but in many years. Also, AMPAS loves illness roles. Their favorite alongside historical figures. Hopkins was also in a Picture nominee.
This year, Picture nomination mattered for all 4 winners came from Picture nominees. Point being, there’s an obvious explanation why people voted the way they voted. Nominated movies had the advantage and performances from them were deemed the best. Minorities in nominated movies won just like whites in nominated movies won. That’s all that is. No conspiracy.
Why so angry?
I’m not. I’m passionate ha ha. And very happy about the “upset”. Best actor won, virtue signaling (award order change) blew up in some faces, and meltdowns are delicious.
1. One major quibble. You said about Tyler Perry “a plea for unity – the kind Joe Biden should be making and never has”.
I respectfully refer you to this passage in Joe Biden’s Inaugural Address: “History, faith, and reason show the way, the way of unity. We can see each other not as adversaries but as neighbors. We can treat each other with dignity and respect. We can join forces, stop the shouting, and lower the temperature. For without unity, there is no peace, only bitterness and fury. No progress, only exhausting outrage. No nation, only a state of chaos. This is our historic moment of crisis and challenge, and unity is the path forward.”
I’m not really sure where you got this idea that Biden is exactly like the people on “left” whose actions vex you so. Give the man a chance, in my opinion he’s really trying to turn this ship around.
2. I don’t think what happened last night was a “revolt” about “woke” or race or diversity. It was a “revolt” against streaming services. I don’t find it all a coincidence that movies that ORIGINATED with studios hoovered up Oscar in the top five categories (BP/BD/Actor/Actress/Supporting/Screenplay). This is four years that Streaming Services have aggressively entered films and campaigned, and they have a grand total of three topline awards (Dern/Affleck/ Cuaron). Just because the pandemic shut down most theaters didn’t mean the studio’s came to love Netfllix et. al. I bet really smart people in the industry are going to start really looking into this.
On a side note, Biden should drop the not being allowed to diss the former president. he was a monster who’s still playing petty middle school games of insisting that he did more good.
agreed 100%
Whenever I see a Biden mention, it’s safe to say a section of the article will be indistinguishable from Tucker Carlson.
Public polling shows people are more than satisfied with how Biden is handling his job. Even Republican voters give him decent marks! It’s Republican *politicians* who are harping on this “lack of unity” BS. So Sasha is siding here with Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz.. good to know.
I’m not really saying she’s doing THAT, I more curious why she thinks Biden is even remotely like the people she regularly condemns. The fact that he ISN’T is why he’s President in my opinion.
Because “Biden is oppressing Real Americans with his radical wokeness” is a fundamental tenet of the conservative persecution complex. Why she feels the need to promote THAT is a larger meta question about the state of the site.
I’m just saying he has not achieved anything close to unity in this country, not with the people who did not vote for him. I don’t care what you think, Pete. I already know.
But why is the lack of unity his fault? If he says “I believe in unity, I want to govern with everyone in mind”, and conservatives respond with “Biden wants to outlaw Dr. Suess and hamburgers!”, what is he supposed to do?
That’s not a rhetorical question; I really don’t know the answer.
Twitter will rage and when the rage blows over, this award order change clusterfuck will be forgotten and Hopkins performance will strand the test of time. No one is going to look back and think that Boseman should have won for overacting in that amateurish stage play. No one. So the right man won and that’s how history will remember it.
Its isnt racism, its fatigue tt wear the voters down. This Oscar season drags on like forever!!
Had it been held one or even two weeks, n not THREE long weeks after SAG, Boseman n Davis might hav their chances. They missed that crucial window, not unlike Glenn Close two yrs ago.
On the other hand, the Bafta being the last major award show, captures the sweet spot juz before Oscar voting starts!
Suddenly voters realised they r not ‘obliged’ to vote for Boseman, as everyone thought tt he is probably gonna win anyway, n so they voted for their fav best performance which ended up tipping the scale to Hopkins.
In a confusing Best Actress race w no clear frontrunner, McDormand benefits tremendously fr being the face o the Best Pic frontrunner. That n the voters r eagerly wanting to elevate her to K Hepburn status.
They didn’t miss the window. SAG is overrated. People forget that most of SAG does not overlap with AMPAS, the AFTRA part certainly doesn’t. So if the ones who overlap voted overwhelmingly for X and not the Y that won SAG, you get an upset.
It was lousy and embarrassing television that Boseman lost. But I still can’t shake the opinion I formed right after watching “Ma Rainey” a few weeks ago: Boseman’s performance, in addition to being in a clear supporting role, simply wasn’t Oscar caliber.
It was embarrassing that he lost only because they tried to use his win as the “emotional cap-off”. There was absolutely no justification to change the order of the awards for him. How is he better or more deserving to be the highlight than Ledger who was even younger when he died, was already an Oscar nominee, and his final complete performance was in the most popular movie of the year? Or any living nominee last night for the matter? He wasn’t. It was just stupid attempt at pandering that went south.
And yes, if they didn’t drink the completely artificial “Bosemen is a legend and overdue and was Oscar caliber” cool aid, that Marvel started because they are trying to figure out how to deal with BP2, this shit wouldn’t happen. No one asked for change of awards order. No one.
The best man won. You can’t stop the Hop!
that’s the fault of the Oscar producers
Yep, 100% and they deserve to be dragged. It was the most ill-advised miscalculation.
The best actors won in their respective categories, in my opinion. By a big stretch. The summary of it all is that the Academy seemed to value the actual work, rather than narratives or politics., or nonsense ideas like “this person has won before”. That’s not what they get to vote, they get to vote the “best performance of the year”, regardless of previous history, and they seemed to understand that perfectly. I wouldn’t have minded Boseman winning, but to deny that Hopkins gives the best male lead performance of the year… I don’t think this erases his legacy at all. And he is not to blame for the strange decision the producers made. I am also really glad Nomadland won, and it made total sense to give it to McDormand as she IS the movie. Overall, they were mostly very well deserved wins, due to the high quality of the movies represented this year (except “Trial…”). The only one that didn’t feel right was the Documentary. It was a nice watch, but come on…
“or nonsense ideas like “this person has won before”. ”
That shit is Oscar predictor’s invention and it always smacked of wishful thinking rather than something that is actually proven.