One of the best scenes, and main points, in Jim Brooks’ unforgettable Broadcast News is when Aaron (Albert Brooks) says wryly out loud, “Let’s never forget, we are the story.” Broadcast News predicted what news would become only if we underestimated it. When I first started covering the Oscars there was no such thing as blogs. Opinion news had not yet overtaken actual news. I started my site to mimic an actual news site and I tried to make my own identity hidden and irrelevant. Most people didn’t even know I was female for many years. But when the blogs began to rise, injecting one’s personality became key to survival. Suddenly, anyone and everyone could be an expert. On anything.
When I first started, the only outlets that covered the Oscars seriously were Variety and the Hollywood Reporter. They did this as some sort of hybrid of PR and editorial. No other newspapers really covered the Oscar industry, even if they did offer year end Oscar predictions, like Premiere or Entertainment Weekly. Blogs like mine, specifically mine, launched coverage of the Oscars year round. Eventually the trades and newspapers would catch up, having their own year-round coverage and eventually getting their own Oscar bloggers. I remember being shocked when the New York Times got one — my dear and departed friend David Carr.
My objective, when I was just getting started, was to answer the question about why Citizen Kane did not win Best Picture. I thought if I could follow the race from start to finish I could understand the race. We debated what we called “sight unseen” predictions — that is, predicting movies and contenders before they were even seen by anyone. Some, like Anne Thompson, still refuse to predict anything they haven’t seen but it is an uphill battle, that. Turns out no one really cares, or at least values, that kind of integrity.
I spent a lot of time tracking the previous awards, like the critics and the industry. More and more groups sprung up to announce their nominees and winners. In my mind, which admittedly was immature and ignorant on a great many things, I believed then that the critics knew better than the Oscar voters. After all, back then the Oscars were mocked for their choices. Some film critics, like Manohla Dargis, used to disdain the Oscars, or at least not respect their choices. I believed that the closer the Oscars got to the critics, the closer they’d get to an institution that would have rewarded Citizen Kane.
I no longer believe this is true, partly because there aren’t really film critics anymore as such — there are dozens of them, even hundreds of them but they represent an aggregate. Sure, some still draw readers interested in what they have to say. There are plenty of new voices that speak from a different perspective other than “straight white male” and those are, no doubt, of value to people looking to see the awards race from an alternative POV. But as far as being tastemakers, they should not decide what the Academy should choose.
When the Academy pushed their date back by one month, from late March to late February, it pushed everything back by a month. So November became the new December and October the new November. Oscar season, then, was mostly a film festivals thing and not an audience thing, give or take a few Big Oscar Movies here or there. It is good to have the public involved. After all, movies are mostly made for them. It is good to have the critics involved, but Oscar nominees should not only represent that particular hive’s taste.
But things have changed yet again where blogging and journalism are concerned. While bloggers were once the outspoken ones, the ones willing to puncture the status quo and say what couldn’t be said, now they have become hamstrung and silenced out of fear. If, say, Scott Feinberg or Kyle Buchanan or even Anne Thompson ever dared speak out about the things all of us see going on in the industry and film — if they ever started to puncture the status quo the way bloggers used to do way back when, they’d be out of a job by the end of the day. If Next Best Picture’s Matt Neglia or Will Mavity stepped outside of the Twitter ideology for even a minute both would be viciously attacked and eventually put in the shunned pile. In 2021, your platform is your work and your identity. Most believe they must survive on Twitter because that is where their identity is defined. Many do very well there, as Twitter is a haven specifically for voices that could not find an audience otherwise.
No one in the real world cares all that much about their online platform but if you work in any kind of media, content or entertainment you have to. You are under the thumb of the hive mind. You have only one option: total compliance. “When they have you by the balls, your hearts and minds do follow.”
Not only is dissent not allowed in film coverage, it is not allowed in news at all. Even if the regular person out there doesn’t pay attention to Twitter, what they’re seeing around them is shaped by Twitter – CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post — all of it is under the thumb of the tiny minority of Twitter users who control 80% of the content. They are purists. They are strident and they will come for you if you slip up even once. Sure, you can offer the withering apology. That is always an option but in general, they will keep coming at you, scrutinizing your past for any offense and going in for the career kill.
Even the little bit of pushback I have been doing has essentially blackballed me from Film Twitter. David Poland has been likewise purged and shunned from Film Twitter for having slightly controversial views. Jeff Wells has been stripped of his Broadcast Film Critics membership and Gold Derby for posting an anonymous conversation that was deemed offensive. I have to wonder what David Carr would make of today. Would he pander to the hive mind out of fear? Would he be outspoken? Would he be fired?
Wells and Poland were among the few who helped launch Oscar blogging in the early days. It isn’t that they have stopped writing what they think. They still do. It’s just that Twitter pays little attention to them because what Twitter wants from them is something they can no longer give, and it’s something I can no longer give: total compliance. It’s just not happening for those of us from a different generation who remember what it was like to get noticed for being controversial.
What I personally think might be happening right now is that people are craving courage more than they are craving yet another person or movie or news story that parrots back the narrative and tells readers what they want to hear. I imagine this is why Ben Shapiro’s podcast remains consistently in the top 5 or 10 of podcasts at iTunes. That tells me he has a much broader audience than many would admit out loud. People are listening to him and there is no way only those on the Right are. Not with those numbers. I could be wrong but that is my forward looking point of view, which is why I hope that Oscar coverage can start being a little more daring, a little more truthful and a little more controversial.
I imagine the next evolution of blogger will be those who are unafraid of stepping outside the bubble and speaking to a wider group of readers, not just those who exist inside of it. Call it the Howard Beale hypothesis:
https://youtu.be/MRuS3dxKK9U
To that end, I also think that artists who can do what Network here did at the time, or producers or studios who are willing to start examining what is really going on right now will likely make a bigger mark than those who make movies that comport with the status quo. But to do that they have to stand up to Twitter. Can they? Who knows? I guess we’ll see if anyone has the courage.
How to Widen the Circle of Oscar Coverage
From the beginning of this year on down, it was obvious that some of us were forcing the narrative to be what we wanted it to be rather than what it might have organically been. We could do that this year because there was no market deciding success or failure. True, the Oscars exist outside the market requirements, but here there weren’t even publicity events to counter the chosen narrative. This year, it was decided early on, we would make change in an industry resistant to it. It almost worked. In the end, the voters still chose the lead actors they wanted to choose, no matter how many chips we put behind the actors of color we wanted to win.
But we who cover the race can adjust our methods a little bit. It was once suggested by Mark Harris that we not so overtly winnow down the choices in anticipation of what the Oscar voters MIGHT like. He might not have been talking about movies that reach or move or entertain the broader public. He might have been talking about more independent fare, or more inclusive fare. Either way, the concept is right. Our circle needs to be wider. We have to be able to consider movies that might not seem like “Oscar movies” out of the gate, or even on paper.
I feel partly responsible for shaping the Oscarwatching industry and now I feel it necessary to help shift things back to where they were before I started – as a more organic process of finding the best of the year. What defines best can’t just be what an insulated group of people thinks it is. We have to be aware of what movies are being made that don’t fit inside the box. That is going to mean expanding our ideas of what a Best Picture is. If theatrical is dead because the studios only make franchise movies now, then films released on streaming must be considered valid, especially if they reach a wider audience than any of the theatrical movies do.
If the Academy and the Oscars want to continue down the road they’re on they might have to give up being a network television show. And you know, that isn’t the worst idea either. The days of depending on ratings sort of run counter to the idea of finding the highest achievements of the year. After all, the Grammys and the MTV awards are about how popular the music is, not necessarily how good their awards broadcasts are. An Oscars that doesn’t have to depend on ratings can really do whatever it wants.
But if they do care about ratings, and they do want to be a television show then they must, and we must, widen our circle. I plan on starting immediately to do that. With ten nomination slots this year it should not be hard to find movies that draw from both the critics and the public. I am not going to pretend it will easy. Standing up to Twitter is nearly impossible but stand up to it we all must — corporations, institutions, media outlets, critics and yes, Oscar voters.
Based on how unenjoyable the Oscars were for everyone this year, maybe changing categories to only mains would be good. Animation is yearly won by Disney, what’s the point? Horror, comedy and especially, action. Then you top off with best picture among all, including drama. We get some Marvel, some romcoms, some splatter, we celebrate movies as they currently are. And acting awards and writing and cinematography. Inclusiveness might not hurt and catch more eyes.
Can someone clear up the voting process for the “10” as it was in the 2009/2010 seasons?
Is it that the 10 films with the most mentions on the ballots gets in? And on those ballots, voters can list up to 5 names, correct?
Whereas, the recent voting process was that only the films with #1’s equaling 5% of the vote would get nominated?
Nope, the Academy didn’t change the way they voted in 2009. No matter whether they choose 5,10, or a number between these two… they always vote preferentially. They will have their preferences ranked and number one votes will matter.
Honestly as saying goes ” you can change a lick or coat of paint to cover up the cracks ” but if you really want to strengthen the foundatiins the structure…you have to reinforce it a d fundamentally enhance it at its core foundations….i tell you all now wimdow dressing on issue of mediacoverage / presentation will zHARDLY at best marginally fix the major problems AMPAS have. I and most others take issue wiry misguided rationale ” things change ” so what ? Some here just put there hands up raise whiteflag acceptit is whatit is ? Well veryfact establishedcredible, talented experienced hollywood and external commentators wirh rewal sense of persoective with film industry( tabloid press not included) can sense know oscars once proud history even they (like the AD staff ..) can sense the foul stench jeopardising lack of quality in substsnce not just the wimdow dresssing lick of paimt presentation issues of the academy . NO ehy shouod we accept ‘ things chamge’ when should 50/50 target aim be AMPAS shoupd consider our viewswe film goers we breathe purpose into hollywood wirhoit us film industry is dead simple as that !!
So next year i reasonably and many others expect :
1. Simplify the pref ballot and build some consistency in it … make it mandatory that at the pref ballot stage 6/10 on the pref ballot reflect criteria a strictly if big screen big studio film experience, 3/ 10 NO MORE of sociological message driven films mix of both streaming and cinematic , and 1 best foreign language and best pic contender . AND advisory warning of 10 nominees in pref ballot for best pic “failure to comply with this criteria your ballot will not be accepted ” time for AMPAS president and board to give some tough love to their own voting membership to rebalance and readjust principles that reengage AMPAS to rediscovering and rejuvenating their core fundamentals that once made them great.
2. when top 100 pre early awards season narrowed to top 25 just on cusp of time rrame of lead in to launch if awards season a mandatory proportional shift in thinking needed urgently by genre and film type : as follows:
A) 10 / 25 nominees must be original screenplay and technical , visually very strong not just driven by sociopathic idealogy msging
B) 7/ 25 can be adapted historical / biopic mix drama
C) 8/ 25 must be of genre film both adapted and original concept of action thrillers, espionage, mystery, fantasy, science fiction, historical fiction . To bring an increase inincentive for filmmakers to rediscover true essence of ampas ambition cinematic innovation breakthroughs like AMPAS once did
In total of narrowed top 25 , in B) no MORE than 4/ 7 allowed be from streaming films in category, C) no more than 3/ 8 sourced from streaming services. FOR A) no more than 2 /10 from streaming services. For each category no more rhan a third each in A, B, C can be frim independent obscure film studios.. but this third does consider value still of some contribution by low budget obscure film studios …
In a nutshell everyoneMore discipline in restructuring film types by putting strict threshholds in place in last 2-3 voting stages ahesd of evrntual 10 min/ max best pic nominees restructuring in AMPAS NOT social engineering experimentation
You’re literally declaring that films with certain political content be made ineligible. Actual political censorship? Who gets to determine this blacklist of yours?Have you always been an authoritarian or is this a new phase?
You’re literally declaring that films with certain content be made ineligible. Fuck that. Have you always been a Nazi?
The Oscars are as valid as any other entertainment awards and probably more so, but none have the leverage they once held. Things just change. Once the Miss America pageant was huge and now it’s some obscure silly award that I think is still given out. People are less religious. Priorities change. Giving out awards to people who already have more than most people will ever have seems stupid or distasteful to some, with some jealousy or politics involved or they are simply of no interest. I’ve stopped mentioning them to people, especially younger people, as I’m tired of and slightly embarrassed by their reactions. When I was young I worshipped film and thought the Oscars were very, very important and could name every nominee, though the latter is long gone. I still love film and I’ve never missed an Oscar telecast since 1964 (when my picture tube blew out as they were giving out best actress). I first remember hearing the 1959 Oscars (Ben-Hur) on the radio in bed with my mother. They’ve always been a part of my life, but they don’t seem as significant even to me anymore. Green Book aside, I do appreciate that they refuse to honor films simply because they are popular. Most importantly, once upon a time many of the best films were also the most popular. Sadly, that is no longer true.
My objective, when I was just getting started, was to answer the question about why Citizen Kane did not win Best Picture
Kane’s Oscar result is one of the most widely-covered topics in the history of the Oscars, and maybe film itself. This is like starting a meteorology website to answer the question about why the sun sets in the west.
Let’s also not pretend that there is some major sea change in Oscar coverage over the last few years. The Oscars have always been inherently political and influenced by the social mores of the time, not to mention all of the public and behind-the-scenes campaigning that has gone into every Oscar ceremony for the last 90 years.
Just do everything Soderbergh and Company did at the ceremony in reverse. Have mainstream intelligent, critic & audience blockbusters vs. the best of the arthouse circuit. Have the stones to shy away from Niche-a-palooza every damn year of the last decade. People will return.
How do you propose to “re-educate” and dumb-down 9000 creative individuals to vote for all the dreck you like?
Lobotomies?
There have been blockbusters (The Martian, Fury Road, Gravity, Lincoln, Django) nominated in most years this decade. But there are years like this one (for obvious reasons) and 2011 and 2014 where the lack of them is pretty jarring. We’re not discussing nominating the Fast 9s of the world, but more movies like District 9, Creed, Straight Outta Compton, Inside Out, etc. This can happen if they return to the ten-nominee system.
If you have 10 BP nominees you must have 10 director nominees and they must be linked. No movies directing themselves. Otherwise, you poleaxe half the field and render their chances moot by the time the nomination announcement ends.
Best Picture and Best Director have split 5 times in the past 9 years.
So I guess you’re wrong again, spunky.
How is this not what happened in 2019? A lot of the nominees last year had strong box office numbers.
Yes i just don’t see audiences that interested in the Oscars or if they are, they can watch the highlights on social media or read the winners. A 3 and a half hour ceremony is too much for the average punter. For the diehards like most of us, it is still essential viewing, but audiences have dwindled for all these types of programs; indeed ratings on free to air television are down. People get their news and entertainment from so many different platforms, and the Oscars simply aren’t as appealing as they perhaps were before social media.
They all love Fleabag though.
Hey fickhead, we get it, you’re down with fleagag. But this is a movie forum and you are consistently off topic. So you get relegated to permanent disqus timeout where you can engage in verbal masturbation about PWG until the cows come home.
You bore me. Bye.
More comments about Fleabag, please!
Phoebe Waller-Bridge and Emerald Fennell are both phenomenal and we’re lucky whenever their phenomenal abundance of talent spills off 70-inch screens and onto 70-foot screens.
Can someone clarify if the expansion of Best Picture to 10 films will be the same nomination process as last time?
I think the nomination process is virtually the same with a solid 10 nominees, Sato.
The only difference is: for the past few years the accountants have set an arbitrary threshold in their math formula. That threshold will be removed from now on.
The cutoff percentage was always an artificial number that they pulled directly out of their butts.
Beginning next year the ballot counters don’t get to slam the door shut. The top 10 movies get in, no matter if the 9th and 10th movies have relatively small but passionate voter support.
But for clarity, will the voters list 5 or 10 films when they vote?
Unclear.
If I made the rules, I’d have 10 blank slots on the ballot and voters could fill out as many as they want.
Smart, curious, well-informed voters would have no trouble filling up all 10 slots and have more of their choices in play. As they should be.
Dim, lazy, ill-informed voters would run out of titles at 4 or 5 or 6 choices and their ballots would be weaker. As they should be.
One vote up, but three thumbs up for this comment, Ryan. 🙂
The solution is bring back a great Host, somebody who can reference movie history with ease & someone who’ll help a global audience catch up on the modern classics of today. Someone great like Martin Short or Bette midler would do wonders bringing audiences back to a show that used to be a guaranteed joy to watch. Not long ago the Oscar telecast was considered the best of all the awards shows. The academy of arts and sciences needs a television program reinvention!!!!
You are likely right about the show needing a host if it is to run 3 hours. The continuity and gags are required if you want an entertaining ceremony.
However, I doubt that a host over age 65 is going to do much to bring viewers back to the show. They might be legends and have talent and charisma to spare but they only appeal to a small portion of the audience these days. Yet, as we saw with the random choice of Franco and Hathaway, you also can’t just get a young host and cross your fingers that the show will work, or that the audience will stayed tuned.
So how do you get an allegedly insulated group of 9000 people to forego whomever they like and vote for who you want in order to “save the Oscars”?
The idea that Twitterverse (or even a group of 9000 Oscar voters) are a monolith with ONE mind is as stupid as saying you yourself don’t have a mind of your own and your votes are foolishly influenced by what Ben Shapiro says about foreigners, racial diversity, America-first, and some apparently courageous anti-Twitter right-wing ideology or other. One man’s courage to speak his mind is another man’s total BS. Don’t assume your own choices are special and courageous and everyone else’s are conformist nonsense laced with toxic Twitter group-think woke poison. Also, people should stop assuming that the Oscars have been churning out great nominees and winners in the pre-Twitter, even pre-Weinstein era.
The only way to “save the Oscars”, since ratings are so important, is to produce an entertaining show that people want to watch, not some sleep inducing bore-fest that has no chance in hell of saving itself even if Avatar were nominated this year. Better yet, bring Bill Condon back to produce the show. TV viewership is down overall year-on-year and fewer and fewer people are interested to watch network television, that’s not going to change. You’ve got to factor in online streams, views of YouTube cutdowns etc. to get a good measurement of Oscar interest. This year, even clips / cutdowns from the show are worthless to watch or rewatch on YT or share on Twitter. That’s how bad the show is, and I am one of the interested ones.
Other than that, if you want a different set of nominees, change the rules of the game and get a different set of voters, maybe one that includes a very special, courageous and non-conformist you.
IMO, the real problem with Oscar coverage are narratives. media creates them and then everyone invested in the Oscar race starts to believe them. They do not represent how AMPAS thinks. Every year we get some media-created narrative for why X should/will win and every year there’s a surprise. It didn’t work with Close, it didn’t work with Boseman. In both cases, narrative was created around ho-hum performances in ho-hum movies while competition was much stronger than narrative-blinded influence-pushers wanted to admit. In the end, AMPAS voted for who they thought was better and shock of shocks it was actors who were better and in better movies.
Tl;dr version: coverage should stop telling AMPAS how to vote for they don’t care and stop believing in their own preaching about who should win. media/pundits/stans are not voters. End of.
““If, say, Scott Feinberg or Kyle Buchanan or even Anne Thompson ever dared speak out about the things that all of us see going on [every day] ** — if they ever started to puncture the status quo the way bloggers used to do way back when — they’d be out of a job by the end of the day.”
This is an assumption that they share Sasha’s feelings but are afraid to go public with it which is likely incorrect. If there’s fear-based coverage, that’s likely just a small %. Majority is supportive and that’s why the coverage is the way it is.
ERRR.. EVERYONE IT DAMN WELL TIME (BY ABOUT 13 YEARS since the ratbag compromised integrity of the pref ballot) FOR ampas to rethink EVERYTHING how it run..the films that are nominated..and the erratic alarming disgraceful inconsistency between the awards precursors..time for Globes to expand their picture category nominees to have more film related nominees time for ALL AWARD SHOWS to do PROPER diversity not just along racial and cultural lines..but to reienergize the traditional big screen voter film base to coesxist with the progressive pro- moderate activist socialites within atm..AMPAS and awards season as a whole is in dire need of a new oxygen supply..call the nurse! and..pray it not the Joker in disguise:P https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ac7b83e50686d32ce87ceed7be2d878b163a3db41430d70e032bce21cf8abe00.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/91613d3a46ba2c02dcdf7cf82ea0b3e2f0984a993bc1eb1292707df4bfcb030d.jpg
heh…you know what? fitting that images from the Dark Knight i choose its ghost has haunted AMPAS for over a decade now..and now literally AMPAS is becoming a miserable joke for us..AMPAS ‘Introduced a little anarchy’ and is behaving to us ‘like a dog chasing cars..i wouldn’t know what to do with it..” aint that the truth AMPAS EY? :
)
When I dared to question something you wrote on Twitter, you blocked me. You’ve blocked a GREAT many people. So, it’s hard for me to feel a lot of sympathy here for your cries that we must “stand up.” Practice what you preach, then I might believe you.
Me too. I disagreed with her on Twitter last year and got blocked. A polite, factual disagreement — no name calling or insults. I guess we all have our bubbles we need to retreat to..
Sasha you are right about part of the problem being how the Oscars are covered and how the movies are written about . Back 1n 2014 when Harvey Weinstein dumped The Immigrant on one Los Angeles screen for about three weeks in the middle of May I knew something was wrong The film had gotten very good reviews and at the end of the year Marion Cotillard was winning awards for her performance and the movie’s cinematography was being honored and What did Harvey Weinstein do ? Nothing ! He didn’t rerelease the film . He didn’t take out For Your Consideration ads in The Trades or in the L.A or New York Times . Something similar happened to Snowpiercer, I guess for the same reason , that neither James Gray or Bong Joon-ho Would bend the knee or Kiss the ring of Pope Harvey the First .When i tried to get someone at Variety and The Hollywood Reporter or The LA. and New York Times to cover this story all that I heard was the Sound of Crickets . I realize that 2020 was a very unusual year but three of my favorite movies The British horror film Saint Maud , The American romantic comedy Straight Up and the Australian film The True Story of The Kelly Gang were never part of the conversation . What happened ?
“…and What did Harvey Weinstein do ? Nothing ! He didn’t rerelease the film . He didn’t take out For Your Consideration ads in The Trades or in the L.A or New York Times . Something similar happened to Snowpiercer, I guess for the same reason…”
It was a pattern
A Single Man. Weinstein got the distribution rights and then buried it.
Fruitvale Station. Weinstein got the distribution rights and then buried it.
The Road. Weinstein got the distribution rights and then buried it.
The Master. Weinstein got the distribution rights and then buried it.
Carol. Weinstein got the distribution rights and then buried it.
Most of those years, Weinstein had other contenders that he chose to push instead. Almost like he was buying up the competition to kill the competition.
Weinstein bought up the Monopoly Board so he could manipulate the Oscar conversation. I hope he has to spend an additional 5000 years in hell for that.
A Single Man. Weinstein got the distribution rights and then buried it.
(Best Actor nomination)
Fruitvale Station. Weinstein got the distribution rights and then buried it.
The Road. Weinstein got the distribution rights and then buried it.
The Master. Weinstein got the distribution rights and then buried it.
(Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor and Actress nominations)
Carol. Weinstein got the distribution rights and then buried it.
(Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress noms, plus 4 more)
Not exactly burying it.
Believe it or not, movies and filmmakers do get nominations without Weinstein lifting a finger to help.
Those three movies that you itemize to play gotcha! with me? They are 3 of the most highly acclaimed movies of the 21st century.
They should all have had Best Picture and Best Director nominations.
They would all 3 have recieved Best Picture nominations if Weinstein gave any of them a fraction of the attention that he gave Chocolat.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/65cdeb17785ce79dc28f260af4301cf5d8bba4b4a9de1484c97b7f1f4e5dc7f1.gif
Apparently that is what happened this year with Netflix in documentary from what I understand. Netflix was said to be more interested in ‘Crip Camp’ because of the Obamas and ‘Dick Johnson Is Dead’. ‘My Octopus Teacher’ also from Netflix came through without a push. People saw it and loved it. Very organic.
Right again Ryan !
Fruitvale comes out last year we’re talking Oscar winners Coogler and Jordan
I remember Carol being abandoned at the very beginning of the race. As a consequence, no BP nomination, when, if you ask me, was better that most of the contenders. Those six noms came from real, enthusiastic voters’ love. In spite of, and not thanks to, Weinstein’s work.
Did you actually see Carol? That film wouldn’t have come to life even if you would have zapped it with 2000 volts.
Yeah, sure. Not like Il postino, The reader or Chocolat, isn’t it ?
Whatever…
Heh-heh. How embarrassing for you, Chase. 🙂
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d46075982be6ea2a64f8ec75e493ae3ca3e56c7e052c0ede0ca15d414d71dcac.jpg
Yes, and The Irishman was the second best reviewed film of 2019. How’s that aged?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5c9f784d6374f270d712e463b01cde58857544ca7ec27d4e47f8f9765b9f3d25.gif
It’s aged just fine as far as I’m concerned.
What? You think Scorsese’s value declined when Joker got more trophies?
I guess it’s refreshing to see someone around here who believes an Oscar means more than anything else in the world.
When they start ridiculing your film and have the whole community laughing AT it during the ceremony that was supposed to honor it, it’s a pretty good indication it’s not exactly going to be held in high esteem for years to come.
Yes yes, what a brilliant idea to turn the Oscars into a fucking roast.
Excellent way to restore the respect of TeeVee audiences.
That’s why it was sheer genius to pay snotty-ass little gnome Ricky Gervais millions of dollars to smear his insulting poop all over Hollywood for 3 or 4 years,
—because his shit-slinging sure did entertain the lowbrows on YouTube, didn’t it?
And now that he’s millions of dollars richer, look at the shambles of disdain and mockery and derision he left behind.
Har-dee-har-har, what fun the bitter podunk killjoys had, watching that jackass ridicule the inspiring art form that true movielovers have spent our entire lives admiring.
Don’t just limit it to Ricky Gervais, as the film became a punching bag for late night hosts, Bill Maher, et al too. Let’s face it, critics were caught with their pants down on The Irishman.
You’re right.
Fuck Bill Maher with Ricky Gervais’s wee squirmy dick.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5b1abc5852af486c981ee28fb4d9493d5bd180192c13f49c9196e7d165dd8cef.gif
I recently rewatched both The Irishman and Goodfellas and I don’t see a substantial difference in quality. As I recall Irishman was #2 in the reader’s poll on this site, after Parasite.
If you think GoodFellas and The Irishman are on a par with each other all I can say is bless your heart.
Well, now that I’ve heard that the great Bill Maher disagrees with me I’d better drop my opinion and replace it with his.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/60265302b2d7946d79174c4aafe4f526e533781f768eff5745cf82047fe98f1c.gif
So critics aren’t in any way a relevant metric for measuring response to a film but the amount of jokes that late-night and awards show hosts make about a movie they might not have even seen is a really good metric of the value of a film?
No, but when critics pre-fellate a film before it has even been seen and then won’t admit they were wrong when it turns out to be a moribund slog, they’re not much better.
Or alternatively, people watch a movie with an open mind and just happen to have a reaction that’s different from yours
“pre-fellate” is a new word for me.
To see a movie early can be described as pre-viewing it. But to like it, is simply to like it, whether you happened to get to it first or not. Fellaters gonna fellate.
Oops.
Sight & Sound Poll: Top 12 Films of 2015
1. The Assassin — Hou Hsiao-Hsien
2. Carol — Todd Haynes
3. Mad Max: Fury Road — George Miller
4. Arabian Nights — Miguel Gomes
5. Cemetery of Splendor — Apichatpong Weerasethakul
6. No Home Movie — Chantal Akerman
7. 45 Years — Andrew Haigh
8. Son of Saul — László Nemes
8. Amy — Asif Kapadia
8. Inherent Vice — Paul Thomas Anderson
8. Anomalisa — Charlie Kaufman & Duke Johnson
8. It Follows — David Robert Mitchell
Sight and Sound??? You’re actually quoting those navel-gazers who said Vertigo was better than Citizen Kane??
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4bd01770b73526a23ff6ca412fab9d7d5adebf9c345c2555231213b158c17924.gif
All I can say is that we’re very lucky to have you here as the world’s foremost authority on What Makes Chase Happy.
It’s true that hundreds of the most esteemed film critics on Earth seem to have no clue What Makes Chase Happy.
The cool thing about this site is the way your opinions can stand alongside the opinions of Sight & Sound.
Just like everyone else’s opinion here.
I hope the directors of the movies you like best are as grateful for your praise as they would be to see their work honored by S&S.
We’ve known you a long time, Chase, but I never realized until tonight that your opinion means so much more than mine or anyone else’s.
I just wouldn’t hold critical opinion as the benchmark of what makes a great film.
Then you’ll understand if I don’t hold your opinion as the benchmark either.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/91062d3f51b00578ebe3d6e8c3add43ff087a4771e89c6ef86b6d87b7ccfcf8b.gif
Yes, I now regret suggesting that Harvey fucking Weinstein is perhaps not the infallible prince of Hollywood that he once claimed to be.
It’s good that he has you here to stick up for his integrity.
Ryan I loved what you said . I could not have said it any better .Look what he did with Shakespeare in Love . I loved that movie and was glad it won over Saving Private Ryan Which I thought was a great film for the first twenty five minutes which then turned into a longer version of Combat . And let’s not forget what happened in 2008 . I remember when The Dark Knight was nominated for the DGA ,the PGA , and the WGA awards . I thought when you get that Trifecta you have those Oscar nominations in the bag . And then what happened Harvey happened and he did his best to convince people that The Reader was a much better and more important film than a movie about a guy who walks around in a Bat suit . When Harvey was behind your film you were The Toast of the Town and when he didn’t like you Your movie rode The Midnight Meat Train to Oblivion .
Small dissent, there were more than a few people who didn’t care for the third act of Dark Knight. If SPR can fall short because your correct assessment of the script, so can Batman. People were too busy grieving over Ledger to say out loud the film still had issues. Boseman on the other hand lost his Oscar largely because people were still objective about his film.
I will never stop saying that the picture who was really robbed of a Best Picture nod that year was Wall E
I will never forgive the Academy for The Master. Never! Joaquin should have won his first Oscar for that gigantic performance.
Agree. Best performance of the XXI in my opinion.
Firth could have won for A Single Man if only it was given a proper campaign by Weinstein. Hell, Moore could have been nominated and won in Supporting! I remember she has gotten strong reviews and raves coming in to Globes. Weinstein even got in the way in its poster design, wanting it to look like a romantic comedy hence that shot of Firth and Moore on the floor.
This conservative shift to me is just a self-doubting, blame-othering fear of selling out your own integrity. If you write thoughtfully, you attract a thoughtful readership and discourse. If you pander to clickbait, you’ll predictably feel that double edge. Reactionaries fear reactionaries. Just speak true, keep an open mind, and don’t stereotype nor box the other or you’ll stumble down a self-fulfilling prophecy. More diverse picture selections will also be more international, not just genre and populist. This is a very American-centric blog, which views global experience through the American political/cultural vibe, which makes it a narrow part of the problem.
The only winning move is not to play.
It’s interesting that you brought up Ben Shapiro, because he’s a great example of the problem. People don’t listen to him because his political commentary is intelligent and insightful. It isn’t. It’s petty, intellectually lazy, and occasionally bigoted. People listen to him because he attacks and insults people whom they don’t like. Making bad arguments actually helps him, because when he gets attacked, whether the attacks are fair or unfair, he gets more support and adulation from people who don’t like the attackers. This is all great fun for everyone involved, but nothing meaningful is actually being said, because it’s not about saying meaningful things, it’s just about which clique people like more.
If you make countering the Twitter/woke narrative the purpose of the site, the site is not about movies. It’s about Twitter/woke culture, which means you’re contributing to an environment in which Twitter and woke culture are what the awards races are about, instead of being about the movies. You’ll get praise from people who also dislike the people you dislike, but so what? That’s not about anything meaningful, it’s just about which clique people like more.
If you think Little Women sucked, or that Hillbilly Elegy was good, write about why. Writing things like “Little Women sucked, and the people who say they liked it are lying to conform to the Twitter narrative” is insulting to your readers, and to sincere critics and awards voters. You can talk about why you thought Mank was better than Nomadland, or why you thought Hopkins was better than Boseman, without preemptively making all disagreement about which side of the Twitter wars you’re on.
Making the site about countering the enemy narrative will color how the site talks about everything else, which means a lot less talk about the art of cinema. No thank you. Culture wars are petty, art is not. The best way to resist conformist bullshit is to focus on what actually matters.
I’m not really going to get into arguing about the whole “no one dares to speak their actual mind” thing but I agree about people pushing too limited a collection of movies for voters to watch because they think that voters will like those movies and this simply becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe the best way to break out of that is to see as much as possible. So let’s throw out 2021 movies that we think people should see so that this expansion of the films in consideration isn’t limited to just one or two movies. I’ll start:
Days: a film that is better than anything released in the US in 2020, a stunning and gentle work of observation and empathy by one of the finest filmmakers working these days. Consider in every category imaginable
Labyrinth of Cinema: a truly original filmmaker making the closing film of his career, a contemplation on the effect of cinema in changing the world. Consider in every category imaginable
Red Post on Escher Street: one of the more joyful films of recent years, a chaotic love letter to cinema, the people who make it and the social meaning it can have. Consider in every category imaginable
The Woman Who Ran: another Hong Sang-soo centered around a few conversations but in details one can see the genuine brilliance of this film. It is beautifully observed, intelligent and profoundly moving. Consider in every category imaginable.
This Is Not a Burial, It’s a Resurection: a film that I mostly remember in the most striking images. It’s overall a very effective and beautiful film overall but I’d underline especially the film’s cinematography
The Disciple: a very gentle and quiet film that truly takes its time to dig under your skin but once it does, it’s very effective. Especially Aditya Modak’s astonishing lead performance deserves attention
Undine: I was not necessarily as amazed by this film as some others were but at least Paula Beer and Franz Rogowski deserve serious consideration for their work.
This Is Not a Burial was such a great film. I feel like it was super close of making the top 15.
I’ll throw one out that probably isn’t available to much of the world outside Australia and NZ yet and wouldn’t have been eligible at the 2021 Oscars but once it is everyone should check out Rurangi. Its a really beautiful NZ story about a gay trans man coming back to the rural community where he grew up. It is the sort of raw, authentic, local yet understated movie that would never get noticed in the Oscar race but that should be seen by so many people. I’m often very critical of movies that we (NZ) make because we tend to hold ourselves to a standard of “pretty good for a kiwi film” but this was genuinely one of the best films of the past year I saw from anywhere and if it does get an international release people should really check it out.
Rurangi sounds great, Alex! Thank you for the recommendation.
A quick google tells us that Rurangi as a feature film was edited down from a series? Can that be right? And looks like Hulu has picked up the rights to broadcast the series version of Rurangi.
I actually didn’t know about that, I have just seen the film when it was playing in theatres here but it looks like you are right. I hope the series is as good as the film (I do worry it could be that they edited the fat out of it and vastly improved it in making it a film but hopefully I’m wrong about that).
Paula Beer gets the best performance of 2020 for me. What an amazing woman!
Taking note of Escher street and This is not a burial… didn’t know any of them.
Agree with Days being a quintesential masterpiece, I’ve never seen anything like that.
I’d like to add Abou Leila and Tlamess. Two Maghrebian films that surprised me last year because of their use, understanding and role of the nature in their story-telling art, à la Apitchapong Weerasethakul. The first is The heart of darkness taken to the Sahara and the second one is a remarkable sensorial experience
What if it isn’t that big of a problem?
What if they just go back to a traditional ceremony and just continue to do what they do, which is choose their favourites, year in year out?
The demise of the Oscars has been greatest exaggerated.
Wells speculated that the shootings of the Asian masseuses in Atlanta would benefit the Nomadland campaign, you know, because Chloe Zhao is Asian. I’m not even remotely surprised he got in trouble with that group. However, he did pull the post down and in my opinion was deserving of a hearing with the organization to clear the air and ideally come up with a resolution amenable to everyone. And I told him that on his blog, and you can check this if you don’t believe me.
Zhao was winning that Directing Oscar the instant everyone saw the film because of WHAT WAS ON THE SCREEN, her ethnicity/origin/gender did not factor into her win nearly to the level some people insist that it did. She was the director who made the huge critical splash with the Rider and then parlayed that into a Marvel film. She wasn’t the “check the boxes” minority.
And I will say this until I’m blue in the face, if the purpose of the Oscars is to get high ratings for the broadcast instead of awarding year end accolades as objectively as possible for the BEST in movies, then the award ceases to have meaning. Why do we want that? Why should we lower standards in order to placate people who won’t be convinced to tune in even if we renamed the awards The Eastwoods and specifically banned black people from competing.
“That is going to mean expanding our ideas of what a Best Picture is.” – Again, if this means judging the quality of a film based on its box office, then the prestige of the award is gone. Look at it like this:
The Velvet Underground’s “Loaded” when released in 1970 barely sold 20,000 copies and has taken 51 years to sell 250,000. Vanilla Ice’s “To the Extreme” when released in 1991 sold 8 MILLION copies. By the “popular market” metric you seem to want this to become, Vanilla Ice made the higher quality album. Show of hands, anyone in the real world think this is the case?
A “Best Picture” is a film that was considered better than 4-9 other films competing against it THAT YEAR. And a lot of other things have to break the right way. A lot of CLASSIC films missed Best Picture, and that’s ok, that’s why we revisit and reassess. That’s why a film’s reputation moves from controversial to all time classic. Sort of the way Last Temptation of Christ went from being so radioactive Blockbuster refused to rent it to arguably in the top 5 of Marty’s entire filmography.
This was a weird year because large studio films stupidly panicked and pulled off of the 2020 eligibility window. The studios had the means to publicize and place those movies into the public sphere even if they had to stream, and they chose not to. Again, NOT THE FAULT of the films that stuck it out and competed. We need to stop apologizing that the winners won, that belittles their work. Praise the winners, and hope next year we get even MORE exciting films, especially since the field will be larger.
Next year will be overloaded with competing films and boy howdy will there be a ton of snubs simply because you only have five spots per individual category. What I’m not looking forward to is the return of the over the top dirty campaigning that has marred the last few Oscar cycles but oddly enough not this year (even the “Zhao won’t condemn Amazon” attempt was half hearted). You used to despise dirty campaigning, so be glad that wasn’t the case this year.
Casting a wider net for Oscar contenders is good. I beg you not to do the reverse of what you accused Oscar of this year and deliberately snub smaller or more offbeat films because Ben Shapiro doesn’t understand them. That’s as much of a bubble as what you currently decry.
Either, here’s hoping for better times and better feelings all around.
“Why should we lower standards in order to placate people who won’t be
convinced to tune in even if we renamed the awards The Eastwoods and
specifically banned black people from competing.”
Trying to chase bigoted folks who have left the Oscars is like a dog trying to chase a car on a freeway. The Oscars should stick to their guns and hope for the best.
By the way, you’re right about Network, it’s a much more conservative or traditionalist film than people realize or remember, but Chayefsky’s nostalgia for days of yore in that script was at times comically naïve. Punching down on the counter culture obscured lots of other reasons people might have been pissed off at everything and anyone in 1976.