Okri wrote
I don't think having middlebrow taste and the idea of entrenched racism is mutually exclusive. Especially since middlebrow taste often means films centered on cis/straight/white/male. And while there are definitely years where the idea of "OscarSoWhite" is a reasonable, if unfortunate, reflection of the cinematic gestalt, this year was emphatically not an example of that. Not that I think it's willfully racist.
This is perfectly stated.
Mark Harris wrote this about the nominees this morning: "Three of the four most-nominated movies—The Irishman, Joker, and Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood—are stories about white men who feel culturally imperiled. The fourth, 1917, is about white men who are literally imperiled."
I'll take it one step farther. Most of the movies nominated for Best Picture this year aren't just white. They're about whiteness, or white-specific anxieties. Parasite, which may be a South Korean film but it is about the topic du jeur in the cultural zeitgeist: class disparity, which is universal. It's telling that it's already being turned into a limited series Adam McKay. Those offers did not come in from Roma.
It's just a very striking shift from last year when we had BlacKkKlansman, Black Panther, Bohemian Rhapsody, The Favourite, and Roma.
I don't think having middlebrow taste and the idea of entrenched racism is mutually exclusive. Especially since middlebrow taste often means films centered on cis/straight/white/male. And while there are definitely years where the idea of "OscarSoWhite" is a reasonable, if unfortunate, reflection of the cinematic gestalt, this year was emphatically not an example of that. Not that I think it's willfully racist.
Mister Tee wrote:I'm not quite sure what Magilla means by agreeing with all nine -- are they literally your nine favorites on the year?
Yes. In order: 1917; The Irishman; Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood; Parasite; Joker; Marriage Story; Little Women; Jojo Rabbit and Ford v Ferrari. The Two Popes was my tenth.
Mister Tee wrote:To the actors, where, yes, the Internet is predictably complaining. Cynthia Erivo's nomination is being excoriated for 1) being the only one for a black performer (justifiable) and 2) being the wrong kind of nomination -- "She plays a slave!" For a start, I think characterizing Harriet Tubman as a slave is reductive of her legacy -- and then, when I see many of the same people say "They'll only nominate Lupita when she plays a slave", I sense people looking for glib argument rather than trying to analyze or understand. I feel like I spend too much time on this subject, and I don't want to come off like an old white crank, but I'll just say this: plenty of white people have been nominated for playing just the sort of bland historical character Erivo plays (Bryan Cranston just recently), while white people have been omitted for playing roles analogous to Nyong'o's (Toni Collette just last year). So, I'm inclined to chalk it up to predictable middlebrow Academy taste, rather than a demonstration of deep racism. (Which is taken for granted as the explanation over at AwardsWorthy.)
Ridiculous and discussed to death. I love Lupita. I predicted after 12 Years a Slave that she would be the new Audrey Hepburn. That didn't happen, at least not yet, but like Audrey, she's beautiful, stylish and can play just about any role. Had she played the wife in Marriage Story instead of Scarlett Johansson and not been nominated, I'd be the first to cry foul, but for a fair to middling horror film, no. As for Awkwafina, I found her performance in The Farewell to be undernourished. I need to see her in something with a little more bite to it before I jump on her bandwagon.
Mister Tee wrote:Does someone want to explain the Joker costume nomination?
I have no idea, but for some reason I laughed out loud at that one.
If Joker prevails it will be one of the worst winners ever. I'd like to think that Academy members won't make such a mistake but after Green Book I learned to never underestimate their stupidity (and bland taste).
Greg wrote
You mentioned Driving Miss Daisy as the last film to win Best Picture without a DGA nomination. The big difference is that Bruce Beresford also failed to get an Oscar nomination for Best Director. Todd Philips is nominated for Best Director.
That's a good point. I still think it's probably an uphill battle but I definitely think it's one of the six that can win.
Mister Tee wrote:One thing the preponderance of multi-nominated films does for me: apart from Kathy Bates, I have to go to the bottom-feeding categories like sound editing and visual effects before I hit a nominee I haven't seen. It'll be an easy catch-up season for me. (Good thing, since it's under four weeks.)
With 4 films grabbing 41 nominations, I thought at first this was one of the years with the fewest nominated films.
MLRG stated this in a different thread: "Since 1938, excluding shorts, documentaries and foreign, the year with the least nominated films is 1981 (Chariots of Fire) with 21 films."
I tried to count them and I think we have 31 nominated feature films (again, excluding shorts, documentaries and foreign films that didn't get nominations outside International Film). I guess the expansion of many categories prevented this year from being one with even fewer nominated films.
"If you place an object in a museum, does that make this object a piece of art?" - The Square (2017)
Geek that I am, I got up to watch the nominations, then went back to bed, but am still a bit groggy...so, it's taken me a while to get around to commenting.
So, I was correct that the year was liable to yield nine best picture candidates, and (I believe) anonymous1980 and I were the only ones to nail the nine precisely. I'm not quite sure what Magilla means by agreeing with all nine -- are they literally your nine favorites on the year? For me, I can say it's the first time since the expansion that I've been at least favorable toward all nine. Forget about bad years like 2018, where barely-tolerable efforts made the list; even in years I generally admired, like 2013 or 2017, there's always been a Philomena or Darkest Hour to stink the roster. This year, there are two films I think are pretty fabulous (The Irishman and Little Women); three I think are not quite A-plus but easily in best-picture-consideration territory (Parasite, Marriage Story, Once Upon a Time...); two I have issues with but definitely think of as singular achievements (1917 and Joker); and two (Jojo Rabbit, Ford v. Ferrari) that, while they're not particular favorites, are films to which I have no violent objection, and, as long as neither wins, I have no problem with them being along for the people who support them.
Best director essentially came down to "who's number five?", and it turned it was not a directors' branch surprise (a la PTA or Abrahamson), nor a DGA repeat, but a BAFTA echo. I don't love the choice of Phillips, but I have to acknowledge Joker was a distinctive achievement, so I can't hate it. The GMA folk were trying to stir up "it's all guys/where's Greta?" sentiment but, while I'd love to have seen Gerwig make the list, her film got six nominations, including best picture and her two prime actors, so I don't see much cause for complaint. (If Little Women had done similarly at the Globes/SAG, I don't think there would have been half the brouhaha.)
On an overall point: I think the ludicrously tight deadline this year, along with the need for up-to-ten nominees, made voters focus even more narrowly on the films in the best picture race, which probably disadvantaged some smaller efforts, and contributed to the outlandishly high nomination totals for the for top contenders. To answer Sabin's question, I can't recall a year where four films got double-digit nominations -- the closest I can remember is 1977, where Julia & The Turning Point got 11 each, and Star Wars got 10, but Close Encounters stalled at a mere 8 (It would have been nine with an expanded best picture roster).
To the actors, where, yes, the Internet is predictably complaining. Cynthia Erivo's nomination is being excoriated for 1) being the only one for a black performer (justifiable) and 2) being the wrong kind of nomination -- "She plays a slave!" For a start, I think characterizing Harriet Tubman as a slave is reductive of her legacy -- and then, when I see many of the same people say "They'll only nominate Lupita when she plays a slave", I sense people looking for glib argument rather than trying to analyze or understand. I feel like I spend too much time on this subject, and I don't want to come off like an old white crank, but I'll just say this: plenty of white people have been nominated for playing just the sort of bland historical character Erivo plays (Bryan Cranston just recently), while white people have been omitted for playing roles analogous to Nyong'o's (Toni Collette just last year). So, I'm inclined to chalk it up to predictable middlebrow Academy taste, rather than a demonstration of deep racism. (Which is taken for granted as the explanation over at AwardsWorthy.)
Anyway, the two I cared about in best actress were Scarlett and Saoirse, and I got them both, so, huzzah.
In best actor, I got only one of the two, but DeNiro had become such a long shot that I absorbed his absence philosophically. And I was thrilled for Banderas, who gives me a chanceless person to root for. The others are all degrees of fine, and I guess I can offer a small degree of happiness for Jonathan Pryce, getting his first Oscar bite after four decades-plus in the profession.
Supporting actress of course offered the most high profile omittee, as BAFTA proved prescient. I'd say JLo suffered from her film's lack of centrality in the best picture race, but her being essentially bumped by Kathy Bates makes that a less than convincing argument. Maybe, Lady Gaga aside, voters are just averse to pop stars (back in 1996, they passed on both Madonna and Courtney Love). Or maybe there's something diva-ish about JLo they just don't like? Anyway, I'd guess that, after JLo, the show's producers are the most unhappy about the omission -- they'd had visions of Brad/Leo/JLo/ARod/Beyonce/Taylor Swift bringing new viewers to the show, but that dream dwindled as categories were announced.
Laura Dern was already running well ahead, but this should clinch her win. (Though I recall saying something similar about Lauren Bacall one time.)
Supporting actor is a veteran's holiday. How nice for Tom Hanks to finally be nominated again, 19 years after his last AMPAS appearance. Which is a shorter wait than Anthony Hopkins (22 years), Pacino (27), or Pesci (29). This roster now has (I believe) 27 accumulated nominations, and 5 wins (4 of them in lead). (Pacino is now in the exalted arena of 9 total nominations.) And they'll serve as honor guard for first-time winner Pitt.
And speaking of 9 nominations: Scorsese moves into undisputed second place on the all-time directors' list, behind only William Wyler. Wyler secured all his nominations within 30 years ('36-'65), and had already nailed five of them within his first 7 years. Scorsese, by comparison, was denied for his breakout films Mean Streets and Taxi Driver, and didn't get his 4th nod till 2002. Isn't there that saying about things becoming respectable if they last long enough?
Things about which I was totally wrong: I thought Joker could be destroyed by a pincer movement between people who hate comic book movies and those who found the movie too 70s Scorsese-ugly; instead, it seems to have benefited from both. I never would have foreseen 11 nominations. The film's 59 Metacritic score seems to have been erased from everyone's memory.
1917's screenplay nomination is a disturbing echo of when Gladiator unexpectedly got a screenwriting nod -- which, in retrospect, we saw as pointing to its best picture win.
Meantime, Once Upon a Time... seemed to be getting everything it needed -- up till the moment it missed under editing.
While The Irishman, since we'd already priced in the DeNiro miss, did well better than Internet worrywarts kept warning us. And Parasite got about all it realistically could have. Meaning best picture is a scramble.
I warned everyone not to get hopes up about Glasgow, but I didn't expect it ruled out in the initial stage. Gotta save that spot for Diane Warren. (As for John Williams...it's like Trump's corruption: so obvious it's barely worth noting anymore.)
The documentary branch reverted to the old habit of omitting a potential front-runner. I do believe Honeyland is the first double-nominee (foreign/doc), though I seem to recall Waltz with Bashir was on multiple shortlists (doc/animated/foreign) back in '08.
One thing the preponderance of multi-nominated films does for me: apart from Kathy Bates, I have to go to the bottom-feeding categories like sound editing and visual effects before I hit a nominee I haven't seen. It'll be an easy catch-up season for me. (Good thing, since it's under four weeks.)
I though the announcement went pretty well. Cho/Rae were personable, but didn't try over-hard to be funny at a time of day few were in the mood.
OH, ON EDIT: Does someone want to explain the Joker costume nomination?
Greg wrote
After today's announcements, how many think that Joker could win Best Picture. Phoenix is probably a lock now for Best Actor.
Joker doesn't have a Director's Guild of America nomination. That works against it in a big way. That said with 11 nominations, it has to be considered in the running in some capacity.
You mentioned Driving Miss Daisy as the last film to win Best Picture without a DGA nomination. The big difference is that Bruce Beresford also failed to get an Oscar nomination for Best Director. Todd Philips is nominated for Best Director.
Greg wrote
After today's announcements, how many think that Joker could win Best Picture. Phoenix is probably a lock now for Best Actor.
Joker doesn't have a Director's Guild of America nomination. That works against it in a big way. That said with 11 nominations, it has to be considered in the running in some capacity.
Age averages in the acting categories continue to show that it is easier for young women to get a nomination in comparison to their male counterparts.
The average age for each category is as follows:
- Best Actor: 51.4 years (youngest nominee, Driver, with 36 years; the oldest is Pryce with 72 years).
- Best Actress: 37.4 years (the youngest nominee is Ronan, who is 25. The "senior" of the nominees is Zellwegger, just 50 years).
- Best supporting actor: 71.2 years (the youngest is Pitt with 56 years, while the oldest is Hopkins, who is 82 and the oldest of all the acting nominees this year).
- Best Supporting Actress: 42.2 years (the youngest is Pugh with 24 years, who is in fact the youngest in all acting categories. The oldest nominee is Bates with 71 years).
It is noteworthy that Ronan achieves his 4th nomination at just 25, which in itself I believe should be a record.
Last edited by HarryGoldfarb on Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If you place an object in a museum, does that make this object a piece of art?" - The Square (2017)
It's conceivable that five films can win: The Irishman, Jojo Rabbit, 1917, Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood, Parasite.
I understand that Joker has 11 nominations but without a Director's Guild nomination puts Joker at a big disadvantage. Driving Miss Daisy was the last film to win without one.
