Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

One of the things that annoy me about Oscar season is the shit the Oscars get for having low ratings. EVERYTHING on TV nowadays have lower ratings than they had 20, 30 years ago. The reason is not because the Oscars "have lost touch with the common folk" (six of this year's Best Picture nominees all made at least $100 million worldwide, two of them are accessible on Netflix) or the Oscars have become too political. It's because we currently live in an age where technology allows nearly unlimited amount of options for entertainment and we can watch anything we want when we want it.

Those numbers may be low. But if you look at the big picture, the Oscars are STILL the highest rated awards show on TV. It's still the highest rated non-sporting broadcast of the year. The People's Choice Awards and the MTV Movie Awards honor the movies "people like", the Grammys have hardly awards at all and it's just wall-to-wall music that young people like. Yet all those get lower ratings than the Oscars.

The days of the Oscars getting 40 million+ viewers are gone. Even if a super popular movie gets a Best Picture nomination, the Oscars will be lucky to get 30 million viewers.

OscarGuy wrote:I have to disagree with him. The Oscars shouldn't be about affirming what's popular, it should be about recognizing what's great about cinema and perhaps pushing that towards a global audience (Green Book and Crash notwithstanding). $35 million is nothing to sneeze at. It's more than what Moonlight and The Hurt Locker made.

Further, Parasite's global haul is currently sitting at $175 million, that's higher than Moonlight, Spotlight, Birdman, The Artist, The Hurt Locker, Crash, and Unforgiven made (though the earlier films might have crossed by inflation alone).

It has almost made more money worldwide than 12 Years a Slave and No Country for Old Men and is within striking distance of The Shape of Water as well. It's a rather ethnocentric/narrow minded/Amerocentric argument to say the film isn't popular just because it didn't make a lot yet with American audiences.

And even more impressive is that since the film opened Oct. 11, 2019, it has remained in the box office top 20 for 18 weeks now with one brief jump into the top 10 back at the beginning of November, and last week placed 11th.

Berardinelli might have been a prominent early voice in online film criticism, but he's definitely in the wrong on this. Hell, I'm not even Parasite's biggest defender and I can see that he's wrong.

I don't disagree with you, but as Berardinelli says this is a matter of perception, not numbers. And I think the perception that the Academy is out of touch with the moviegoing public at large begun when they snubbed the "Dark Knight". The movies he references from the 90's were both critical and commercial hits. No such movie won the award during the past decade and that's certainly not a coincidence.
As a matter of fact, Academy members don't just ignore commercially successful films, they seem to resent them. Just see what happened with Scorsese and his attack on comic book movies. Frankly, I'm doubtful that something like "Titanic" or "Lord of the Rings" would've been nominated nowadays, let alone win.

Yep. You don’t have four choices as to what to watch as in the old days. You now have hundreds.

Okri wrote:Meh. Ratings for basically everything have gone down in our current era. Pretending that declining ratings are something that AMPAS can fix is disingenuous at best and an argument that doesn't really matter. Certainly not to me, anyway.

The most frequent reason I've heard lately for declining ratings is that "the Oscars have gotten too political" which is coming from the Trump voters, to which I say "who needs 'em."

As for not seeing the nominees, who hasn't seen most if not all of the acting nominees in something if not the film for which they were nominated? Practically everyone has Netflix these days so there's no excuse for not seeing at least seven of the nominated performances.

In the old days, not all the winners were seen by the viewers prior to the awards, either. Ben-Hur, West Side Story and Lawrence of Arabia, to name a few, were still in their reserved seat, twice a day in one theatre big city runs when they won yet everyone was aware of them as they should have been of all of this year's Best Picture nominee. None of them were obscure.

Meh. Ratings for basically everything have gone down in our current era. Pretending that declining ratings are something that AMPAS can fix is disingenuous at best and an argument that doesn't really matter. Certainly not to me, anyway.

I don't know what the DVD, Blu-ray sales and streaming view numbers are, but a lot of people who didn't see Parasite in theatres saw it before the Oscars. If they didn't, it's their loss.

I have to disagree with him. The Oscars shouldn't be about affirming what's popular, it should be about recognizing what's great about cinema and perhaps pushing that towards a global audience (Green Book and Crash notwithstanding). $35 million is nothing to sneeze at. It's more than what Moonlight and The Hurt Locker made.

Further, Parasite's global haul is currently sitting at $175 million, that's higher than Moonlight, Spotlight, Birdman, The Artist, The Hurt Locker, Crash, and Unforgiven made (though the earlier films might have crossed by inflation alone).

It has almost made more money worldwide than 12 Years a Slave and No Country for Old Men and is within striking distance of The Shape of Water as well. It's a rather ethnocentric/narrow minded/Amerocentric argument to say the film isn't popular just because it didn't make a lot yet with American audiences.

And even more impressive is that since the film opened Oct. 11, 2019, it has remained in the box office top 20 for 18 weeks now with one brief jump into the top 10 back at the beginning of November, and last week placed 11th.

Berardinelli might have been a prominent early voice in online film criticism, but he's definitely in the wrong on this. Hell, I'm not even Parasite's biggest defender and I can see that he's wrong.

I tend to agree with James Berardinelli's take on the declining ratings:

I can’t argue with the statement that Parasite deserved Best Picture. I would have said the same about 1917, The Irishman, Once Upon a Time, or Joker. But the “Best Picture” category has never been fully about merit. It’s about celebrating cinema and, on that level, Parasite falls short. Why? Because hardly anyone has seen it. For 2019, it ended up at #70 on the box office chart with a domestic gross of $35M. To be fair, that’s an incredible haul for a subtitled movie and indicates it had some penetration into multiplexes. Nevertheless, Joe Mainstream or Jane Mainstream probably didn’t see it. And that’s where the Oscars’ continuing problem lies. Think back to the ‘90s and titles like Dances with Wolves, The Silence of the Lambs, Unforgiven, Schindler’s List, Forrest Gump, Braveheart, Titanic. Those were excellent movies that everyone saw. They were worthy of the Best Picture designation. In the 2010s, however, there have been The King’s Speech, The Artist, Birdman, Spotlight, Moonlight, The Shape of Water, and now Parasite. It’s not a matter of quality, it’s a matter of perception. And the perception is that the Oscars have become elitist, losing touch with “regular” movie-goers.

Mister Tee wrote: The governing theory behind the telecast seemed to be "draw in the youngs by aping the Grammys".

Yet the Grammys this year still had LOWER ratings than the Oscars. 18.7 million as opposed to the Oscars 23 million. I don't know why the Oscar show is looking for pointers from a lower-rated telecast if the goal is to increase ratings.

1. Parasite shoves "Oscar 'so white"" off headlines. Bong winning three Oscars emphasizes merit over diversity.
2. Parasite shows that international community catching up with Hollywood in popularity - at least getting their foot in the door.
3. As I keep saying, the continuing transparent and large interactive engagement of media has made Oscar winners less surprising. I felt the momentum for Parasite's best picture win beginning 2-3 weeks prior.
4. Most of the winners were generally expected. I thought Mendes would hold out because he was so far ahead, and was wrong. I thought the Academy's antipathy towards sequels would doom Toy Story 4, and was wrong. And thought 1917's popularity would carry it over Ford and Ferrari, and was wrong. Yet, considering how many voters there are that are not in the sound guild, I can't fathom how Ford's win could be considered the guild's influence in saving their second Oscar category.

Two other things that occurred to me after I posted:

1) Many have commented on three of our four acting winners being first-timers who've paid dues, but I'm not sure we've appreciated just how much they've paid, and how long they've waited.

Joaquin Phoenix has been on the radar since Parenthood, 31 years ago. To my mind, he deserved award consideration for his work in To Die For, a quarter century ago. He got his first nomination for Gladiator, 19 years ago; his first lead nomination five years later; his next seven years ago. He's also been passed over for acclaimed work in Her, Inherent Vice, You Were Never Really Here. The guy's only 46, but he's got a lifetime resume already. On points, overqualified for an Oscar win.

Laura Dern has been prominent even longer: first visible in Mask and Smooth Talk 1985, Blue Velvet 1986 (Smooth Talk a lead role). Nominated 1991 for Rambling Rose. Could easily have been nominated for Citizen Ruth, except 1996 was filled to the brim with great female lead performances. Up and down film career, but consistently strong TV work, and got a second nomination in 2014 for Wild. Like Phoenix, way overdue.

I reckon I don't have to tell you about Brad Pitt. A star from the moment he burst out in Thelma and Louise. First nominated in 1995 for 12 Monkeys. Consistently works with strong auteur directors; nominated for Benjamin Button in 2008 and Moneyball in 2011; could easily have also been cited for Fight Club, Babel, The Assassination of Jesse James.

We've obviously seen many veterans win Oscars over the years, but I don't know we've ever had a year where so many so overdue were rewarded at once.

2) Since I spend much of my time complaining about the lack of suspense/surprise at the Oscars these days, especially in top categories, let me acknowledge that, with last night's Bong shocker, we've now been fortunate to have at least some element of interest in the last several years: Olivia Colman and the Green Book film/screenplay wins last year; the best picture scramble of 2017; the indelible Moonlight upset, plus the Affleck/Denzel battle, in 2016; the Mark Rylance/Spotlight upsets of 2015. You have to go back to 2014 to find a year where all the juice truly left the top races. I'd be happier with a lot more suspense -- especially in the acting races -- but things could be worse.

I wrote something in a little more detail for Oscar Guy's main page, posting tomorrow, but mostly I'm in agreement with the comments here. As far as acceptance speeches are concerned, though, I liked the Pitt, Dern and Zellweger speeches. Nothing great, but nothing unacceptable. They've had to make basically make the same speeches with slight variations so many times by now that it would have been beyond expectations to expect them to say something truly wonderful. Maybe Olivia Colman can lend them her speech writer to come up with another perfect year-after speech next year.

The exception was Joaquin Phoenix. Had he just recited his brother's poem it would have been perfect, but, no, he had to make another rambling speech berating the audience, and by extension, the world at large for not being as perfectly evolved as he has become. The cow, the calf and the milk indeed! Even his current girlfriend, Rooney Mara, was cringing. I wonder if he'll even bother to show up next year.

Mister Tee wrote:By the way, Olivia Colman killed once again. She's hilarious even when she's not gobsmacked.

Agreed! Most of the comic presenters were perfectly funny, but Colman outfunnied them all. She's a genius at deadpan. More of her wherever I can get her, please.

My standard late-in-day/after I watched my DVR reaction:

Tonight, playing the role of Olivia Colman -- unexpected, glorious winner who redeems a lackluster evening -- is Bong Joon Ho. Twice.

But some foreplay before we get to that.

The governing theory behind the telecast seemed to be "draw in the youngs by aping the Grammys". I can't remember an Oscars so overflowing with musical numbers, many of which skewed way younger than my age cohort. When Lin-Manuel introduced the Musical Moments in Film, one of my guests noted that, except for Moon River, she didn't know what films he was referencing. (That of course led into Eminem's finally/17-years-on rendition of his Oscar-winning song -- which, till the Spike/Bong moment, seemed like it was going to be the night's biggest surprise.)

Steve Martin's comments during his (very funny) set with Chris Rock confirmed what I thought with the Tina/Amy/Maya opening last year: it was an attempt to have an opening monologue without calling it that or committing to the idea of a host. This year, it was even more ridiculous: as the night wore on, we had no-name after no-name introducing presenters. I suspect the discussion this post-season will be "if we're going to do everything a host does, why not get a frickin' host?"

I see Twitter is unhappy with the quality of the acceptance speeches by acting winners, and many seem to be lumping Brad's in with the rest. But I watched Brad's again, and I think it's a perfectly good speech -- maybe not quite up to the high standard he set at SAG and (by proxy) BAFTA, but hardly deserving of criticism.

Every couple of years, they seem to push screenplays into the first hour of the show, and I always think it's a bad idea: these categories are a key part of the evening's narrative, and that information should be held till later. (Imagine if we'd known about Green Book so early in the evening; it might have been hard to keep tuned.)

At least here, there were no plate-shifting developments, as the two favorites came in. Parasite was an excellent choice (in a mostly stellar category), and paved the way for the evening's startling finale.

For me, Jojo Rabbit was the only unforgivable choice on the evening. I was a great fan of Hunt for the Wilderpeople, and didn't even hate Jojo. But other achievements on the ballot were so superior it recalled Chris Rocks' remarks about Ford and Ferrari. I'd long reconciled myself to The Irishman being passed over (a decision I think history will wonder at), but to skip over Little Women as well. in favor of this much less-accomplished effort, was the night's worst moment.

The early smaller awards made it seem as if the Oscar hive-mind had at last demolished all competition. Toy Story 4 proved PIXAR is unbeatable even when there are tempting alternatives (it reminded me a bit of Brave winning, over an interesting -- if split -- field in 2012). American Factory won as predicted, despite facing a terrifically accomplished field. Pundits have even figured how to decode the shorts categories -- long the arbiter of office pools, but predicted perfectly by the vast majority this year.

The "big upset" (I use the quotes advisedly) was Ford v. Ferrari winning sound editing. Conspiracy theory: sound branch members, hearing the talk of combining the two categories, passed word to vote 1917 in mixing/Ferrari in editing, to prove people "recognize the difference." I mean, last year they inexplicably chose Bohemian Rhapsody for both, but this year found the fine line? And went in the opposite direction most would expect, given the war film trend in sound editing?

As Sabin notes elsewhere, 1917 wasn't having the gangbusters night it was supposed to -- failing at not just sound editing but production design. Cinematography was nice (if fully expected), but, compared to the film's romp through the BAFTAs, this was a pretty rocky ride, making the directing result not a 100% shock.

On the other hand, Parasite failing to take editing seemed to severely damage that film's best picture chances. After years of car-race movies failing to score, Ford v. Ferrari managed 2/3 of the Grand Prix trifecta.

I'd never heard of this production design winner Mary Haigh, who they announced had already won an Oscar on eight nominations. I looked her up, and found her earlier win was for Bugsy -- so, period LA is clearly her forte.

Credit to Scarlett Johansson for seeming genuinely happy for Laura Dern's win. I've seen so many speeches from Dern in the past month that it was hard for her to find anything new to say, but she was perfectly likable, and found a nice way to thank her parents.

Factoid about this nomination: in the years of the last two Hollywood versions of Little Women, the actress playing Marmee ended up nominated for a different film.

Factoid about this win: we're on a four-year run where the winning supporting actress had previously won an Emmy.

After sitting through all the songs last night, my opinion is 1) Elton's winning tune feels a bit like generic Elton John and 2) it was still the most energetic and likable of the nominees.

Good thing Hildur won that score award, after the Legion of Superwomen lined up to present. I liked the Joker score -- I singled it out as the thing I liked most when I discussed the film -- but I'm apparently the only one who experienced this award as Another Disappointment for Thomas Newman rather than You Go Girl.

Finally, to the main event. This year's show will forever be divided as Before Bong/After Bong. When a show has been as rote this one was, and then it suddenly explodes into the unexpected... We've been at this together a long time, and I remember the 2002 show, which also seemed to be going in pure humdrum fashion, until Eminem and Polanski set it on fire. Someone labeled it the Mullholland Drive of Oscar shows, and last night had some of the same feel.

It comes down, really, to the Directors' Guild. Put aside the three years (1985/'95/'12) when their winners didn't get best director nominations -- apart from that, the DGA award has failed to predict the best director Oscar only five times since 1950! Even in this crazed era of unprecedented splits, the DGA hasn't missed a possible match since the afore-mentioned 2002. What's more, this is only the second time (after 1968) that the upset winner has gone on to win best picture.

When I was putting together that thread on best picture, I cut a paragraph (because the post was too damn long), saying that, given the fact Academy rolls have been expanded as much as 15-25% over the past few years, we really ought to expect some upsets from the precursors -- if they continued to match other groups that had done no such expansion/diversity outreach, it called into question what the point of that expansion was. This may be our first indication of such a movement. And it may be helped along by the fact that an undersung part of the expansion (which has mostly publicized racial and gender moves) has been to include far more international voters -- people, as we've been told over the past few years, who are quite used to reading subtitles.

Or maybe it's simpler than that. People just LIKE Parasite. Like most of Bong's work, it's hugely entertaining, with social critique bite beneath. It has an audience appeal that Roma could never have matched; Bong, like Kurosawa in an earlier era, is far more Western in his narrative approach than countryman Chang-dong Lee, or fellow Asian Kore-eda. (Kudos to the LA Film Critics, for alerting me to Bong's work via the best actress award to Mother -- it led me to Memories of Murder, The Host and Snowpiercer, so I know he's not a one-hit wonder. In fact, this glorious night could be his karmic repayment for the way Harvey Weinstein screwed Snowpiercer.) It was hard to watch that ovation at SAG -- for the mere appearance of the cast -- and not feel like the film had a special place in people's hearts. Which paid off at the biggest possible moment.

And, though you'd think the night couldn't get any better, Bong made it so with his impromptu salute to Martin Scorsese -- a moment that gave the whole audience a chance to cheer the man as he deserved. I was reminded of Sonic's wish, after reading the Irishman reviews, that Scorsese be rewarded with a standing ovation at the Oscars this year. Somehow, despite his film being shut out, he got it.

After all this, it's going to feel like I'm giving short shrift to the lead acting winners -- and the fact is, I am. Phoenix is clearly deserving on career points, and I can agree his Joker work is wildly impressive on some level, but I can't help agreeing with a person who wrote that Phoenix getting his Oscar for this is comparable to Chuck Berry getting his only number one record for My Ding-a-Ling. As for his speech...of all the very worthy causes he rattled off, the one shared by the fewest people in the room/world is veganism, so it was odd he spent the most time on it. His closing tearful quote of his late brother (hard to remember, it was Joaquin/then Leaf on that infamous 911 call) ended it well, but this was not the equal to his SAG/BAFTA speeches.

By the way, Olivia Colman killed once again. She's hilarious even when she's not gobsmacked.

Phoenix was an elocution lesson next to Renee Zellweger's long meander. Renee seemed like a jazz musician who thought if she just riffed long enough, she'd find a note worth closing on...but she never did, so she finally just stopped. I can't say I'm crazy about this win, and don't see Zellweger as someone who remotely rates two Oscars, but no one was royally robbed, so just let it sit there.

Show producers continue to do a good job of late, choosing people to give out best picture who have the stature required but aren't the same old Hanks/Spielberg/Nicholson gang -- two-time winner Fonda was a fine choice, and she seemed to take delight in the barrier-breaking done when Parasite's title was found in the envelope.

There's much to be said about the Parasite win and how it was achieved -- only the second match-up of director and screenplay since 2010 -- but that'll have to wait for later, if I'm ever to get this posted. For now, let's say what I said to my assembled party after the directing upset: This is why we watch the damn thing year after year. This is wonderful.

On some other thread, Mister Tee wrote about how the truncated Oscar season is just another thing killing the potency of the Academy Awards, that it’s dying a death of a million little cuts. It’s hard to make that case tonight.

This show was chaotic in, I think, a weirdly compelling way. At any point, it felt like anything could happen. Janelle Monae singing Mr Rogers and then wearing a Midsommar dress? Check. James Corden and Rebel Wilson showing up in Cats costumes to roast their film, present, and bat a microphone stand for a small eternity? Check. Musical numbers with no introduction whatsoever? Check. Seriously, mentioning that Eminem opted out of performing his Oscar winning song in 2003 would have made some sense of it but nope! Joaquin Phoenix’s rambling speech which jumped from inseminating cows to reading a lyric from his late brother? Check. A mid-show freestyle recap? Check. Stars introducing stars introducing stars? Check. And of course, Parasite winning.

How did that happen? I have two explanations: 1) yep, they liked it more, and 2) it was a BONKERS show. It never felt like it was 1917’s night. It took an hour and a half for 1917 to win anything. Can you imagine Sam Mendes accepting his Oscars on behalf of members of his family and dedicating the night to the fallen soldiers of WW1? No way. Instead we got four speeches of a delightful Bong Joon-Ho expressing desire to drink through a translator.

I kind of loved it.

It felt unpredictable despite being entirely predictable. No speeches rose to the level of Spike Lee’s or Olivia Colman’s last year. Pitt was in better form in other award shows. Dern gave the same, industry-baby speech she usually gives. Zellweger continues to be a public speaking trainwreck. What possible explanation is there for comedy auteur Taika Watiki being so boring? Or Elton John and Bernie Taupin seemingly so unprepared. The exception: the gracious Bong Joon-Ho, whose victories seem to baffle and delight him. But mostly the surprises were saved for everything around the wins.

There were other nice wins like the Joker composer, the “Hair Love” team, and the American Factory team. The night was best summed up by Bille Eilish’s confused reaction shot.