BAFTA Nominations

[Okri]

making some ask, do Brits even know that indigenous Americans count as diverse?

Aha?

Why should Brits be fully adjust to American sensitivities? Indigenous Americans being count as diverse is not a given. It's a political perception.

(And are these the same Americans who refer to Guillermo del Toro as a person of colo(u)r?)

Well, they certainly knew they were different 400 years ago.

[Uri]

making some ask, do Brits even know that indigenous Americans count as diverse?

Aha?

Why should Brits be fully adjust to American sensitivities? Indigenous Americans being count as diverse is not a given. It's a political perception.

(And are these the same Americans who refer to Guillermo del Toro as a person of colo(u)r?)

[Okri]

Not that I presume their job is to fit into Oscar consensus -- I'd be delighted if they went even further off the beam. The problem is, people seem to want them to serve two masters: be a good Oscar precursor, but also -- in the name of racial inclusion -- vote for a bunch of people they're not otherwise inclined toward. Put more bluntly: vote like Academy members, but stop ignoring non-white actors, like you've done too often.

Yeah. Tangent: One of my least favourite developments in terms of literary prizes was when the Booker Prize opened the prize to American authors. Not because I was afraid of American authors dominating, but I think there is cultural value in having an English language literary award that specifically excludes Americans, given their cultural dominance. It's rather fun to look at the pre-2000 lists (when BAFTA was after Oscar) and see some of the categories. Now, obviously, the nature of filmmaking means that you're going to get blurred lines, but that's fine too. I think BAFTA thinks of itself as a precursor, which is also counter productive here.

And the means by which they've attempted to achieve this difficult balance is a pretty ungainly one. Rather than do what the Academy did -- dramatically expand its roster of voters to broaden the demographics -- they've allowed initial balloting with the same old folks (the ones who've somehow managed never to nominate Denzel Washington), then have a quirky jury step in and "correct" things by, allegedly, adding non-white and female contenders. This has always seemed a dubious method -- it's always led to speculation about which nominations are legit, and which simply "jury saves" -- the latter of which are inevitably viewed with suspicion, undoing (it seems to me) the good of the inclusion.

Honestly, that actually doesn't bother me. I think of it akin to the foreign film "saves." Honestly, including anyone other than white men is still viewed suspiciously by a certain cohort of people, regardless of the method of their inclusion. That said, I think wondering about the saves is interesting too. For example, Emily Blunt, for all the reasons we're mentioning.

This year, though, with a very strong field of contenders, the system has collapsed. Despite dropping two prominent Oscar-contending directors (Scorsese/Lanthimos), in a year where three females have strong credentials for nomination, the group came up with a six-wide category of white men (including a movie star).

Justine Triet made it, but it is interesting, nonetheless. There are enough precedents for BAFTA + DGA to be omitted, but if Payne gets nominated over Gerwig/Song/etc....

So, while I understand that many want to cling to the notion that things are like before -- that BAFTA represents a significant piece of the Oscar puzzle, and we should make calls based on what they've put out, warts and all -- I wonder if that's so true, this year. If you look at the below-line categories -- the ones not subject to jury intervention -- they match up pretty well with the rest of the awards universe. Suggesting that, if straight balloting had populated all categories, a lot of people we think of as mortally wounded (Mark Ruffalo, Scorsese, Andrew Scott) might well have shown up and would look like solid candidates for next Tuesday morning.

I agree.

[Mister Tee]

We knew BAFTA had gone a bit wacky during its first years with that jury system -- most notably, the 2021 lead actress slate that included not a single Oscar nominee -- but last year's (in terms of performers) more-or-less Oscar-adjacent results led some of us to believe they were back more or less in line. This coillection shoots that premise to hell.

Not that I presume their job is to fit into Oscar consensus -- I'd be delighted if they went even further off the beam. The problem is, people seem to want them to serve two masters: be a good Oscar precursor, but also -- in the name of racial inclusion -- vote for a bunch of people they're not otherwise inclined toward. Put more bluntly: vote like Academy members, but stop ignoring non-white actors, like you've done too often.

And the means by which they've attempted to achieve this difficult balance is a pretty ungainly one. Rather than do what the Academy did -- dramatically expand its roster of voters to broaden the demographics -- they've allowed initial balloting with the same old folks (the ones who've somehow managed never to nominate Denzel Washington), then have a quirky jury step in and "correct" things by, allegedly, adding non-white and female contenders. This has always seemed a dubious method -- it's always led to speculation about which nominations are legit, and which simply "jury saves" -- the latter of which are inevitably viewed with suspicion, undoing (it seems to me) the good of the inclusion.

Last year, as I noted, it didn't seem to matter -- perhaps because the field was so limited, BAFTA managed to correlate with AMPAS despite the quirks (give or take a Spielberg directing omission). This year, though, with a very strong field of contenders, the system has collapsed. Despite dropping two prominent Oscar-contending directors (Scorsese/Lanthimos), in a year where three females have strong credentials for nomination, the group came up with a six-wide category of white men (including a movie star). In best actress, they chose a black actress (in a fading film), but omitted a Native American who's won a significant number of early-on awards -- making some ask, do Brits even know that indigenous Americans count as diverse?

So, while I understand that many want to cling to the notion that things are like before -- that BAFTA represents a significant piece of the Oscar puzzle, and we should make calls based on what they've put out, warts and all -- I wonder if that's so true, this year. If you look at the below-line categories -- the ones not subject to jury intervention -- they match up pretty well with the rest of the awards universe. Suggesting that, if straight balloting had populated all categories, a lot of people we think of as mortally wounded (Mark Ruffalo, Scorsese, Andrew Scott) might well have shown up and would look like solid candidates for next Tuesday morning.

Some are going to say, but none of them were top three; otherwise they'd be here. And that's a reasonable thing to point up. But it might be something that has more impact at the win stage than here. (And we don't know for sure how much influence BAFTA voters have on ultimate victories -- in 2020, with Hopkins/McDormand, it felt like they were key...but last year told a deeply different story.)

Anyway...I'd say All of Us Strangers gained a bit simply by showing up here (though it missed big spots). Anatomy of a Fall looks like a big player, based on making a (non-juried) gang of five. Barbie and Killers of the Flower Moon seem weaker than they have based on Hollywood guilds -- though, one may ask, could that be because they're on such quintessentially American subjects? Contrarily, The Holdovers seems, indeed, a strong entry, scoring well on foreign turf (where Payne hasn't done so well, in the past). Though, maybe, as someone suggested elsewhere, boarding school might just be a subject Brits really respond to?

All stuff for us to process between now and Tuesday bright-and-early. I confess to feeling I know less after this, rather than more.

[Reza]

The Brits have relegated Barbie into the classroom corner

[Sabin]

Honestly, who knows with these people and their new rules but there are a few things that really jumped out at me...
-Andrew Scott's omission is pretty shocking.
-So is DiCaprio's. He got nominated for Don't Look Up. I always thought the "Voters aren't going to warm to his character" thoughts were possibly wish-fulfillment. Colman Domingo on the other hand now has a Golden Globe, a SAG, and a BAFTA. It's basically an eight way race for Best Actor, including Keoghan.
-Gladstone's candidacy isn't over. Jessica Chastain came back to win after a SAG win, which I'm reasonably sure Gladstone will repeat. But it sure feels like Stone is in the lead.
-Well, Mister Tee was clearly onto something with championing the candidacy of Sessa all season long. Sure, it's just a BAFTA nomination but with Giamatti's star rising as a winner, Sessa could easily be a beneficiary especially seeing as how Focus is running a gangbusters campaign for The Holdovers.
-Mark Ruffalo not making the cut for Best Supporting Actor is very surprising. Are neither supporting actors in for Poor Things?
-Best Supporting Actress is arguably the clearest it's been: Blunt, Brooks, Foy, Pike, Randolph all make sense as a lineup. I'm wondering if Sandra Huller makes sense for an acting nomination. She's certainly very good in Zone.
-Best Cinematography looks like the final five. Honestly, so does Editing.

[Big Magilla]

Also of note, Poor Things, which got the second most nominations, was snubbed for Best Director and any acting awards other than Best Actress for Emma Stone.

[Big Magilla]

DIRECTOR

16 films will advance in the director category. Members of the directing chapter vote for their top 16 to determine the longlist, of which the top female, male, and directors who identify as non-binary (within the voting results range of the top 10 female/male directors) will be longlisted to a max of 11, with female/male gender parity upheld, and of which the top two are nominated regardless of gender. A longlisting jury selects the final places from the next eight placed female, male & non-binary directors (placed within this voting results range). A nominating jury selects four directors from the longlist to make-up a nominee list of six directors.

[OscarGuy]

Also, aren't the Brits still doing that unrepresentative small nominating committee thing? That was in the directing and acting categories, yes? or just the acting categories?

[Big Magilla]

I also missed Scorsese not being nominated for Best Director.

His omission as well as Gladstone's are surprising. His, because the film is nominated in so many categories including Best Picture that he was in control of. Gladstone's possibly because of her category placement. It's not an American thing. The Brits are well aware of the horrors of colonization as they have inflicted that themselves on across the world.

I wonder where they would have come out if the nominations were strictly through the voting process by the membership without the interference of the committees. In Scorsese's case, he was really up against extraordinary work from lesser-known directors. In Gladstone's case, I really don't see anything other than category placement.

[OscarGuy]

Mad Max: Fury Road also did anemically with BAFTA. They are nothing if not "stodgy."

[Okri]

BAFTA couldn't have more pinpointedly kneecapped Oppenheimer's two biggest threats if they'd made a conscious effort. (American Fiction as well, but the longlists already tipped off that inevitability.)

Remember how organizations did that for Slumdog Millionaire?

[Eric]

BAFTA couldn't have more pinpointedly kneecapped Oppenheimer's two biggest threats if they'd made a conscious effort. (American Fiction as well, but the longlists already tipped off that inevitability.)

[Sabin]

Killers of the Flower Moon didn’t get nominations for Gladstone, DiCaprio, Scorsese, or screenplay.

[Okri]

Ehh, Killers is arguably a story that would appeal more to Americans as well re:Gladstone.

I'd argue that Saltburn overperformed compared to All of us Strangers.

The Holdovers and Maestro quietly overperformed. No Barbie/Gerwig in director (Tee, take a break from Awards Daily).