"Frauds" and "Snubs"

[mlrg]

The problem with your frustration is that I find conversations about "snub" and "fraud" tend to lead to a lot of good conversations. Maybe not in general but certainly on this board.

The word snub is definitely thrown around loosely and it's pretty subjective. Category fraud isn't. I like conversations about category fraud. I think it's generally cynical to position stars in supporting roles. It's been a frustration of mine basically since I started coming here. This is the first time I've heard charges of category fraud for screenplay at this volume though.

I don't know. I think it makes for good conversation?

Yes, it does make a good conversation. You start to get into real dangerous ground when you stop having conversations for the sake of fear of “offending someone”. Everyone tends to be offended by something these days…

[Sabin]

The problem with your frustration is that I find conversations about "snub" and "fraud" tend to lead to a lot of good conversations. Maybe not in general but certainly on this board.

The word snub is definitely thrown around loosely and it's pretty subjective. Category fraud isn't. I like conversations about category fraud. I think it's generally cynical to position stars in supporting roles. It's been a frustration of mine basically since I started coming here. This is the first time I've heard charges of category fraud for screenplay at this volume though.

I don't know. I think it makes for good conversation?

[OscarGuy]

Robbie and Gerwig were most definitely snubs.

First was because they were critical favorites who had amassed significantly more recognition prior to the nominations than one or more of the the individuals that were nominated beside them.

Second because the writers may have nominated Gerwig, but the directors did not; and picture is nominated by the organization en masse while actors nominate actors. Because they were non-inclusive groups that chose not to nominate them, they are indeed snubs.

Third, those who are most concerned with the Academy being criticized for not nominating them are the ones who didn't like the movie that much. This board did not care for the film and therefore are incensed that anyone would have an issue with them not being nominated.

Fourth, and perhaps most disappointing, is that those who are irritated by the furor are disproportionately male. Sure, you can find women who agree with your position, but there are women, Blacks, and LGBTQ people who support Trump too. That doesn't make them "thoughtful" voices.

If I hear another person demean the women who feel that two acclaimed aspects of a largely popular film are somehow overreacting or unknowing of "how things work," I'm going to scream. It's ok to not like something or to understand "how things work," but it is NOT ok to tell a group of people they are overreacting or stupid for having strong feelings and emotional frustration over something that seemed certain but turned out not to happen.

Gerwig was nominated by the DGA, but not the Academy? Why. Snobbery. The directors branch is the worst bunch of snobs out there. The only reason Triet was nominated was because her film was considered more "artful" by a cliquey bunch of men who didn't want any furor over not nominating a woman. They could have gone for Celine Song but didn't. That suggests that romances and comedies aren't real "art" but a courtroom drama is. The directors branch should absolutely be excoriated for their selection. After all, Gerwig was the second-most nominated director of the year, behind Christopher Nolan only. There was a justified expectation that she would be nominated. So, those frustrated with that are absolutely justified in calling it a snub.

Robbie, on the other hand, is on more tenuous ground. She was fourth-most nominated and therefore already on the cusp, but she still had significantly more recognition going in than Annette Bening, who had only a smattering of support. We all thought she was going to get left behind because no one liked her movie. Yet, there she was. So what happened? It's possible that Robbie didn't get enough first place votes. She was certainly not going to win the prize, which means if she didn't get enough first place votes, her place wouldn't have been secured. Bening has all those old (and some young) white women voting for her, the same demographic that would support a white woman like Robbie. The difference likely being the Andrea Riseborough effect. A hardcore bunch of white women who throw their support to a "suffering" performance that they think didn't get enough attention throughout precursor season but no less decided needed to be nominated. And that's all you need to know why Riseborough succeeded. Perhaps it wasn't the out-in-the-open campaigning that everyone disdained about Riseborough's citation, but there's no doubt in my mind that this is what occurred.

Now, you guys need to stop being insulted by everyone who gripes over the Oscar nominations. You are not the gatekeepers (that's the directors branch, apparently) of taste and acclaim. Your constant mewling over people being upset that their favorites weren't nominated is becoming frustrating. There are far more people who've quit reading this board because you have become so insular and disrespectful of alternative voices.

Women were excited that one of their favorite films of the year, a film that spoke brazenly about the patriarchal society and its constant dismissal of female voices, was getting a lot of acclaim and was being cited en masse as one of the best of the year. Then, that appreciation is turned sour by the women most responsible for the film's success being snubbed (for certain in Gerwig's case, less certain in Robbie's case). There were people who were genuinely excited for the Oscars for once, people who weren't normally and they feel they were punched in the gut. We should not just dismiss them all. We should embrace them and welcome them into the fold, not castigate them for opinions that some of you don't personally agree with. A new generation of women interested in filmmaking or journalism or criticism or other film-related jobs suddenly recognize the industry's patriarchal side.

"You have to lead, but you can’t squash other people’s ideas."

"You have to answer for men’s bad behavior, which is insane, but if you point that out, you’re accused of complaining."

"But always stand out and always be grateful. But never forget that the system is rigged. So find a way to acknowledge that but also always be grateful."

"I’m just so tired of watching myself and every single other woman tie herself into knots so that people will like us. And if all of that is also true for a doll just representing women, then I don’t even know."

I'll leave it at that.

[Sonic Youth]

I don't want to dismiss what you wrote with a "doth protest too much" reply because you put much work into it. But you're arguing against language conventions, and it sounds a bit peevish. Of course category fraud isn't fraud in the legal sense. But it's a "manner of speaking" and not meant to be literal any more than "his chances are now officially dead" is meant to trivialize real death.

And saying "snubbed" instead of "snubbed specifically for Best Actress and Best Director" is the same thing, a manner of speaking. Those crying about the "snubs" will probably find your reply evasive.

[Big Magilla]

"Frauds" and "snubs" are two words that absolutely drive me nuts in reference to the Oscars.

Snubs exist. There are situations where voters absolutely refuse to nominate something or someone for various reasons, but in most cases where a favorite has not been nominated, it's because the voters liked other candidates more. The current furor over Margot Robbie and Greta Gerwig is just the latest case of misuse of the term. They were not snubbed. They were in fact both nominated - Robbie as a producer for Best Picture and Gerwig for Best Adapted Screenplay for Barbie, just not Best Actress and Best Director as had been anticipated.

Fraud is a crime. It is a word that should not be thrown around lightly.

Category placement among actors has been an issue since AMPAS started giving out awards for supporting performances in 1936. The original rule was that stars could only be nominated in the lead categories but supporting players could be nominated in either lead or supporting categories.

That year, Stuart Erwin, billed first albeit below the title like everyone else in Pigskin Parade, was nominated in support for his dominant lead role in the film. At the same time, Spencer Tracy whose role in San Francisco was secondary to those of Clark Gable and Jeanette MacDonald, who were the only players whose names appeared above the title, was nominated for Best Actor. Tracy could have been the first performer nominated for both lead and support in the same year had he been nominated in the lead category for Fury and in the supporting category for San Francisco but we were two years away from a performer achieving that distinction.

Beulah Bondi, who gave one of that year's outstanding supporting performances as the grieving mother who settles a longstanding Kentucky feud in The Trail of the Lonesome Pine was ridiculously nominated instead for a bit part in The Gorgeous Hussy in which she dies in the first reel.

In 1937, Bondi gave one of the year's best performances in Make Way for Tomorrow in which all the cast members were billed below the title meaning that she could have been nominated in either category according to the then existing rules. She wasn't nominated in either one, possibly because she received votes in both categories but not enough in either to score a nomination. In 1938, she was again the female lead in Of Human Hearts in which she is third billed behind Walter Huston and James Stewart even though her role is bigger than both of them. She was nominated in support. Her contemporary, Fay Bainter, who had been a major star on Broadway where Bondi was a noted character actress, but who supported Bondi in Make Way for Tomorrow, became the first performer to be nominated in both lead and support. She was nominated for lead in White Banners and support in Jezebel, winning for the latter.

In 1939, Olivia de Havilland who was one of the stars of Gone with the Wind became the first major star to be nominated in support because MGM did not want her taking votes away from Vivien Leigh. At the same time, MGM promoted Greer Garson for a Lead Oscar nomination for her below the title role in Goodbye, Mr. Chips for which she was in fact nominated. No one at the time cried "fraud".

Category placement, though often questioned, did not become a real issue until Barry Fitzgerald was nominated for both Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor for 1944's Going My Way prompting an immediate rule change where studios were required to state which performers should be considered leads in their films. This usually meant that a performer billed above the title would be considered lead and a performer billed below the title would be considered supporting. There were, however, exceptions which is where the studio lists came in. That rule reached the level of absurdity when Fox inadvertently listed the entire cast of 1963's Cleopatra as leads, robbing Roddy McDowall of an almost guaranteed nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Since then, it has been up to the voters to decide which category a performer should be nominated in, guided by studio advertising which they may or may not adhere to.

Category placement issues reached their peak in the 1970s with arguments over Tatum O'Neal being considered supporting in Paper Moon and Valerie Perrine, Louise Fletcher, and Talia Shire being considered leads in Lenny, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and Rocky, respectively.

Arguments over category placement became louder and more frequent in the intervening years but the first time I heard the term "category fraud" was in reference to Jake Gyllenhaal nominated in support for 2005's Brokeback Mountain after which the term was bandied about incessantly, retroactive to 1936.

No one is being defrauded. If voters don't agree with the advertised placement, they are free to vote against it as they have done with Keisha Castle-Huges in Whale Rider and Kate Winslet in The Reader in the first decade of this Century. I liked that they had the gumption to do that even though I thought Winslet's placement in support was appropriate given that the character is a supporting one even though actress has more screen time than the main character who is played by two different actors.

While it could be argued that a star of a film nominated in support robs a true character actor of a nomination, a character actor nominated in lead isn't really robbing anyone. A star is a star and will always be a star whether they are nominated for an Oscar or not. A character player, though, can often remain in obscurity for lack of Oscar recognition. This year, Lily Gladstone, the early favorite for Best Supporting Actress in Killers of the Flower Moon is nominated for Best Actress at her request, an award which she may or may not win. That has put the spotlight on Da'Vine Joy Randolph, a true character actress, who is winning everything in sight for The Holdovers, a welcome opportunity for an otherwise possibly overlooked performance to be given the spotlight it deserves.