Nomination Talk

[rolotomasi99]

Since this thread is now discussing gender representation in the film industry, here is a great little summary about Hollywood's problem.

[Jefforey Smith]

I saw Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. speak at a college lecture series on Wednesday night. Rather ironic to see his younger sister nominated for an Oscar as a documentary filmmaker on Thursday morning. Good luck to everyone on the message board in preparing for this year's Oscar pool!

[OscarGuy]

That's why I was saying Score was notably masculine. Them and the directors branch are the worst, though visual effects and sound aren't much better. And the diversity in screenwriting isn't very good either. Really, the only places that have good representation for women are editing (not as much anymore because Thelma Schoonmaker is the only one), production design, costume design and makeup & hairstyling (and unfortunately these are all "traditionally" female crafts).

[HarryGoldfarb]

I didn't mean "if any" in that way and I'm certain you know that. Portman has an Oscar for cripes sakes (In the now-defunct comedy/musical category to boot).

As we'll as Dudley.

Portman was at least nominated in the reunified category in 1999 for The Cider House Rules. Is she the only one? I suppose she is the only multinominated female in the Original Score category...

[Mister Tee]

Considering the deadpan humor of his film, this could be elaborate performance art -- or else it's the 40-years-on equivalent of Spielberg's "I got beaten out by Fellini". In any case, amazing to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYTWqLmnjt0

[rolotomasi99]

I think sexism IS the big issue here and with the Oscars, it always has been.

This is why I love watching movies from the 1950s. Sure the antiquated values about gender, race, and sexuality are laughable and sometimes downright offensive, but damn there were some great roles for women.

Look at the Best Picture line-up for 1950:
All About Eve
Born Yesterday
Father of the Bride
King Solomon's Mines
Sunset Boulevard

That year the race for Best Picture was between two movies with strong, older women pushing the narrative, with many other women in co-lead and supporting roles. BORN YESTERDAY also was the story of a woman finding her strength and self-worth. KING SOLOMON'S MINES is a ridiculous movie, but Deborah Kerr transforms from a fragile woman to a rugged adventurer by the end of it. Only FATHER OF THE BRIDE is the outlier with its patriarch fighting against his daughter's more liberal (for that time) views. Looking through the rest of the decade you will find many films about strong women or women who find their strength. The 30s, 40s, 60s, 80s, and 90s all had Best Picture winners and many more nominees with strong female leads. The 70s has some good nominees, but all the winners are male dominated except ANNIE HALL (though it is still from the male character's perspective).

The 21st Century has had some good Best Picture nominees, but only two winners which were female centric (CHICAGO and MILLION DOLLAR BABY). It has now been a decade since that winner from the then 74 year old tough guy director Clint Eastwood.

I have no idea why movies revolving around the lives of women are not winning (and this year, even being nominated for) Best Picture. I know most Oscar movies are not made with huge profits in mind, but things are getting ridiculous. Most Oscar movies are passion projects, and for whatever reason the male directors, writers, and producers do not feel passionate about women-centric stories. The only movies revolving around women that were even in the Best Picture conversation (WILD, INTO THE WOODS, and STILL ALICE) were all directed by gay men. I know some would argue GONE GIRL was female centric, but it sure felt like it was told from the perspective of the male gaze. INTERSTELLAR had two strong female characters, and I loved the relationship between the father and daughter, but it was still a male centric story. Then we get to the only two movies directed by women which had an real awards traction, and both focused on male stories.

Like many folks, I get tired of movies focusing on straight, white, men. I want the Oscars to be filled with more women and people of color in front and behind the camera, and I want the movies nominated to focus on the lives of women and people of color as well as other minorities. Other than buying tickets for these movies, I am not sure what else cinema lovers can do to make this happen.

[OscarGuy]

I didn't mean "if any" in that way and I'm certain you know that. Portman has an Oscar for cripes sakes (In the now-defunct comedy/musical category to boot).

[mlrg]

Few, if any female composers exist and fewer still are recognized in the Original Score category

Rachel Portman and Anne Dudley??

[OscarGuy]

I think sexism IS the big issue here and with the Oscars, it always has been. Look no further than the boys' club that has been Original Score and Cinematography. Few, if any female composers exist and fewer still are recognized in the Original Score category. The same goes for cinematography. Editing is one of the few non-design categories to feature plenty of women. However, Looked over the nominations and there is a troubling lack of women nominated. Sure, there are a few in the Best Picture race, but when you dig into the tech categories, the numbers dwindle greatly.

Of course, Hollywood has always been sexist. Emily Blunt had a great speech last night that briefly touched on this with Jessica Chastain's making a direct plea, not just against sexism, but homophobia (her first listed, mind you), racism and other -isms. She was a real class act. Yet, they spoke of the wider issue of diversity in the film world where women are making up a decreasing portion of film directors and are getting fewer and fewer great roles. The number of one-off nominees in the Best Actress category in recent years has been quite galling. Are they just not able to headline movies anymore? With what's been box office gold this year, that's clearly not true.

As the women at the Golden Globes also pointed out, diversity in Hollywood is as much an issue with limited female representation as it is with race and sexual orientation issues.

[Big Magilla]

The "white man's club" argument just doesn't hold water. No, there weren't any minorities nominated in the acting categories this year, but there certainly have been in the last few years.

The only minority actor who was even considered in the running this year was David Oyelowo whose performance in Selma was good, but not great. There was simply too much competition. I actually liked him better in The Butler, a film I didn't much like aside from his performance. The definitive King portrayal remains Paul Winfield's interpretation in the 1978 mini-series, King which is coming to DVD and Blu-ray next week or the week after. Winfield, Cicely Tyson as Coretta and Ossie Davis as Martin Luther King Sr. were all Emmy nominated, though none of them won. Winfield and Tyson lost to Michael Moriarty and Meryl Streep in Holocaust and Davis to Robert Vaughn in Washington: Behind Closed Doors.

DuVernay should have nominated for the sweep of her film over Bennett Miller at the Oscars and Clint Eastwood at the Directors Guild in my opinion, but this is more likely sexist than racist.

[ksrymy]

Are people still so stupid that they don't realize token nominees are as racist as, if not more than, not nominating said nominees at all?

[nightwingnova]

I read Sasha Stone's blog article on her concerns about the diversity of the nominations.

I don't buy most of her arguments because I think what she is complaining about is exactly what the Oscars are supposed to be: a middle-brow celebration and commercial promotion of the best in movies.

So I find it foolhardy that the Academy ostensibly expected to open up the best movie competition to blockbusters by increasing the number of slots available. Their members just kept voting for the same types of movies they considered worthy. (For the record, while I found The Dark Knight Rises technically amazing and Heath Ledger's performance stunning, I was never that impressed with the story.)

Stone complains that the "white men's club" votes for the same patented inspirational Oscar movies but ignores diversity and complexity for "thinking folks." (What is Birdman then?)

She notes that movies with complex characters, i.e. about sociopaths in Foxcatcher, Gone Girl and Nightcrawler, were left off the slate for the top prize.

I am disappointed with Gone Girl not receiving more recognition. Here is the most interesting thriller in recent memory. Yes, most of the characters aren't likable - but then are many folks in real life. Or perhaps it was because it wasn't a "serious" movie. I thought Nightcrawler was important for its dissection of the OMG news industry, but had concerns about the quality of the plot.

In any case, I wasn't offended by the Academy's best picture nominees, even if I thought Gone Girl and Nightcrawler would have made the list more interesting and generated discussions about social and cultural issues.

I can't speak to Selma's low nominations, but folks here seem to indicate problems with the campaign.

Steve Carell surprised me because it appeared that he was in the running for both lead and supporting, which I thought would have canceled him out.

I just saw the trailer for Cotillard's performance and was quite moved. I can see why she got the critics awards she has. Very nice that the Academy noticed her.

Disappointed in Birdman's crisp, smooth editing not being recognized. And shocked at the widely-awarded LEGO Movie's being left out, but it like most everything else is minor to me.

Been reading Sasha Stone's Twitter today. She's making a strong case for involuntary commitment.

I unfollowed her this morning. I'm sorry, it's the Academy Awards, not a violent political coup in your home country. There's really no need to have a seismic emotional breakdown over this stuff.

I kind of like her regardless. I find it ironic on her website's mantra is "the trick is not minding" yet among all the Oscar bloggers, she's the one who minds the MOST. I enjoy awards season. I get excited when my favorites get nominated, I feel disappointed when they don't but nothing to the level Sasha Stone's emotional outrage.

[anonymous1980]

Been reading Sasha Stone's Twitter today. She's making a strong case for involuntary commitment.

I unfollowed her this morning. I'm sorry, it's the Academy Awards, not a violent political coup in your home country. There's really no need to have a seismic emotional breakdown over this stuff.

I kind of like her regardless. I find it ironic on her website's mantra is "the trick is not minding" yet among all the Oscar bloggers, she's the one who minds the MOST. I enjoy awards season. I get excited when my favorites get nominated, I feel disappointed when they don't but nothing to the level Sasha Stone's emotional outrage.

[flipp525]

No worries, BJ.

[rolotomasi99]

The Imitation Game, also, failed to get the sort of bonus nominations (Costume Design, Cinematography, Sound Mixing) that might have foreshadowed a King's Speech-style Best Picture surge, and with Cumberbatch seemingly running third in Best Actor, it's hard to see the movie gathering enough force to become a more traditional alternative to Boyhood, but I guess you never know.

Well, I remember folks last year saying 12 YEARS A SLAVE's chances for Best Picture were hurt because it missed out on nominations for Score and Cinematography. I would be very happy to see BOYHOOD, BIRDMAN, or THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL take Best Picture, but I am not to ready to count out Harvey pulling off a win with this film. After all, it was Eastwood who fell to Miller, not Tyldum. That has to count for something. I still think no matter what takes Best Picture, BOYHOOD is wining for Directing. That would make three years in a row we have a Best Picture/Director split.