Jump to content

Awards Season 2016: Movie edition (Update: BAFTA Winners, Oscar Noms, SPIRIT Winners)


Mladen

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Is this the year to call a boycott for lack of racial diversity in nominations? Arguably there's 2 acting performances that are nomination-worthy: Idris Elba and Will Smith. These guys got Golden Globe nominations, but neither of them got Critics' Choice nominations. I already said think Beasts of No Nation got snubbed because it's a Netflix movie that got a small theatrical release for the purpose to qualify for an Oscar. So the snub isn't about race per se. So that leaves Will Smith.

Critics' Choice didn't nominate a single person of colour in any categories that is common with the Oscars. It did nominate a couple of people of colour into other categories, such as Young Actor, and as part of an ensemble cast. It also didn't snub Beasts of No Nation completely (young actor category), but they didn't nominate Idris Elba for supporting actor either.

So arguably this lack of diversity in nominations is just one of those things that will happen from time to time, and the ire should be focused, it it needed focus, on Hollywood itself for having a lack of meaty Oscar-worthy roles for people of colour. I think we have to be beyond nominating people for movie awards in order to meet some expectation of diversity.

I agree. As Viola Davis said in her Emmy speech: "You can't win the Emmy for the role that is not there" Same works for any award. Simply, when there is none, there is none. I find Carol snub more disturbing given that this was on Academy. 

The 20/20 white nominees is on the industry. Yeah, the ever-liberal Hollywood indeed has the problem. And it is more glaring when we see that TV industry doesn't have the same problem. From Shonda Rhimes' lineup to Empire, Orange is the New Black, things are better there. So, TV doesn't have the diversity issues, but movie industry does. The question is why and I am not 100% sure in any offered answer. I seriously doubt that Academy will snub any African American who tomorrow proved worthy of nomination (when they do, it is always combination of different reasons).

So, for me Lee and Smith are barking at wrong door.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be noted also that Will Smith deserves some kind of punishment/snub/beating for appearing in that sci-fi eyesore he made with his son. That kind of afrontery cannot go unpunished can it?

Okay i'm just kidding....a little. Even Will knows that thing was a clunker.

Will Smith: ”After Earth' Was the 'Most Painful Failure In My Career ...

Variety Magazine › film › news › will-s...
Feb 12, 2015 - Will Smith said that "After Earth," the 2013 sci-fi film in which his son Jaden Smith also starred, was his ...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also we should be acknowledging that an acting nomination has been made for a role where the character is going through a transsexual process. And also nominations have been made for a movie about lesbian relationships. That is diversity of its own kind. So the Oscars are not completely lacking in diversity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, so apparently this is the second year running that no people of colour were nominated for acting Oscars. I guess that puts a slightly different spin on things. One year every now and then is just a thing that's going to happen according to the law of averages. Two years in a row suggests something different, though nothing like a conspiracy. Again I say it's symptomatic of a lack of people of colour being cast into great roles. Which implies the default race for characters is white, and writers have to specifically decide that a certain role is for a person of colour in order to cast a person of colour into such a role.

I wonder how long before casting decisions are made in a truly colour blind fashion and that the only time the race of the actor might matter is when the role is that of a real life person. Though even then, it doesn't always have to matter. After all Latino and Middle Eastern characters have been played by a Maori actor (Cliff Curtis).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Hmmm, so apparently this is the second year running that no people of colour were nominated for acting Oscars. I guess that puts a slightly different spin on things. One year every now and then is just a thing that's going to happen according to the law of averages. Two years in a row suggests something different, though nothing like a conspiracy. Again I say it's symptomatic of a lack of people of colour being cast into great roles. Which implies the default race for characters is white, and writers have to specifically decide that a certain role is for a person of colour in order to cast a person of colour into such a role.

I wonder how long before casting decisions are made in a truly colour blind fashion and that the only time the race of the actor might matter is when the role is that of a real life person. Though even then, it doesn't always have to matter. After all Latino and Middle Eastern characters have been played by a Maori actor (Cliff Curtis).

And in 2013, you had Ejiofor and Abdi being nominated, 12YAS winning a Best Picture, Cuaron a director, Lupita Best Supporting Actress. Even last year, Selma was nominated, Inarittu won... Acting categories are not the only categories in existence. Yeah, it is symptomatic, but again, not Academy's problem. At least, this is not Academy's problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, if I was a person of color who saw this as more than just a coincidence, I wouldn't boycott, I would do the opposite. I would rally as many friends in the industry as possible and try to make the audience at the Oscars be as colorful as possible. Try to get each person invited to have their guest be a person of color, or segregate themselves in the audience by color. Those things would send a clear message, one that can't be missed because you simply didn't go.

 

And by the way, Jada, really instead of this you should be apologizing for your horrendous acting on Gotham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Risto said:

And in 2013, you had Ejiofor and Abdi being nominated, 12YAS winning a Best Picture, Cuaron a director, Lupita Best Supporting Actress. Even last year, Selma was nominated, Inarittu won... Acting categories are not the only categories in existence. Yeah, it is symptomatic, but again, not Academy's problem. At least, this is not Academy's problem.

The examples are why I'd think that the supposed mis-aiming at the Oscars is less significant than the framing of this as just a black issue. Are Hispanics and Asians doing that much better? 

If there's been a misfire it's because of that sort of focus.Looking on other sites it's totally been framed as a "black" issue now. (Perhaps ironically because no one can think of an Asian role to nominate?)

 

I don't think it's  Pinkett-Smith or Spike Lee's fault but they're the only ones that spoke up. So the discussion has entirely been about that (and Idris Elba).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Castel said:

The examples are why I'd think that the supposed mis-aiming at the Oscars is less significant than the framing of this as just a black issue. Are Hispanics and Asians doing that much better? 

If there's been a misfire it's because of that sort of focus.Looking on other sites it's totally been framed as a "black" issue now. (Perhaps ironically because no one can think of an Asian role to nominate?)

 

I don't think it's  Pinkett-Smith or Spike Lee's fault but they're the only ones that spoke up. So the discussion has entirely been about that (and Idris Elba).

From whichever point you look at it, it is not good. Academy is now racist, but wasn't last year and two years ago. People wanted Elba and Smith nominated for performances, that, according to all sources, were rather mediocre. But then again, it is rather easier to attack 6000 people who are giving some gold statuettes than the heads of the studios who might be feeding you. And that is where everything falls like house of cards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Risto said:

From whichever point you look at it, it is not good. Academy is now racist, but wasn't last year and two years ago. People wanted Elba and Smith nominated for performances, that, according to all sources, were rather mediocre. But then again, it is rather easier to attack 6000 people who are giving some gold statuettes than the heads of the studios who might be feeding you. And that is where everything falls like house of cards.

 

If it was  just personal cowardice everyone else would be acting optimally. But they're not. The celebrities are just acting like everyone else. 

To be fair though: I would say that this clearly came up last year too iirc. That's probably why there was more of a response this year. I think it's even  the same hashtag.

I will also say that Elba was good. But I feel like a lot of the calls for a nom involve the subject matter. And,most important on a practical level, he was a totally justifiable omission.

Either way, this entire discussion is a failure on like four different levels.

 

18 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I wonder how long before casting decisions are made in a truly colour blind fashion and that the only time the race of the actor might matter is when the role is that of a real life person. Though even then, it doesn't always have to matter. After all Latino and Middle Eastern characters have been played by a Maori actor (Cliff Curtis).

If the arguments that the Sony leaks made about how black actors don't play well in the increasingly important international market are sound...then not any time soon. TV will probably get better, film will be fucked. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Castel said:

 

If the arguments that the Sony leaks made about how black actors don't play well in the increasingly important international market are sound...then not any time soon. TV will probably get better, film will be fucked. 

 

I didn't catch that part of the Sony email scandal. I imagine by "international market" they possibly mean China and Japan. I don't feel like African and South Asian audiences would be put off by an increase in non-white casting. But I think there's still a hill to climb in the USA with the whole boycott Star Wars because it has a black guy in a lead role thing; oh and a girl as THE lead as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

I didn't catch that part of the Sony email scandal. I imagine by "international market" they possibly mean China and Japan. I don't feel like African and South Asian audiences would be put off by an increase in non-white casting.

Well..probably. China is the whale compared to anything in Africa.

 

It'd be interesting to see if these supposedly racist countries give a shit about Hispanics and what that'd do to their numbers.

 

Quote

 

But I think there's still a hill to climb in the USA with the whole boycott Star Wars because it has a black guy in a lead role thing; oh and a girl as THE lead as well.


 

 

I take none of those things seriously tbh. There's some racism hovering around I'm sure. But all these hyper-reactionary outrages (Mad Max had the same thing) seem utterly ineffectual in the greater world, and are about a specific toxic corner of the internet full of disaffected nerds and conservatives* talking shit who are then given a greater voice because it rallies the base against the "MRAs" and gets clicks.

I remember looking up the Mad Max boycotts and it boiling down to...a few guys on a shitty site  and a dozen Twitter accounts saying something before the movie even came out. It seems like a tempest in a teapot.

 

*Who I feel are...weird, as a demographic. I'd be more worried about others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as someone who works in the film industry, it will be embarrassing if I don't get most if not all these category predictions right:

Best Picture: Spotlight 

Best Director: Tom McCarthy, Spotlight (It's between him, Miller and Innaritu - want George Miller to win so bad)

Best Actor: Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant

Best Actress: Brie Larson, Room

Best Supporting Actress: Alicia Vikander, The Danish Girl

Best Supporting Actor: Sylvester Stallone, Creed

Best Original Screenplay: Spotlight

Best Adapted Screenplay: The Big Short  

Best Cinematography: The Revenant

Best Original Score: Ennio Morricone, The Hateful Eight

Best Visual Effects: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Best Sound Mixing: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Best Sound Editing: The Revenant

Best Film Editing: Mad Max: Fury Road  

Best Production Design: Mad Max: Fury Road

Best Costume Design: Mad Max: Fury Road 

Best Makeup and Hairstyling: Mad Max: Fury Road

Best Foreign Film: Son of Saul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can finally post again. Yay.

So...going to dive right in...I'm a bit divided on boycotting the oscars. On one hand, I want to do it too (not that it will make a difference) but on the other, I'm curious of how it will be handled on the actual night.

I understand where Lee and Smith are coming from. But I disagree with Lee on a few points. For example, I do believe that the problem starts with greenlighting projects. However, I don't agree that the current pool of movies featuring prominent characters of colour are not viable for nominations. Looking at last year, I was shocked that SELMA didn't get a director or leading actor nomination. Looking at this year, I was genuinely shocked when CREED and STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON were largely overlooked. BEASTS OF NO NATION didn't even feature at all. And this all took me back to a few years back when THE BUTLER and 12 YEARS A SLAVE came out in the same year.

I'm one of those people who care about reviews, so I read a lot of them. And the consensus seemed to be that one of them would join the oscar race. That was all good. Here is the issue I had: the conversation went in the following way:

1. Two good films prominently featuring people of colour (both onscreen and behind the scenes) are out this year. 

2. ONE of them will be picked as the PoC representative for the major awards.

My question then became this: are people watching films and basing excellence on the skin colour of the makers and characters? Surely, if that weren't the case, we wouldn't be talking about a PoC representative. We would be discussing a film and then predicting whether it would enter the race.

It suggested to me that because excellence was judged in this manner, it doesn't matter how many excellent "black" films are made. They can make 50. It won't matter. In the end, only ONE of them will be picked to be the PoC representative because that's just the way it is--all the other slots are reserved for "white" films, despite quality. 

This is why I didn't completely agree with the notion that greenlighting projects is the sole issue, nor do I agree with working on an affirmative action basis when nominating, whether explicitly stated or not. IMHO, both arguments assume that the already existing "coloured" works are not adequate, and further assumes that the only way they CAN be is via special conditions. In my  humble opinion, the opposite is true. There are some phenomenal performances and other forms of filmmaking art in the already released pool. That's what frustrates me. 

What frustrates me further is that there are even instances where the nominated people are met with disbelief and a bit of division in the opinion of their supposed excellence. Like Matt Damon, Bradley Cooper (twice I think), Tom Hardy, Jennifer Lawrence in AMERICAN HUSTLE, and others I'm forgetting. But more on Damon and Hardy since they are more relevant this year; if in the same year I can be baffled at someone's nomination and outraged at someone's snub (for the same category)...then I don't know, something is broken. And if my opinion is not an outlying one...I also don't know...I'm lost.

I honestly want to live in a world where I don't care about any of this, where I can easily dismiss it as Hollywood's vain reflection on itself and it's impact, but I don't. This is the kind of bullshit that fuels the greenlighters to keep pushing the same stuff they've been doing. And then they'll turn around and say projects with people of colour just don't do well, critically and commercially. It seems a circular problem to me.

And it's one I thought was finally being solved. I don't think a film like BEASTS OF NO NATION gets made and promoted the way it was unless the distribution is structured the way it was. But I now see I shouldn't have celebrated so much. I think the film IS being punished for daring to defy the green lighters.

I understand why people are boycotting, but I also don't think this is the place to do it. I don't know. I'm conflicted. 

____________

On a lighter note, I think Stallone, Vikander and Larson are safe bets in their respective categories. (Though I do think Vikander was nominated for the wrong movie). I was more impressed by her performances in TESTAMENT OF YOUTH and EX-MACHINA. Either would have been better IMO. I'm just glad she got some kind of recognition, though. I hope this cements her name as someone to be trusted with meaty roles. Very good actress. She's my favourite from any category.

I would easily replace Jennifer Lawrence with Charlize Theron (FURY ROAD), Matt Damon with Michael B Jordan (CREED), Tom Hardy with Idris Elba (BEASTS OF NO NATION) actually, I can replace him with a lot of people to be honest...and maybe I'm being sentimental because he's a fellow African, but I liked Abraham Attah better than I did Eddie Redmayne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the Oscars are going to have reform.

 

Quote

 

“The Academy is going to lead and not wait for the industry to catch up,” said Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs. “These new measures regarding governance and voting will have an immediate impact and begin the process of significantly changing our membership composition.”

Beginning later this year, each new member’s voting status will last 10 years, and will be renewed if that new member has been active in motion pictures during that decade.  In addition, members will receive lifetime voting rights after three ten-year terms; or if they have won or been nominated for an Academy Award.  We will apply these same standards retroactively to current members.  In other words, if a current member has not been active in the last 10 years they can still qualify by meeting the other criteria.  Those who do not qualify for active status will be moved to emeritus status.  Emeritus members do not pay dues but enjoy all the privileges of membership, except voting.  This will not affect voting for this year’s Oscars.

At the same time, the Academy will supplement the traditional process in which current members sponsor new members by launching an ambitious, global campaign to identify and recruit qualified new members who represent greater diversity.  

In order to immediately increase diversity on the Board of Governors, the Academy will establish three new governor seats that will be nominated by the President for three-year terms and confirmed by the Board.

The Academy will also take immediate action to increase diversity by adding new members who are not Governors to its executive and board committees where key decisions about membership and governance are made. This will allow new members an opportunity to become more active in Academy decision-making and help the organization identify and nurture future leaders.

 

I'm actually a bit surprised, because I thought they could easily have ridden this out and the boycott would die with a whimper because...it kinda was badly conceived. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, this was something defended by some in the Academy for a long time, and it's not even the first time it happens- in the late 60's, Atticus Finch himself removed the voting rights of a good part of the Academy to make it younger, which explains why the Academy begun to make more unconventional choices on that period- The Godfather, The French Connection, etc. Then of course, the younger members got old...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Never mind.

Now we do mind :)

7 hours ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Actually, this was something defended by some in the Academy for a long time, and it's not even the first time it happens- in the late 60's, Atticus Finch himself removed the voting rights of a good part of the Academy to make it younger, which explains why the Academy begun to make more unconventional choices on that period- The Godfather, The French Connection, etc. Then of course, the younger members got old...

Yeah, I guess that every once and a while, Academy needs to rejuvenate. Simply, the nominations showed how stale the atmosphere is and how predictable and even boring they can be. So, I salute this change. Perhaps it will bring to some wiser choices before Oscars become culturally irrelevant. 

10 hours ago, Kyoshi said:

I understand where Lee and Smith are coming from. But I disagree with Lee on a few points. For example, I do believe that the problem starts with greenlighting projects. However, I don't agree that the current pool of movies featuring prominent characters of colour are not viable for nominations. Looking at last year, I was shocked that SELMA didn't get a director or leading actor nomination. Looking at this year, I was genuinely shocked when CREED and STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON were largely overlooked. BEASTS OF NO NATION didn't even feature at all. And this all took me back to a few years back when THE BUTLER and 12 YEARS A SLAVE came out in the same year.

OK... Opening the can of worms :)

I don't understand where is Smith coming from. It is petty and worse, she doesn't addresses the real problem. When people discuss the Academy, they are essentially discussing the consequence. We know where the cause is. But naturally Smith is not crazy to attack the studios and call them racially bias. And, having that in mind, it is all hypocritical play of politics.

SELMA was nominated for the Best Picture. And in the last year's lineup, I simply didn't see Oyelowo. He was good a la Mulligan in "Suffragette" but nothing special. As for this year's snubs, there were many of those. Carol was snubbed for two major categories, Scott for directing, SW:TFA was considered to be in the Best Picture lineup. When we talk about oversights, it should be noted that they are not racially bias.There are other reasons. You mentioned 2014. We had one of the most racially diverse group of nominees. So, Academy was OK then and now they are bias, or in some worse case, racists? Simply, some movies/performances are not on the level or simply didn't have the luck. 

And that is the problem with media. When "Carol" is snubbed, we were all "OK, it is too artsy". When "Creed" is snubbed, Academy is racially bias. That is the problematic mindset here.

 

10 hours ago, Kyoshi said:

It suggested to me that because excellence was judged in this manner, it doesn't matter how many excellent "black" films are made. They can make 50. It won't matter. In the end, only ONE of them will be picked to be the PoC representative because that's just the way it is--all the other slots are reserved for "white" films, despite quality. 

It may suggests that way, but the reality is completely different. There is not "POC representative" nor has it been there. Creed, SoC, BonN, have been treated like any other movie. The fact is that some movies work better for the Academy. 12YAS worked for them, Selma worked for them. Creed didn't. Spotlight, The Revenant worked for them. Carol didn't. Martian, Mad Max worked, SW:TFA didn't. This is the problem with the debate. When the "POC movie" to name it that way, is snubbed, we are so quick in our attempts to determine what are some nefarious causes to it. When in fact, sometimes it is laziness, preference or disinterest. I doubt that every single member of the Academy saw all the potential nominees.

In short, Academy does have problems but we should talk about entire industry's position throughout the year. This is just a symptom of the disease. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Academy Award for Best Cinematography  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Cinematography is probably my favorite category for the awards season and it's one that usually get's much less publicity then say Best Picture or Best Actor. 

Looking through the list of past winners and nominees I notice that this category actually represents most of my favorite films over the years, more so than the Best Picture category for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...