Social/Political Backlashes : How Are Things "Different"

Times change, and largely they change in reaction to events that occur (or don't occur). For instance, I think that Brokeback losing paved the way for a film like Moonlight to win. 2005 may have only been thirteen years ago, but it might as well be another century considering the general attitude towards homosexuality and how Brokeback, by virtue of being one of the first mainstream films depicting a homosexual relationship, was largely a "punchline" outside of critics' circles. If Moonlight had come out in 2005 instead, I doubt it would've even been nominated or in any sort of major contention regardless of its quality, simply because audiences and voters weren't ready to embrace it. It took films like Brokeback losing and getting evaluated over time as being deserving to make it easier for something like Moonlight to garner any traction. It also helps that Moonlight was released at the tail end of an administration/culture that was far kinder to same-sex relationships than when Brokeback came out.

I still think Kazan would get his honorary Oscar today; his naming of names isn't really seen in the same light as the more controversial winners/recipients are now like Allen or Polanski. If anything, he'd probably be more celebrated because many of those affected by the blacklist are dead, and those who know or knew people directly affected by it are in the older camp. I don't know how the youngbloods of the Academy view Kazan's actions, but they certainly revere his movies.

It's a safe bet that Polanski wouldn't win today, if his transgressions were seen in 2002 as they are now. Marshall probably wins because Scorsese got hit with blowback from Weinstein's aggressive over-campaigning (although if Brody got hit with the same fallout, DDL probably wins and maybe that's enough to push Marty ahead?).

Yeah, Scorsese winning in '06 was the most foregone conclusion of all time, just by seeing who was presenting.

Gangs of New York kinda got something of the American Hustle treatment, except it was the blatant aggression of Weinstein's campaigning that tanked it, rather than simply feelings on the film cooling after initial reviews came out. The Pianist sucked up most of the auteur appreciation that year anyway, as Polanski was seen as even more overdue than Marty was. When Brody got nominated against four previous winners, it seemed like a done deal by that point. I think, however, if Gere had gotten in over Brody, it would've been Day-Lewis's to lose at that point. Brody's performance had wow appeal that ticked all the boxes for the Academy's sensibilities (biopic, physically punishing, showy scenes, etc.) whereas Gere would've likely just gotten a "welcome to the club at last" nomination and that would've been it.

I think O'Toole knew the score by the time the Oscars happened. Whitaker was winning every award under the sun, and while I'm sure he was disappointed, he probably expected it. I don't remember his reaction to Hudson winning; I still think that her performance and win are unfairly reviled. She was pretty much a no-brainer considering her competition (a recent winner, two foreign language performances from unknowns, and an eleven-year-old girl), and I think she cops way too much flak for it.

Brody was a dark horse, not a frontrunner. That Best Actor race was between DDL (NYFCC, LAFCA tied with Nicholson, BFCA tied with Nicholson, SAG, BAFTA) and Nicholson (LAFCA tied with DDL, BFCA tied with DDL, GG Drama) with possibly DDL having the edge.

The only award of note that Brody won was the César. and those have little to no influence on the Oscars. Not to mention that Brody was still 29, and up to that point, no twentysomething actor had ever won for Best Actor. In fact, 16 years later, he remains the only actor under thirty to win in that category. Heck, since then, only 3 thirtysomethings have won (Foxx, PSH, Redmayne).

Brody's win was a big shock at the time. Rather, it was Polanski who was getting most of the attention/buzz from The Pianist.

It's always difficult to say, because obviously you can't see into the voter's head.
I personally think that most of the voters don't care that much about outside influences. They vote for what they liked best just as we do.

On the other side there are members that just vote for their friends (hello Meryl Streep) or care even less (I remember at IMDb a user once told, that his grandfather or another relative was a member of the Academy and always allowed him to vote instead, don't know if this was true, but I can imagine).

Going back to the first group I have to say that most of the time it's pretty close between which movies people prefer and than things like "This has an important message" or "This movie is too similiar to the one that won two years ago" can make a difference. And political or social waves of certain years can make the difference as well.

I don't know if Brokeback Mountain beats Crash today. Racism is (rightfully) always a huge topic and I actually think that there are many people to whom the theme of Brokeback Mountain and it's presentation within the movie doesn't appeal. And this has nothing to do with them (not the majority anyways, there are certainly some individuals that sadly deserve that adjective) being homophobic (I'm certainly not and I prefer Crash over Brokeback as well, while Moonlight is my Best Picture winner or runner-up in 2016), they just are not that interested into this topic and therefore they prefer other films.

I think it's different with Polanski though. Cause while there's nothing bad with a movie, that has an important topic itsself beating another movie with another important topic, it would throw a very negative light onto the Academy if they reward a man with Polanski's past. Many voters would say to themselves: he is already nominated that's fine. But Scorsese's or Marshall's direction and their movies were almost as good, I'll vote for them. So I don't think Polanski would win today. But I think it IS possible he would win in 5 or 10 years, when the outrage of the current years has ebbed away again. I actually think Scorsese would have won than in 2002 (and therefore not in 2006).

But I don't think that it's as easy, that a good movie with an important message just wins, because the voters feel obliged to vote for it. If Scorseses "Irishman" turns out as a fantastic movie, that many people LOVE, it certainly will have it's chances.


On a sidenote: I also remember Day-Lewis being the front-runner in 2002 with Nicholson his closest challenger. But Brody as an outside threat. Don't know if the race would have had any changes in today's climate though. Brody is NOT Polanski. It may have cost him a few votes for being in Roman's film, but I don't know if it would have been a massive damage.