|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 13, 2019 17:07:17 GMT
We discuss this a lot but I thought it would be interesting to talk about some big trends outside of #metoo, or political climate, and to look back on history, controversy, and "battles" and to what's coming this year and to come. Can you predict the way the wind is blowing next year?
When the race was Brokeback vs. Crash I remember conservative political writer David Brooks guaranteeing a Crash win in the most cavalier way - he was a film critic briefly and he sized up the Academy this way (paraphrasing) "that group would never NOT pick a film supporting race and especially not a gay film (meaning they were more comfortable regarding race in a film than sexuality - especially homosexuality). Still? So would BBM win now or no - or was Brooks' assessment not the factor at all?
We all remember Kazan a few years back - a different issue and again not a competitive award but would he get the award he did now? I assume we'd all agree that Polanski wouldn't have won in 2002 now - would it have been, gulp, Rob Marshall? Is it the Academy doing want they want or would they see this differently now regarding Kazan? Polanski is a bit odder since that was competitive and of course you can't rewrite that as easily.
How exactly have you seen the Academy change too if at all - who has won in the last few years that wouldn't have won before or been nodded - like Davis isn't one of these, she would have won regardless or no?
Obviously this is hypothetical but would like to here some thinking behind the picks.
I'd also like to look ahead a bit - the Scorsese and QT films - by consensus 1 and 2 in anticipation are very much white male dominated on paper and that people have carped about on social media - are they at best just playing runnerup for wins in this era (assume they are worthy). You've already seen a dent in these films in what this year in a way with possible acting nominees (Kidman, Davis) - so say is the Miranda July female fronted heist film say almost more attractive than the cliche of the male sausage fest of Marty/QT (no, right?), even though they are well, they carry a lot of weight by their names.......
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 13, 2019 17:18:25 GMT
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?).
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 13, 2019 19:36:54 GMT
One of the things with Scorsese, is there was a lot of thinking like he might never get another chance. That sounds ridiculous with what happened subsequently......
Hollywood Elsewhere has a famous Scorsese takedown article from that time from Wiliam Goldman (who likes Scorsese but disliked GONY) where he basically argues it like Chaplin, Hitchcock, Hawks, Welles, Kubrick didn't win either - and an oh well snarky attitude.
Actually when Scorsese won for 2006 - it was an insanely Rupert Pupkin moment (ie when everyone loves him and apologizes for how they've treated him, satirically) - Spielberg, Lucas, Coppola, all on stage presenting. That was a very odd Oscars because I remember Peter O'Toole must have been bemused that year to see that group love while he was again left out in the cold. I remember him looking at Jennifer Hudson winning for her first film role that year with a degree of bemusement as well.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 13, 2019 19:44:58 GMT
One of the things with Scorsese, is there was a lot of thinking like he might never get another chance. That sounds ridiculous with what happened subsequently...... Hollywood Elsewhere has a famous Scorsese takedown article from that time from Wiliam Goldman (who likes Scorsese but disliked GONY) where he basically argues it like Chaplin, Hitchcock, Hawks, Welles, Kubrick didn't win either - and an oh well snarky attitude. Actually when Scorsese won for 2006 - it was an insanely Rupert Pupkin moment (ie when everyone loves him and apologizes for how they've treated him, satirically) - Spielberg, Lucas, Coppola, all on stage presenting. That was a very odd Oscars because I remember Peter O'Toole must have been bemused that year to see that group love while he was again left out in the cold. I remember him looking at Jennifer Hudson winning for her first film role that year with a degree of bemusement as well. 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.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Jan 13, 2019 19:50:55 GMT
Stephen is right. It's not cool to be homophobic anymore
|
|
|
Post by marvelass on Jan 14, 2019 0:46:17 GMT
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. 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.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 14, 2019 0:47:55 GMT
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. 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. DDL and Nicholson had the precursors, but Brody was the only non-winner of the bunch, and I would bet dollars to donuts that was a huge factor in people voting. It helped that Polanski was doing well and the film itself was a potential spoiler for Best Picture (indeed, a lot of people were predicting it to win at the end).
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Jan 14, 2019 12:15:34 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Jan 14, 2019 14:46:07 GMT
There is no way that Crash would beat BBM in 2019.
|
|
|
Post by marvelass on Jan 14, 2019 23:28:59 GMT
I just thought of one. There's no way that Jennifer Connelly would have been cast as Alicia Nash in A Beautiful Mind today -- and if she had, she would not have gotten far during awards season, because there would have been a backlash/controversy, since the real Alicia Nash was El Salvadorean. In fact, the screenplay would have been criticized severely, because it makes no mention of her ethnicity/background. In the film, she's portrayed as just an all-American woman who becomes John Nash's suffering/supportive wife.
That said, I remember the 'bi erasure' being a thing when the film came out. The LGB community was definitely loud about that.
|
|