|
Post by stephen on Jan 25, 2023 4:42:42 GMT
Well, Hester Street did make 5 million in 1975 (which would be 50 million today? Or even more?), Sally Kirkland won LA for Anna, and Diane Ladd was in a David Lynch movie that won Palme d'Or. The studio structure might be bad too, but a copy and paste campaign by rich, powerful white people is similarly tasteless. This time it's Riseborough, next time it could be Harry Styles or Taylor Swift. And that's a problem because . . . ? To Leslie made NBR's Top 10 indie films and Riseborough got a Spirit nomination. Just because it's an extremely tiny film with a low box office doesn't invalidate the work that was put into it.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jan 25, 2023 4:49:51 GMT
Yep, I am fine with FYC ads. If you don't think there's a difference between a studio or organisation putting out FYC, and getting people to think a cut and paste message is a personal statement from a rich Hollywood star, we probably aren't going to find much common ground on this. It's just opinions at the end of day. We'll never agree on this, but we don't have to. Still respect you. There is a difference between a studio/organization putting out FYCs and a more personal touch -- and the latter is not the one I have issue with. It's actually more honest when one sees someone actively trying to promote themselves and work the circuit themselves without having a studio set everything up. And in Riseborough's case, it wasn't even her that was doing it -- it was Mary McCormack, of Howard Stern fame, who got that ball rolling.
I can understand feeling distaste at how inorganic the posts were, but the passion that we saw was very real. And ultimately, I find that even though it's deeply unfortunate that Danielle Deadwyler couldn't garner the same passion surge at the end, insinuating that it's solely due to racial privilege on Riseborough's part diminishes not just Riseborough's accomplishment but also ignores other elements at play that need to be examined in terms of how those studios managed those campaigns and the money behind them. Stephen, 93 of the 94 Best Actress Oscars have been won by white woman. Halle Berry is the only non-white woman to have won this award. And even Berry is half-white Attempting to remove or dismiss even the discussion racial privilege with Risbourough's campaign, in this category in particular, which habitually tells women of color or black women that they are not worthy, is well...a choice. A choice I can't agree with. Race will absolutely have to be a part of this discussion, imho. The history of this category and those whose were disadvantaged by Risbourough's campaign make that discussion neccesary and essential, regardless of whether some may find it uncomfortable.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Jan 25, 2023 4:54:45 GMT
Well, Hester Street did make 5 million in 1975 (which would be 50 million today? Or even more?), Sally Kirkland won LA for Anna, and Diane Ladd was in a David Lynch movie that won Palme d'Or. The studio structure might be bad too, but a copy and paste campaign by rich, powerful white people is similarly tasteless. This time it's Riseborough, next time it could be Harry Styles or Taylor Swift. And that's a problem because . . . ? To Leslie made NBR's Top 10 indie films and Riseborough got a Spirit nomination. Just because it's an extremely tiny film with a low box office doesn't invalidate the work that was put into it. I don't necessarily see Riseborough's nomination as a sign of passion for her performance or the film. Her cheerleaders might have written down her name in their ballots, but there's no way to know if they've actually seen the movie. This is Hollywood where everyone's too busy doing coke and cheating on their spouse to watch shit. And Harry Styles and Taylor Swift would be a problem because their movies could (would) be pieces of shit, but they have lots of friends in the industry and can easily do the same. Or next time it might be someone's son's garbage "debut". This sets a dangerous precedent. Not saying there aren't stinkers among studio-backed movies, but in those cases even if you hate them you can usually see why some other people might like them.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 25, 2023 4:55:24 GMT
There is a difference between a studio/organization putting out FYCs and a more personal touch -- and the latter is not the one I have issue with. It's actually more honest when one sees someone actively trying to promote themselves and work the circuit themselves without having a studio set everything up. And in Riseborough's case, it wasn't even her that was doing it -- it was Mary McCormack, of Howard Stern fame, who got that ball rolling.
I can understand feeling distaste at how inorganic the posts were, but the passion that we saw was very real. And ultimately, I find that even though it's deeply unfortunate that Danielle Deadwyler couldn't garner the same passion surge at the end, insinuating that it's solely due to racial privilege on Riseborough's part diminishes not just Riseborough's accomplishment but also ignores other elements at play that need to be examined in terms of how those studios managed those campaigns and the money behind them. Stephen, 93 of the 94 Best Actress Oscars have been won by white woman. Halle Berry is the only non-white woman to have won this award. And even Berry is half-white Attempting to remove or dismiss even the discussion racial privilege with Risbourough's campaign, in this category in particular, which habitually tells women of color or black women that they are not worthy, is well...a choice. A choice I can't agree with. Race will absolutely have to be a part of this discussion, imho. The history of this category and those whose were disadvantaged by Risbourough's campaign make that discussion neccesary and essential, regardless of whether some may find it uncomfortable. You don't have to ignore race. Obviously it is a factor that permeates much of society, and yes, the industry and these awards. What I am saying is calling Andrea Riseborough's campaign a strategic attempt to undercut two black actresses feels incredibly disingenuous, when there are other factors in play. And yes, race may be a major factor but look at how those films were campaigned and pushed by their studios with the resources they had at their disposal, rather than trying to demonize Frances Fisher, Andrea Riseborough or anyone who had a hand in the campaign itself. Again, they thought Davis and Deadwyler were locks . . . but they said the same thing about Yeoh and Blanchett. It was a critical miscalculation, but also one that shows that Davis (who is far more of an industry insider than Riseborough is) and Deadwyler were vulnerable in ways that few expected, especially as everyone was underestimating De Armas and Williams had a back from missing SAG and BAFTA.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jan 25, 2023 5:02:29 GMT
Stephen, 93 of the 94 Best Actress Oscars have been won by white woman. Halle Berry is the only non-white woman to have won this award. And even Berry is half-white Attempting to remove or dismiss even the discussion racial privilege with Risbourough's campaign, in this category in particular, which habitually tells women of color or black women that they are not worthy, is well...a choice. A choice I can't agree with. Race will absolutely have to be a part of this discussion, imho. The history of this category and those whose were disadvantaged by Risbourough's campaign make that discussion neccesary and essential, regardless of whether some may find it uncomfortable. You don't have to ignore race. Obviously it is a factor that permeates much of society, and yes, the industry and these awards. What I am saying is calling Andrea Riseborough's campaign a strategic attempt to undercut two black actresses feels incredibly disingenuous, when there are other factors in play. And yes, race may be a major factor but look at how those films were campaigned and pushed by their studios with the resources they had at their disposal, rather than trying to demonize Frances Fisher, Andrea Riseborough or anyone who had a hand in the campaign itself. Again, they thought Davis and Deadwyler were locks . . . but they said the same thing about Yeoh and Blanchett. It was a critical miscalculation, but also one that shows that Davis (who is far more of an industry insider than Riseborough is) and Deadwyler were vulnerable in ways that few expected, especially as everyone was underestimating De Armas and Williams had a back from missing SAG and BAFTA. I don't care if it was a "miscalculation" that Frances Fisher claimed Davis & Deadwyler we're locked. As an Academy member, imho, Fisher should never have been allowed to say that shit in a public setting in the first place. It signals other voters and Academy members to be complacent about voting for certain people, and can materially disadvantage their chances of being nominated. That's why the rules need to change after this, and I believe they will.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 25, 2023 5:04:47 GMT
I don't necessarily see Riseborough's nomination as a sign of passion for her performance or the film. Her cheerleaders might have written down her name in their ballots, but there's no way to know if they've actually seen the movie. This is Hollywood where everyone's too busy doing coke and cheating on their spouse to watch shit. you know there's no way all those De Armas voters sat through 3 hours of Blonde
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Jan 25, 2023 5:06:07 GMT
Thinking Frances Fisher was purposefully sabotaging Davis by calling her a lock, when she was probably just looking at pundits predictions and genuinely thought she was getting nominated Curse that evil woman!
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jan 25, 2023 5:06:38 GMT
And that's a problem because . . . ? To Leslie made NBR's Top 10 indie films and Riseborough got a Spirit nomination. Just because it's an extremely tiny film with a low box office doesn't invalidate the work that was put into it. I don't necessarily see Riseborough's nomination as a sign of passion for her performance or the film. Her cheerleaders might have written down her name in their ballots, but there's no way to know if they've actually seen the movie. This is Hollywood where everyone's too busy doing coke and cheating on their spouse to watch shit. And Harry Styles and Taylor Swift would be a problem because their movies could (would) be pieces of shit, but they have lots of friends in the industry and can easily do the same. Or next time it might be someone's son's garbage "debut". This sets a dangerous precedent. Not saying there aren't stinkers among studio-backed movies, but in those cases even if you hate them you can usually see why some other people might like them. Screenings of To Leslie were going on around Hollywood by people like Charlize Theron, Gwyneth Paltrow, Demi Moore, Courteney Cox and Edward Norton. Kate Winslet and Amy Adams each moderated Q&As with Riseborough. There are definitely people in Hollywood that saw it, and even if we were to assume it was mostly just cheerleaders who didn't see it, isn't that a possibility for pretty much all the movies? Hollywood is full of all kinds of big stars with their own passion projects that they try to sell and bolster. The vast majority of those attempts fail (see Travolta's FYCs for Gotti and The Fanatic). Riseborough's succeeded at least in part because the people who got the campaign off actually liked her work.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jan 25, 2023 5:08:12 GMT
I don't necessarily see Riseborough's nomination as a sign of passion for her performance or the film. Her cheerleaders might have written down her name in their ballots, but there's no way to know if they've actually seen the movie. This is Hollywood where everyone's too busy doing coke and cheating on their spouse to watch shit. you know there's no way all those De Armas voters sat through 3 hours of Blonde It's been on Netflix for 4 months. They could've watched 10 minutes a week and finished it in time.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 25, 2023 5:08:33 GMT
You don't have to ignore race. Obviously it is a factor that permeates much of society, and yes, the industry and these awards. What I am saying is calling Andrea Riseborough's campaign a strategic attempt to undercut two black actresses feels incredibly disingenuous, when there are other factors in play. And yes, race may be a major factor but look at how those films were campaigned and pushed by their studios with the resources they had at their disposal, rather than trying to demonize Frances Fisher, Andrea Riseborough or anyone who had a hand in the campaign itself. Again, they thought Davis and Deadwyler were locks . . . but they said the same thing about Yeoh and Blanchett. It was a critical miscalculation, but also one that shows that Davis (who is far more of an industry insider than Riseborough is) and Deadwyler were vulnerable in ways that few expected, especially as everyone was underestimating De Armas and Williams had a back from missing SAG and BAFTA. I don't care if it was a "miscalculation" that Frances Fisher claimed Davis & Deadwyler we're locked. As an Academy member, imho, Fisher should never have been allowed to say that shit in a public setting in the first place. It signals other voters and Academy members to be complacent about voting for certain people, and can materially disadvantage their chances of being nominated. That's why the rules need to change after this, and I believe they will. Eh, I don't see anything that will come out of this in terms of "changing the rules." Frankly, I don't see any difference in what Frances Fisher said as compared to those anonymous ballots people put out. It's not like it was a trade secret that Fisher revealed about how nominations are tallied. They all know. It's just that we saw it in a public post rather than at a gala's table.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 25, 2023 5:10:28 GMT
Thinking Frances Fisher was purposefully sabotaging Davis by calling her a lock, when she was probably just looking at pundits predictions and genuinely thought she was getting nominated Curse that evil woman! People are forgetting that most of the To Leslie buzz happened in the wake of the SAG nominations when Michelle Williams missed out. That was the inciting incident that likely galvanized Fisher to scramble to crunch the numbers. In her position, she probably saw a prime opportunity to get a passion vote in to potentially take advantage of a fractured field (which at the time included folks like Robbie, Colman, etc.) and there wasn't a consensus fifth. She just probably underestimated Ana de Armas, who it turns out was a lot stronger than her drawbacks (incredibly divisive film, NC-17, graphic nature of the movie, etc.) would make it seem.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Jan 25, 2023 5:32:20 GMT
I don't necessarily see Riseborough's nomination as a sign of passion for her performance or the film. Her cheerleaders might have written down her name in their ballots, but there's no way to know if they've actually seen the movie. This is Hollywood where everyone's too busy doing coke and cheating on their spouse to watch shit. you know there's no way all those De Armas voters sat through 3 hours of Blonde Yeah they probably watched her 120 nude scenes, fapped, then put her name down for 3 seconds of pleasure.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 25, 2023 5:35:03 GMT
given that Blonde just received 8 razzie noms and has terrible scores on IMDb and Letterboxd I expect the backlash to only keep growing. None of that, including the Razzies, has been directed at de Armas. She’s been consistently praised and received nominations throughout the awards season. The only backlash to her nomination will be from irrelevant ‘film Twitter’ I mean that tweet now has 9K likes which is a lot more than the Academy's acting branch lol. And it's everywhere on Twitter, practically no one there seems to be happy about de Armas getting in (understandably so). Do a straw poll of people that actually watched Blonde and all the other contenders and De Armas ain't getting into that top 5. But yeah the HFPA and SAG liked her, and they famously have great taste and their voters totally watch all the entries.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Jan 25, 2023 6:08:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Jan 25, 2023 6:12:25 GMT
Also I just discovered that My Year of Dicks is in fact a Disney film...
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Jan 25, 2023 6:29:55 GMT
Also I just discovered that My Year of Dicks is in fact a Disney film... Where is MsMovieStar? A movie like this gets nominated, and we don’t have her perspective?
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Jan 25, 2023 10:08:34 GMT
And that's a problem because . . . ? To Leslie made NBR's Top 10 indie films and Riseborough got a Spirit nomination. Just because it's an extremely tiny film with a low box office doesn't invalidate the work that was put into it. I don't necessarily see Riseborough's nomination as a sign of passion for her performance or the film. Her cheerleaders might have written down her name in their ballots, but there's no way to know if they've actually seen the movie. This is Hollywood where everyone's too busy doing coke and cheating on their spouse to watch shit. And Harry Styles and Taylor Swift would be a problem because their movies could (would) be pieces of shit, but they have lots of friends in the industry and can easily do the same. Or next time it might be someone's son's garbage "debut". This sets a dangerous precedent. Not saying there aren't stinkers among studio-backed movies, but in those cases even if you hate them you can usually see why some other people might like them. I hope you’re not implying that blind voting never happens with studio backed, major campaigns because LOL. And if what you’re saying about Riseborough were the case and it was as easy as just having Hollywood friends, why wasn’t Jennifer Aniston nominated for Cake? In a much weaker race no less? It’s not like grassroots campaigns haven’t been attempted before, and the main reason why this wasn’t taken seriously by many is that they don’t usually work. Absolutely no way this actually makes it to the Oscars if there wasn’t significant passion for her work. And you can even tell by some of the names involved.. For instance how often does Edward Norton go around stumping for films and actors to be nominated, writing the sort of glowing rave he gave out to her perf? Don’t think Winslet goes around calling just anything the best performance she’s ever seen in her life either. And your ‘dangerous precedent’ thing is silly. Most actors take their craft seriously and don’t think much of singers taking their opportunities, so I see no way Taylor Swift or a Harry Styles will ever be nominated in similar fashion. The truth is that this will probably not happen again any time soon. This was definitely a lightening in a bottle moment, mostly made possible the undeniable strength of her performance and rep as a chameleonic character actress due for recognition.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Jan 25, 2023 10:18:35 GMT
Thinking Frances Fisher was purposefully sabotaging Davis by calling her a lock, when she was probably just looking at pundits predictions and genuinely thought she was getting nominated Curse that evil woman! The funny thing is that they were probably hurt much more by pundits largely assuming they were safe, and targeting Williams as the weak link after SAG and BAFTA misses.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Jan 25, 2023 11:54:53 GMT
I'm straight, and I'm turned on.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jan 25, 2023 13:05:29 GMT
I 100% guarantee the posters here that think the Risebourough campaign was “gross” don’t have an actual issue with the tactic, just the results. I’ll go further and say some of them would be praising the creativity of it if it was for a non-white actress or even if she got in with Williams and de Armas out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2023 13:43:55 GMT
Eh, I don't see anything that will come out of this in terms of "changing the rules." Frankly, I don't see any difference in what Frances Fisher said as compared to those anonymous ballots people put out. It's not like it was a trade secret that Fisher revealed about how nominations are tallied. They all know. It's just that we saw it in a public post rather than at a gala's table. I don't think any rules were broken in this instance - it's not like the Alone Yet Not Alone situation where the person promoting the submission was using his/her power (i.e. a leadership position) within the Academy in an inappropriate way. I definitely agree that it's bizarre that this campaign actually worked, though...
|
|
|
Post by Allenism on Jan 25, 2023 13:45:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 25, 2023 13:59:10 GMT
Eh, I don't see anything that will come out of this in terms of "changing the rules." Frankly, I don't see any difference in what Frances Fisher said as compared to those anonymous ballots people put out. It's not like it was a trade secret that Fisher revealed about how nominations are tallied. They all know. It's just that we saw it in a public post rather than at a gala's table. I don't think any rules were broken in this instance - it's not like the Alone Yet Not Alone situation where the person promoting the submission was using his/her power (i.e. a leadership position) within the Academy in an inappropriate way. I definitely agree that it's bizarre that this campaign actually worked, though... I wouldn’t call it bizarre, because historically timing is everything when it comes to these things. It’s just that this is the clearest example of that we’ve had.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 25, 2023 14:08:00 GMT
chinonyechukwu Verified
We live in a world and work in industries that are so aggressively committed to upholding whiteness and perpetuating an unabashed misogyny towards Black women.
I guess we also live in a world where your film - yours, not "industries" - didn't actually show the violence done Emmitt Till by actual, specific, racist white men .......which you may see one way as an "artistic choice", but can also be seen - by me for one - as letting them off the hook.
If your own movie is that arguable, then may be you should just apologize to your actress for not giving her a better, tougher movie and undercutting her performance arc while you're at it...while ironically supporting the very "industries" you claim are holding you down in the first place.
Tough break.......way it goes....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2023 14:10:17 GMT
I don't think any rules were broken in this instance - it's not like the Alone Yet Not Alone situation where the person promoting the submission was using his/her power (i.e. a leadership position) within the Academy in an inappropriate way. I definitely agree that it's bizarre that this campaign actually worked, though... I wouldn’t call it bizarre, because historically timing is everything when it comes to these things. It’s just that this is the clearest example of that we’ve had. I mean more in the sense of the film that was rewarded (barely released with no campaign) - voters had to actively seek this one out if they truly wanted to consider it. To me, the fact that this campaign worked for this film - that is truly bizarre.
|
|