Awards Season 2019

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism both old and new, as well as memorializing public figures we've lost.
Post Reply
Message
Author

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Awards Season 2019

#427 Post by DarkImbecile » Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:31 pm

Wouldn’t any award only be worth having if it was based on quality?

The impact any voter’s subjective method of filling their ballot has on opportunities for underrepresented groups pales in significance to the structural disadvantages faced by those groups in Hollywood and basically every other sector (as King said). Focusing vitriol on individuals like this is a waste of time and distracts from the real core of the issue.

User avatar
Feego
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Awards Season 2019

#428 Post by Feego » Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:56 pm

It's come to a point where the most vocal #OscarSoWhite/#OscarSoMale activists, even ones as high-profile as DuVernay, really just seem to want Academy voters to choose that year's token PoC and female contenders without any regard to their own personal taste. They level an extreme guilt trip on voters as if it is their civic duty to ensure that every category is diversified. While the Oscars can't be accused of ever having really been about quality rather than self-promotion, it strikes me as bizarre that this awards show has been adopted by so many as their personal symbol of "woke" culture and, and they are absolutely incensed when people dare to disagree. Another article I saw mentioned that someone took King to task by saying his tweet implies that quality and diversity are not synonymous. Um, they literally aren't?

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Awards Season 2019

#429 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:05 pm

Stephen King is perhaps the most famous outspoken person in recovery, who touches on addiction in his books in layered ways and is maybe the most inspiring artist as exhibit A for those who fear that if they put down drugs/alcohol they cannot be creative anymore. If he leaned his picks towards films that handled addiction well in his subjective view, that would be just as reasonable as DuVernay picking for the sake of representing people of color more. I’m not saying they’re the same thing at all, but the process by which someone gravitates towards their own personal stake of investment, conscious or not, is valid, and I don’t see why just because the zeitgeist favors one over the others right now that conversation should be limited to such. Is racism a systemic problem and should it be a conversation we are constantly having? Yes. If Stephen King asked for more recovering addicts like Casey Affleck or Mel Gibson to be nominated, would that be a marginalized group people would welcome a look at or laugh at? Of course they’re not the same thing, at all, but this is a one-note issue and if we are going to open up the floodgates to the point of finger-pointing and shaming for not agreeing on the same marginalized populations to place the same degree of stake in, they should all fly open and we’ll see who’s left.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Awards Season 2019

#430 Post by zedz » Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:54 pm

At least there's no possible self-interest involved in Ava DuVernay advocating that people should automatically vote for black and / or female directors.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Awards Season 2019

#431 Post by domino harvey » Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:08 pm

Emotions are running high all over the internet about everything movie-related right now, it’s exhausting. Just a few days ago the internet turned on their new Jennifer Lawrence, Florence Pugh, for having the temerity to be an adult dating a fellow adult because her boyfriend is in his mid-forties, and not for the much better reason of that older guy being Zach Braff

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Awards Season 2019

#432 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:19 pm

I can appreciate and can never begin to fathom the empowerment or even responsibility one might feel to use success or fame as a platform to raise attention to social justice, especially regarding personal issues of systemic disparities that extend to acknowledgement of what can be fairly perceived as value and worth. My problem will always lie with anyone who sees the world in black and white (poor choice of words, but I mean ‘all or nothing’ thinking- ‘right’=my perspective, ‘wrong’=not my perspective). Ava DuVernay could have responded to King with a statement that validated his perspective to some degree before trying to sell hers, or hell even don’t validate his if you don’t want to and share yours; but to call someone names and negate theirs for the rooted reason being because it’s different than what you believe without defining your position and rationale is just an emblem of the problematic culture we live in. I’d be all ears to hear what Ava has to say in response but all she did was invalidate his perspective and squash an opportunity to engage on a hot issue or even pitch her point. She didn’t really say anything other than to call him “backwards” and complain about how he ruined her perfect meditation-stretch morning.
Last edited by therewillbeblus on Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Awards Season 2019

#433 Post by zedz » Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:48 pm

I also think it's a terrible, counter-productive argument to make on its own terms (that people "should" be nominating people or colour and women). I support female and minority directors because they make films just a good or better than white male directors (and certainly better than the majority of what gets an Oscar nod, but that's another argument entirely.) I think it's patronizing to promote a special handicap for these kind of awards, and all that energy would be far more profitably spent in attacking production and funding disparities (and an Oscar nomination disparity is excellent evidence of this) or, in terms of awards recognition, advocating long and loud for films you think deserve recognition in the run up to the nominations, then advocating for the nominated films you think deserve to win.

It sucks that Spike Lee has never won a Best Director Oscar, but it sucks more that there aren't a dozen Spike Lees that we could be feeling bad for.

User avatar
Luke M
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: Awards Season 2019

#434 Post by Luke M » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:34 am

This reminds me when Twitter piled on Spike Lee for not picking movies directed by women (or later not enough women-helmed movies) in his personal list of inspiring films.

The discourse is fairly toxic.

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: Awards Season 2019

#435 Post by movielocke » Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:30 am

I don’t think duverneys intent is to promote voter tokenism but to cause voters to recognize they are not even considering ANYONE outside the dominant caste groups, mostly because marginalization is in a feedback loop with invisibility.

Insisting on not being invisible isn’t the same as tokenism, but tokenism could be a typical response outcome by the dominant group to any activist pushing back against this feedback loop.

I’m reminded of a screenwriting group I was in nearly twenty years ago, we had been talking about Chappelle’s show, which led to a discussion on race in writing and casting, and one writer said, “if having no black characters is always racist then I need to add a black character every time I write a script, like a sidekick, right?” And the group leader said, “no. No that’s still racist.” Which led to the explosion, “how can that be racist when I am deliberately being not racist!?”

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Awards Season 2019

#436 Post by tenia » Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:32 am

movielocke wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:30 am
I don’t think duverneys intent is to promote voter tokenism but to cause voters to recognize they are not even considering ANYONE outside the dominant caste groups, mostly because marginalization is in a feedback loop with invisibility.
Insisting on not being invisible isn’t the same as tokenism, but tokenism could be a typical response outcome by the dominant group to any activist pushing back against this feedback loop.
On the other hand, King explicited he can only nomimate for Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Original Screenplay. Since we're talking of the pictures and the screenplays, wouldn't the best way to nominate those be by not even know it who are responsible for those, especially since these categories can be analysed this way ? While it's obviously complicated for some other categories who are directly nominating persons (director, acting), here, you can judge the result and not the artists behind it. Why then should people actively try precisely not to do that and go against the "blind test" ? Wouldn't that precisely be discrimination, even if it is a positive one ?

I understand movielocke's point about trying to go beyond the usual reflexes that are marginilising people into invisibility, but I still believe there are cases where going "blind" with the nominations might actually be the fairest way to nominate. "I liked those 5 movies and want to nominate them, no matter who directed them".

Moreover, positive discrimination has its own limitations, especially sending the message that your work might not have been good enough on its own terms, but since you belong to a majority, here you go. Not only that, but it doesn't help that much on the longer term (and god knows we French have been championing positive discrimination for decades in our society and, well, it pretty much never worked).

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Awards Season 2019

#437 Post by TMDaines » Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:43 am

Looking forward to the day the Oscars and BAFTAs are truly representative of the diversity of (the number of foreign) films shown in LA and the UK and then people backlashing that we didn’t mean that type of diversity. People probably would have be far comfortable with Parasite being sidelined and English-speaking tokenistic nominations taking their place instead.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Awards Season 2019

#438 Post by tenia » Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:49 am

Not sure if a cynical remark or not, but just like Césars noms are for French productions (or co-productions whose fundings are more than 50% French), my understanding was that Oscars noms were for US movies, with the Best Foreign Language Film/Best International Feature Film cateogry there for anything that's not from the US. It thus really looks weird for me that Parasite gets a Foreign BP nom AND a BP nom, and even a Best Director nom, even if the nominations are deserved cinematographically wise.

The same goes this year for Honeyland, which gets a Foreign BP nom AND a best documentary nom. And Antonio Banderas getting a Best Actor nom.

This doesn't help, IMO. At this point, why not nominate Adèle Haenel and Mame Bineta Sané as Best Actress ? Marco Bellocchio, Midi Z and Kantemir Balagov as Best Director ? This can go a long way, and I don't think the Academy Awards are supposed to have as international nominations as Cannes, Berlin or Venise. The reverse could also be discussed : why not opening national awards for US movies ? I can imagine the César for Best Actor going to Joe Pesci for The Irishman (it actually would probably be more deserved than some of the noms we'll soon get).

Nasir007
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am

Re: Awards Season 2019

#439 Post by Nasir007 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:06 am

tenia wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:49 am
Not sure if a cynical remark or not, but just like Césars noms are for French productions (or co-productions whose fundings are more than 50% French), my understanding was that Oscars noms were for US movies, with the Best Foreign Language Film/Best International Feature Film cateogry there for anything that's not from the US. It thus really looks weird for me that Parasite gets a Foreign BP nom AND a BP nom, and even a Best Director nom, even if the nominations are deserved cinematographically wise.

The same goes this year for Honeyland, which gets a Foreign BP nom AND a best documentary nom. And Antonio Banderas getting a Best Actor nom.

This doesn't help, IMO. At this point, why not nominate Adèle Haenel and Mame Bineta Sané as Best Actress ? Marco Bellocchio, Midi Z and Kantemir Balagov as Best Director ? This can go a long way, and I don't think the Academy Awards are supposed to have as international nominations as Cannes, Berlin or Venise. The reverse could also be discussed : why not opening national awards for US movies ? I can imagine the César for Best Actor going to Joe Pesci for The Irishman (it actually would probably be more deserved than some of the noms we'll soon get).
I don't think of the Oscars being for US movies. I think more appropriately they are primarily for English language movies since a ton of UK movies win there too.

I would actually like the opposite direction. I would like the Oscars to become so international that any given year you are seeing multiple nominations, from multiple movies in the main category that are not in English and are from around the world.

The Oscars only ever had 1 criterion - playing for 7 days in LA. So there was never any country rule ever in place. Nor do I think there should be.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Awards Season 2019

#440 Post by tenia » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:40 am

Nasir007 wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:06 am
The Oscars only ever had 1 criterion - playing for 7 days in LA. So there was never any country rule ever in place.
Why having a foreign picture category, then ?

User avatar
Feego
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Awards Season 2019

#441 Post by Feego » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:41 am

movielocke wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:30 am
I don’t think duverneys intent is to promote voter tokenism but to cause voters to recognize they are not even considering ANYONE outside the dominant caste groups, mostly because marginalization is in a feedback loop with invisibility.
The thing is, we don't know that to be true about Stephen King, who was directly attacked by DuVernay. All he said was that he votes based on quality, not diversity. That does not mean that he didn't vote for movies made by women or people of color, though his detractors have willfully misinterpreted his words to mean that. Now, we don't know what he voted for. But let's say, for instance, that he voted for Jordan Peele's Us for Best Picture, which is not outside the realm of possibility. If he did so, it was because he legitimately thought it was a great movie, not because it was directed by a black director and stars black actors, although their perspective certainly informs the quality of the piece. I don't see how King's words are offensive in this situation. As a Hispanic person, I certainly would rather have my accomplishments lauded because other people find merit in them than because I'm brown.

For the last several months, DuVernay has been featured on Turner Classic Movies as a guest host for a program called "The Essentials," where great or historically significant movies are spotlighted. In years past, the movies have by and large been tried and true Hollywood classics from the 1930s - 1950s, directed by men and featuring predominately white casts. She's shaken things up a bit by choosing lots of foreign films and American movies made by women and people of color (e.g. Daughters of the Dust, Harlan County USA, The Battle of Algiers). And she has been on the receiving end of lots of blatantly racist vitriol from people on TCM's Facebook page because of it. I think what she's doing on TCM is great and truly the best way to promote films "outside the dominant caste groups." She has the opportunity to present these films from her perspective, discuss their importance to her and their impact on filmmaking, and share them with a new audience. I applaud her for that. But chastising and, even worse, outright insulting people for not approaching movies from the same perspective as she is not helping her cause. If anything, it only causes further division.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Awards Season 2019

#442 Post by domino harvey » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:38 am

They gave six nominations to Little Women, a film written by, directed by, and predominantly starring women. They just didn’t nominate its director for directing. There’s no conspiracy against the film, and it’s absurd to suggest otherwise. Indeed, all this drama is ensuring Gerwig wins the screenplay Oscar, which was not nearly as likely beforehand

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Awards Season 2019

#443 Post by DarkImbecile » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:47 am

If I'm not mistaken, I believe a record number of women were nominated this year across all categories

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Awards Season 2019

#444 Post by therewillbeblus » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:30 pm

DarkImbecile wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:47 am
If I'm not mistaken, I believe a record number of women were nominated this year across all categories
You're not mistaken, but no one wants to talk about that, because why would anything nice ever happen? Our overarching culture (at least in the U.S.) is so problem-focused vs. strengths-based it's no wonder we have all the problems we do

User avatar
swo17
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Awards Season 2019

#445 Post by swo17 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:01 pm

Two of the categories were even completely swept by women

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Awards Season 2019

#446 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:09 pm

swo17 wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:01 pm
Two of the categories were even completely swept by women
This took me longer than I care to admit.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Awards Season 2019

#447 Post by knives » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:19 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:30 pm
Our overarching culture (at least in the U.S.) is so problem-focused vs. strengths-based it's no wonder we have all the problems we do
What I tell my boss everyday.

User avatar
PfR73
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 6:07 pm

Re: Awards Season 2019

#448 Post by PfR73 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:20 pm

domino harvey wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:38 am
They gave six nominations to Little Women, a film written by, directed by, and predominantly starring women. They just didn’t nominate its director for directing. There’s no conspiracy against the film, and it’s absurd to suggest otherwise. Indeed, all this drama is ensuring Gerwig wins the screenplay Oscar, which was not nearly as likely beforehand
And produced by. In fact, it is the only Best Picture nominee with a single nominated producer, and that producer is a woman. And the film's other 2 producers, who for whatever reason(s) weren't included in the nominations, were also women.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Awards Season 2019

#449 Post by tenia » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:23 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:30 pm
no one wants to talk about that
The Wrap (amongst others) did.
This being written, many (if not the majority of those) are because BP noms go to the producers, not the directors. If you look at the direct nominations only, the number of woman nominations drop from 55 to 37, and within those, 13 are coming from the short features noms and 13 from either makeup, costumes design or set decorations, 3 departments in which women are actually much more numerous than any other in the industry (so there's that).
It doesn't leave many direct nominations in other big categories.

So in one hand : yay.
But if you go a bit deeper, I'm not sure there's a lot to really rejoice about.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Awards Season 2019

#450 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:24 pm

Can we just establish some baseline that there's no "conspiracy against" any film or other film that could have been "chosen" instead? There's voting that takes place, none of which is done in some big room with all of said voters coercing each other through the process, and then the nominations are what they are. Even placing Little Women in the context that it received X amount of nominations and didn't receive Y nominations is to paint things as though one of those nominations has anything to do with another one. It's just... not how the Academy Awards are handled, and so much of this noise over the last few days is a misrepresentation of that in some way.

Post Reply