Oscars 2016

[VGThuy]

Spoiler

She was imperfect, like the rest of us. She was confused. When she went to Ireland upon her sister's death, she had no idea that the place would appear so different to her after living in NY. Before leaving she had no life in Ireland and that's why she left. During her visit, she got the things she would have loved to have, and she got caught in it. She forgot for a short time what happened in NY; it was almost like being reborn in Ireland. When the old lady reminds her that she was actually married to the guy in NY, it shook her up. She realized what her responsibility was. She had been a shy young woman all her life, and it was difficult for her to directly tell the new (Irish) man in her life what the reality was. She did write him a note, so it's not like she was totally irresponsible. To me, her behavior was understandable, given her nature and her surroundings. [\spoiler]

You articulated my thoughts perfectly.

 

[danceronice]

Well, somewhere in this thread someone posted a review comparing the Revenant to watching ISIS put a hostage in a cage and set fire to it. If that's your kind of thing, you will enjoy the film. Otherwise it's pretty repulsive in every sense of the word and there's no real story and barely any dialogue (and half of the little dialogue there is, is in a native American language). It's not a very pleasant way to spend an evening.

Meh. I was just told the bear fight was impressive in a "how did they do that" kind of way. Violence doesn't bother me and I already know the real story (which is about as violent, but more petty.) I just want to see the research in the set and costumes.

 

[Allskate]

When I see that 'Brooklyn' was nominated - I just can not compare. 'Straight..' was such a complex story and so well made. I think Brooklyn has one flaw that took me out of the film - the way Eillis acted near the end of the movie - just bugged me.

You are not alone. I felt the same way and so did my friend. I thought the way she behaved in the last third of the film made no sense. I think very few people would have behaved the way she did. And it was inconsistent with her character. To me, it wasn't just a minor flaw in the movie. It was a major flaw.

Spoiler

People don't just "forget" things like falling in love and marrying someone. And there wasn't an obvious reason for her not to tell her mother and others, even if he wasn't Irish. There was even less reason for her to lead on a man, especially one she didn't know before and didn't appear to be falling for. It all seemed silly to me. I get that they wanted to explore ideas of identity and family and "home" and add in the drama of her having to face leaving her mother by herself, but there surely was a better way for them to do that.

 

[MsZem]

Lupita Nyongo and others speak up against the lack of inclusion in the Oscars:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/...ng-o-speaks-out-about-oscar-diversity-n500476

Of those quoted, I think that Idris Elba said it best:

Diversity in the modern world is more than just skin color—It's gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, social background, and - most important of all, as far as I'm concerned - diversity of thought. Because if you have genuine diversity of thought among people making TV & film, then you won't accidentally shut out any of the groups I just mentioned.

 

[agalisgv]

Diversity in the modern world is more than just skin color—It's gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, social background, and - most important of all, as far as I'm concerned - diversity of thought. Because if you have genuine diversity of thought among people making TV & film, then you won't accidentally shut out any of the groups I just mentioned.

So the above quote was about diversity in media, both TV and film. I guess I'm not understanding why that's being equated with diversity in Oscars. The world of film is much bigger than Hollywood. There are so many indie film makers, how can one say they aren't diverse? There are several Native American film festivals held each year around the country. Each one has different selections, all featuring Native writers/directors. Just because those independent movies aren't nominated for an Oscar doesn't mean they aren't being produced. The Sundance film festival was created just so independent movies by no-name artists could get a big screening by the movers and shakers in the film industry. Just look at the list (which I can't even say if it's complete or not) of film festivals around the world the focus on non-Hollywood blockbusters and indie films:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_festivals

Is one really trying to argue there isn't tremendous diversity represented there?

The Oscars rewards particular types of movies. They have broad appeal and are made for US audiences (even if marketed globally). A lot of the diversity within film is in the indie sector, and many of those movies lack broad appeal and/or technical virtuosity. The Oscars don't nominate foreign movies in their primary categories because it's a US based award. But that doesn't mean other countries and continents aren't producing a plethora of movies.

So when it comes to the Oscars, I'm curious which specific actors, actresses, writers, producers, and directors do people think were shafted this year, and whose place should they have taken? When I look at some of the first posts in this thread, people were pretty happy with the nominees, and only jenny12 named specific people she thought could have been nominated that weren't. And a few responded to the suggestion of Will Smith's omission as being appropriate to having delivered a subpar performance.

 

[VGThuy]

I don't know if my post is sufficient to answer your post, and I admit it may be a bit incoherent. But these are my ramblings that were inspired by your post.

I think you bring up some good points and I think a lot of criticisms fall into those traps you presented.

Some would question the fact that many of the films nominated for Oscars past and present (since they started becoming a bit more inclusive with indie films) have broad appeal as many of them don't make tons of money (though some do and there is a bit of a box office boost for getting award attention). People also complain that movies that win Oscars aren't relevant to the tastes of the broad masses. The term "Oscar movie" is actually used as a derogatory to make fun of how out-of-touch those films are to the taste of the masses. Many of the indie and/or non-nominated non-indie films do show technical virtuosity as well. A lot of nominated films in the past and present may not show as much technical virtuosity as films not nominated, indie or not. I guess my question becomes why does diversity within film have to be relegated to the indie sector as opposed to being created within studios? Why are they "niche?" And why should be satisfied with that being the answer and should only accept it because of conventional wisdom? Some question the age old wisdom that the only movies making money feature whites and only whites have "broad appeal". For a lot of people, it just seems odd in this day and age and it doesn't pass the smell test.

As to why only these films were seen worthy to be nominated goes into pretty complicated questions of who makes up the members of the Academy passing off judgment of artistic merit, who dictates the standards of good and high art/taste (Lupita Nyongo's point), who is in charge of the studios who are buying distribution rights or producing films and how do they choose which ones to campaign for and promote during award season, and even if we accept its based on merit, why is it so hard for films that aren't so status-quo to be recognized when the Academy hasn't let lack of box office or media attention or even lack of spectacle or excellent craftsmanship stop them from nominating very small films before.

As Spike Lee said, the Oscars aren't the real battlefield. But I think people latch on to it because as much as people mock it and disagree with it, it still means something to a lot of people and the Academy and Hollywood puts a lot of stock into the awards and promotes it as meaning more than just giving a trophy away but as a message of this is what should be seen as the pinnacle of our industry.

As for film being bigger than Hollywood. True. But as you said, it's an American industry and Oscars award American films for the most part. Many who are voicing their disappointments are American movie goers and are seeing this through the lens of Americans and its issues with representation and lack of it. Many of them are just regular people who don't pay attention to film festivals either. But they want to see a mainstream industry and a mainstream award show start having, producing, promoting, and awarding creations that represent the moviegoers who are going to see the movies. Hollywood is taken to task because that's the industry and they have the most influence and therefore can make the biggest difference or are the biggest influences in perpetuating the same cycle. It's like calling out big corporations for lack of diversity in employment and in management positions even though there are smaller businesses where they don't as much of a problem. Sure an industry is defined more than just this big corps, it's still a big deal as they are seen as the industry.

As to which specific actors, actresses, writers, producers, and directors, I guess it's just odd to only see mostly whites being honored and represented and that they, for the most part, are the only ones producing films or giving performances worth giving Oscars to. Just a few names I remember reading about on Oscar-related blogs before the nominations came out:

Michael B. Jordan won the prestigious National Society of Film Critics Award for Best Actor in Creed
Idris Elba was nominated for a BAFTA, Golden Globe, and SAG and won the Washington D.C. Critics for Best Supporting Actor in Beasts of No Nation.
Abraham Attah received notices for the same film.
Cary Jo Fukunaga, director of Beasts of No Nation.
Trangender actresses of color Kiki Kitana Rodriguez and Mya Taylor received positive notices from critics associations for Tangerine as did the film itself.
Straight Outta Compton received both SAG and PGA nominations which a combo of both usually leads to a Best Pic nod.
RJ Cyler received a Critics Choice nomination for Me and Earl and the Dying Girl.
Shameik Moore in Dope received the same nomination.
Oscar Isaac in Ex Machina received a few nominations for his supporting role.

I'm sure those who have their fingers on the pulse of current films could identify more examples of quality films that were at least as acclaimed as a few of the nominated films and actors, but haven't been given the attention and serious campaign backing. Not saying any of the listed above deserved Oscar nods over others, as that's a matter for debate. It's just that there choices and its odd that actors who were considered just as much as on the fringe to be nominated as those who ended up getting nominated don't get nominated and have something in common with one another that nominated ones do not share. But then, why are these fringe picks? If the list isn't that exhaustive, the question goes back to why aren't there more choices to choose from that are considered Oscar worthy? What is Oscar worthy? It becomes circular.

 

[agalisgv]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, VIETgrlTerifa. Lots of thoughts, but just one quick comment:

But they want to see a mainstream industry and a mainstream award show start having, producing, promoting, and awarding creations that represent the moviegoers who are going to see the movies.

Is this not already happening? Tyler Perry makes quite a few movies targeting black audiences. I wouldn't call them Oscar worthy, but they are surely being produced and mass marketed. Will Smith's production company, Overbrook, is primarily a vehicle for movies he and his family star in, but they certainly produce mass marketed films starring African Americans. You have quite a few AA who have the wealth and influence to make their own production companies. Instead of complaining why aren't others making films they want, why not make them themselves? There's nothing stopping them.

It's not that easy to get a compelling story with an amazing script, then get first-rate directors and a strong cast to make an award winning movie. Just because movies are being made that have diverse casts doesn't mean they are Oscar worthy. To me, the criticisms from Smith, Lee, and Elba strike me as rather self-interested and frankly, entitled. Just because you make or star in a movie doesn't mean you are owed an Oscar nomination.

And just to clarify, I wasn't arguing diversity should be only relegated to indie films. I was saying Elba's comments regarding tv and film rather ignored the larger film-making world. Since his comments weren't restricted to the Oscars, to say there's no diversity in film is to ignore how much film is out there and basically say none of it counts unless a Hollywood studio produces it. At that point the issue seems more about making money than about representation of diversity.

JMHO

 

[Japanfan]

To be honest, I don't understand what "technical" vs "emotional" actor is.

A technical actor uses voice, gesture and appearance to create a character, whereas an emotional actor bases her/his performance on relating to or drawing upon the character's actions. Of course there is a degree of cross-over between them, but the distinction is marked by the distinction between the British RADA (Royal Academy of Dramatic Acting) and the American Stanislavksy school of method acting. And the distinction is loosely paralleled in European versus American approaches to acting. Think Al Pacino typecast as cop/gangster/revel, versus someone like Russell Crowe, who has physically reinvented himself for a role.

Probably the best actors incorporate the best of both methods. Jeremy Irons immediately comes to mind.

 

[Japanfan]

Re biases/prejudice in Hollywood, I just want to note that it is also considerably sexist. The members of the Hollywood institution like to think of themselves as progressive and give themselves a bit pat on the back for making films about slavery and the Holocaust. Although there have been some British/Hollywood films about women that have received lots of attention and awards (i.e. Iron Lady, Elizabeth), women's stories are for the most part underrepresented in Hollywood. The suffragette story would be a good one to tell, but apparently the film 'Suffragette' that came out last fall was not very good. And it pretty much got buried in terms of publicity.

There was an excellent little film call "North County' a few years ago that had everything needed to be a Hollywood blockbuster. It was about the first sexual assault class action suit ever brought by women against a mine, in the 70s. The kind of victim becomes hero story and court drama that Hollywood loves - really well-cast with Charlize Theron, Sissy Spacek, Francis McDormand, and Woody Harrelson. It got almost no publicity IIRC.

And then, there are the dearth of good roles for older female actors, which again distinguishes America from Britain.

 

[Xela M]

A technical actor uses voice, gesture and appearance to create a character, whereas an emotional actor bases her/his performance on relating to or drawing upon the character's actions. Of course there is a degree of cross-over between them, but the distinction is marked by the distinction between the British RADA (Royal Academy of Dramatic Acting) and the American Stanislavksy school of method acting. And the distinction is loosely paralleled in European versus American approaches to acting. Think Al Pacino typecast as cop/gangster/revel, versus someone like Russell Crowe, who has physically reinvented himself for a role.

Probably the best actors incorporate the best of both methods. Jeremy Irons immediately comes to mind.

Lawrence Olivier vs Marlon Brando?

I actually thought Al Pacino is from the Stanislavsky school of acting. Wasn't there the time Olivier and Al Pacino appeared in a film together and Al Pacino kept turning up on set looking more and more like a tramp everyday. When Olivier finally lost patience and asked him why he was looking so rough, Al Pacino explained that's it was all part of method acting and transforming yourself into the character. Olivier replied: "Why don't you just act?"

Or am I getting things completely confused?

 

[clairecloutier]

I disagree entirely and I loathe The Guardian

Okay @Xela M ... I am curious as to why you hate The Guardian?

 

[VGThuy]

There's also Stella Adler who rejects the whole memory recall method though is influenced by the method. She found the whole memory recall thing abusive to the performer. I think a lot of the more modern acting techniques try to combine different schools. Kathleen Turner went on a rant against method acting calling it selfish.

 

[smurfy]

Vash - I understand your post. I just do not see it that way. I was loving the movie and her behavior made me not like her anymore. But again, I think the editors may have made a mistake. jmho

Re - the diversity issue.
It is an issue. But one thing that does annoy me.....
Just because a movie addresses a controversial or topical issue - whether race, lgbt, concussions with football players, etc... - that alone does not make a movie oscarworthy.
Was the film well made is the question for the oscar?
Concussion - as I wrote before I enjoyed the movie, I learned something, overall it was well done, but not the best picture I have seen in a long time. And Will Smith was nothing special.
In the long run, I will remember the movie for the topic and what I learned, not for so and so performance was so amazing. I remember back to a move like 'My Left Foot' - I will never forget Daniel Day Lewis' performance.
It seems like Hollywood loves giving itself pats on the back for tackling certain subjects - which is important and I appreciate that they can make a difference.
But the product must be worthy of awards on the product, not the topic.
again, jmho

 

[VGThuy]

I think the issue is that the only time certain types of actors are cast it's usually for a "type" and the film itself has to be "topical". They don't just exist and are never considered for roles where a "default" can be cast. Even characters whose race is not an issue are usually never given to a person of color. Of course it's better now than it was but its not really common.

For the film Chuck and Buck, Lupe Ontiveros, who won the National Board of Review award for Best Supporting Actress that year for the film, was so happy to be cast in a role that didn't have her doing an accent, "playing Latina", playing a maid, etc. It was just a character she was able to play and originate. That sort of opportunities seem rare for actors of color and even if people get defensive and combat that, the perception exist and it's a very real feeling people have. Again, I found that TV has done a much better job even in this one aspect of casting.

 

[MsZem]

I remember back to a move like 'My Left Foot' - I will never forget Daniel Day Lewis' performance.
It seems like Hollywood loves giving itself pats on the back for tackling certain subjects - which is important and I appreciate that they can make a difference.

I know that it was an incredible performance, but this kind of illustrates a point I was trying to make earlier in this thread - that actors are often lauded for portrayals of people with disabilities, yet we rarely see actual people with disabilities on screen. That's a really underrepresented population, and it bothers me that this is the case. When discussing diversity in film, it's worth keeping in mind that it's not just about race and ethnicity.

I'm just riffing off your post, it's nothing to do with anything you expressed.

 

[snoopy]

I think the issue is that the only time certain types of actors are cast it's usually for a "type" and the film itself has to be "topical". They don't just exist and are never considered for roles where a "default" can be cast. Even characters whose race is not an issue are usually never given to a person of color. Of course it's better now than it was but its not really common.

They are making a movie off of a book, The Girl with all the Gifts. The adult lead in the book is a woman of color. The book never mentions ethnicity but does mention her dark skin. Hollywood is putting a white woman in that role. I guess Hollywood's response to this is that movie goers would rather see white people, not just in America, but overseas markets as well.

http://www.mookychick.co.uk/reviews...-film-casting-for-girl-with-all-the-gifts.php

It's unfortunate as movies can help people break down their own prejudices but Hollywood is choosing to reinforce them instead.

 

[smurfy]

I know that it was an incredible performance, but this kind of illustrates a point I was trying to make earlier in this thread - that actors are often lauded for portrayals of people with disabilities, yet we rarely see actual people with disabilities on screen. That's a really underrepresented population, and it bothers me that this is the case. When discussing diversity in film, it's worth keeping in mind that it's not just about race and ethnicity.

I'm just riffing off your post, it's nothing to do with anything you expressed.

Love your response - I had not thought of that way - and so true.
Plus the general looks of people too. They love to cast 'beautiful people'.
Remember the big deal when Charlize Theron won for Monster - she was great, but so much was made about the change in her appearance.
Progress has been made in some areas, but there is such a looooong way to go.

 

[Xela M]

Okay @Xela M ... I am curious as to why you hate The Guardian?

Left-wing propaganda

 

[clairecloutier]

Left-wing propaganda

Just curious, as I read it all the time!! Your preferred news source is ... ??

 

[Artemis@BC]

... The suffragette story would be a good one to tell, but apparently the film 'Suffragette' that came out last fall was not very good. And it pretty much got buried in terms of publicity.

Who says it wasn't good? I thought it was excellent. Not best picture of the year perhaps, but only because it suffered somewhat from true-story-it is. Still definitely in the top 10 of movies I've seen this year. And it has a solid 73% on RT so I'm not exactly the minority opinion.

I haven't read the publicity numbers but I saw tons of ads for it before it opened, an Carey Mulligan was on at least 2 latenight talk shows that I saw.

 

[Japanfan]

Lawrence Olivier vs Marlon Brando?

I actually thought Al Pacino is from the Stanislavsky school of acting. Wasn't there the time Olivier and Al Pacino appeared in a film together and Al Pacino kept turning up on set looking more and more like a tramp everyday. When Olivier finally lost patience and asked him why he was looking so rough, Al Pacino explained that's it was all part of method acting and transforming yourself into the character. Olivier replied: "Why don't you just act?"

Or am I getting things completely confused?

No, that's a good example

Who says it wasn't good? I thought it was excellent. Not best picture of the year perhaps, but only because it suffered somewhat from true-story-it is. Still definitely in the top 10 of movies I've seen this year. And it has a solid 73% on RT so I'm not exactly the minority opinion.

The reviews were very mixed. I was going to see it anyway, but it didn't have a very long run here. I still plan to watch it on Pay-Per-View.

 

[Xela M]

Just curious, as I read it all the time!! Your preferred news source is ... ??

The (free) Metro and the Evening Standard

 

[Xela M]

There's also Stella Adler who rejects the whole memory recall method though is influenced by the method. She found the whole memory recall thing abusive to the performer. I think a lot of the more modern acting techniques try to combine different schools. Kathleen Turner went on a rant against method acting calling it selfish.

Stella Adler discovered and mentored Marlon Brando. I thought she was all about method acting? Wasn't she taught by Stanislavsky?

 

[screech]

I think the issue is that the only time certain types of actors are cast it's usually for a "type" and the film itself has to be "topical". They don't just exist and are never considered for roles where a "default" can be cast. Even characters whose race is not an issue are usually never given to a person of color. Of course it's better now than it was but its not really common.

Morgan Freeman was cast as Red in the Shawshank Redemption. In the book, Red is a middle-aged Irishman with graying red hair. Despite this description, apparently they always wanted him for the role.

I know that this is definitely against the norm, though.

 

[Xela M]

I really think people are overreacting. Just because millionaire Will Smith is not nominated for any semi-decent appearance on screen doesn't make the Academy inherenly racist. I don't think Morgan Freeman or Forest Whitaker or Denzel Washington or any other great black actors (btw all of whom were born in the US - not some 3rd world country like a poster above seemed to suggest) are as outraged as Mr Smith's family.

The vast majority of films these days don't make any money. That's the biggest issue and why we are being forcefed countless idiotic sequels. Good scripts are very rare and far between. It's not some conspiracy against black actors - nothing decent is being filmed. Anyway, if people enjoy films that make a big stand against the white population - watch the 'Revenant'.

 

[Vash01]

I really think people are overreacting. Just because millionaire Will Smith is not nominated for any semi-decent appearance on screen doesn't make the Academy inherenly racist. I don't think Morgan Freeman or Forest Whitaker or Denzel Washington or any other great black actors (btw all of whom were born in the US - not some 3rd world country like a poster above seemed to suggest) are as outraged as Mr Smith's family.

The vast majority of films these days don't make any money. That's the biggest issue and why we are being forcefed countless idiotic sequels. Good scripts are very rare and far between. It's not some conspiracy against black actors - nothing decent is being filmed. Anyway, if people enjoy films that make a big stand against the white population - watch the 'Revenant'.

I don't think they are overreacting. No black actor/actress receiving an Oscar nomination for two years in a row is not an accident. One year can be considered an accident but two years in a row becomes a trend. When you consider the percentage of blacks/African Americans in the USA, this is glaring.

I don't feel that Will Smith really deserved the nomination for 'Concussion'- he was OK in it, not great- , so I am OK with that. The real issue here is not about Will Smith; the issue is that the academy has old white males in majority, and it is influencing the whole industry. There are not enough important roles for the non-white actors to challenge for the top honor, and when there is a good role, it's not automatically rewarded. Classic example- the actor who played MLK in 'Selma' was not nominated for Best Actor. He was outstanding. Had he and his character been white (e.g. Lincoln and DDL) he would have automatically been a contender. Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, Halle Berry receiving Oscars are exceptions. It's like the lack of diversity in large organizations. You see a few that crack that glass ceiling but it doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.

 

[Jay42]

This was tweeted on the PostSecret twitter page a couple of hours ago. I have to say I'm not surprised the Native Americans are the most under-represented. Someone did tweet him asking about people of Middle Eastern decent and someone else mentioned that it gets included with Asia which feels weird to me but that would explain Shohreh Aghdashloo's presense on the Asian nominees list on Wikipedia.

 

[VGThuy]

The whole grouping of all Asians together, especially in the context of university admissions, is a whole other loaded issue.

 

[Jay42]

The whole grouping of all Asians together, especially in the context of university admissions, is a whole other loaded issue.

I can believe it.

 

[Japanfan]

I don't think they are overreacting. No black actor/actress receiving an Oscar nomination for two years in a row is not an accident. One year can be considered an accident but two years in a row becomes a trend. When you consider the percentage of blacks/African Americans in the USA, this is glaring.

What black actors/actresses do you think should have received a nomination, but didn't?

The Oscars are always a very biased affair, but the nominations are supposed to be based on merit first, not to meet a certain standard of ethnic diversity.

That said, the Hollywood machine itself could be a lot more diverse. Native Americans are particularly underrepresented in Hollywood films and there is a lot of sexism as well.