Oscar in Panic Mode. This Rarely Ends Well...
Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 10:10AM 
Readers I'm getting nervous. I love the Oscars. Ever since I saw the shiny gold man on a TV guide cover as a little boy and was all "what is that?" I've been hooked. So their history means a lot to me.
It's actually because of that history that it's fun as well as uplifting to chart their progress over the years in dealing with diversity -- and there has been a lot of progress no matter what the current cultural rage would imply. It's been a thrill to see the "first this" and "first that" over the years.
But this year things are getting ugly. The Academy often makes terrible mistakes when its criticized (note all the 'we can't make up our minds' volatility with the rules following The Dark Knight year) and now they'll be meeting on possible rules changes including returning to 10 Picture nominees. President Cheryl Boone Isaacs promises "big changes". Some people are even floating acting fields as big as 10 nominees. This is probably the worst idea I've ever heard in relation to the Oscars. [More...]
If they moved back to a solid 10 nominees, which of these four would have been the extra two nods?
How will it even be special to be a nominee? Showbiz is a tough business. This is why they call actors "troupers" and why "The show must go on!" is such a mantra. Not everyone can be nominated in a given year -- even stars as big as Will Smith and Leonardo DiCaprio have to sit it out from time to time when they have a performance that's firmly "in the conversation." It's especially strange for Will Smith to raise a fuss this year since he's a two time nominee who showbiz has been enormously kind to over the years. And let's face it: it's hard to get Oscar nominated when your movie doesn't get good reviews. To protest in a year where you were a long shot and didn't make it comes across as being a sore loser; a lot of people probably don't remember this now but Leonardo DiCaprio refused to go to the Oscars when he wasn't nominated for Titanic (1997) and it was NOT a good look for him. It reflected poorly on him back then but he was young and he got over it and started being a good sport about awards.
Show business has never been a business for the faint of heart or the fragile. Not everyone gets a nomination or emerges from the big night a winner. And if they did, I'd wager that no one would care about them at all in about oh... two years time once the novelty wore off. And the Oscars, which have weathered 88 years of storms, would cease to be. 'Maybe that's not a bad thing?' Some people would argue. A truth: the people who would argue that should not be in the conversation about how to fix the Oscars because the Oscars have no value to them.
Expanding nominee fields, in addition to disrespecting 8 decades of history, would not necessarily help. At all. People will complain even more because the root of the problem -- which involves who makes decisions in Hollywood and who gets cast and what type of movies they're in -- will still be there. You don't cure a disease by treating symptons. If the movie industry is not changing around the Oscars there WILL easily be years with no visible minorities again (please note that no one on earth whose complaining about this seems to care about any minorities who are not famous actors -- note the lack of outcry over Todd Haynes, one of the world's most gifted filmmakers not being nominated.... again).
There are so many solutions to the diversity problem that do not require dismantling everything that makes the Oscars the Oscars. Here are a few to address a lot of problems, and not just the diversity problem:
- Get Rid of Non-Voting Members. i.e. those that aren't committed. This gives you more room to add new members and continue your worthwhile diversity push (please note: this does not mean ditching older voters. There's nothing wrong with ageing; we all do it.)
- Blue-Ribbon Panels. Set up executive blue-ribbon panels for more open dialogue with general voting populists -- they could send out suggestion lists... THROUGHOUT THE YEAR that's something more than just the punditry of "who will get nominated?" or "who should" that voters may or may not see or care about.
- Eligibility Lists With Visuals. Send out reminder eligibility lists for the actor's branch with actual faces on them - like the Emmys do... maybe if actors voting are looking at all that while they're voting they might even notice their racial bias themselves without all this shaming fuss and reconsider a vote or two.
- Mid Year Report. Set up some sort of mid year system (this was suggested by Siskel & Ebert back in the day) of semi-finals or reminder lists for later. So that films don't feel the need to arrive all at once and make it hard for everyone to stay informed about what they're voting on. Hell you could even have a televised "Oscar Preview" special if you really put your mind to it and get voters thinking about their ballots early.
- Require Voters to See the Movies They're Voting On. Older voters aren't the problem but voters who don't see the movies could be. As fun as Steven Soderbergh's published lists of his daily screenings are that he releases once a year it was shocking to peruse them and realize that he didn't see half films he would have been voting on as a member. And Glenn recently pointed out to me another non-old voter who offers an egregiously upsetting example. Glenn writes: "It was only a few months ago that Quentin Tarantino admitted to not even seeing SELMA... there are actually likely plenty of people who just aren't watching the movies. Quentin Tarantino of all people, a man who has made his career off of African Americans and their language and their stars and their genres didn't even bother to see a best picture nominee about Martin Luther King. If that's not a tell tale sign then I don't know what is."
- Bake-Offs/Semi-Finals. If things don't improve after a few years consider, at least partially, what the foreign film committees do with checks and balances and a special panel who can insert a couple of names into the finals (though members still get to vote on the final outcome) or what the craft branches sometimes do where the field gets slowly whittled down.
The comments at the NYT article about all this linked up top are disheartening too. Just yet more ageism as if everyone has peered upon the secret ballots of all the members and has determined that anyone over 60 that doesn't work much doesn't know what the f*** is going on and is also racist. Never mind that they're the only ones who have time to attend massive amounts of screenings -- as is required by the documentary & foreign film committees and really ought to be required in other fields since people should actually see the films they're voting on. Maybe it's just me but I'd trust the ballots of, say, Warren Beatty (78) and Sidney Poitier (88) a helluva lot sooner than I'd trust the ballots of, I dunno Tom Hooper (43) and Jennifer Hudson (34), you know?
Reader Comments (136)
I posted this on another thread but reposing here: There was a discussion on CBC radio last night about the diversity issue and all the presenters were convinced, CONVINCED, that the snubs of Idris Elba and Micheal B Jordan were malicious and intentional, and the people on the panel all involved in film criticism of some sort from what I gather. It saddened me because yes sure there are issues that need to be addressed rationally, but the Academy is not this monolith and I don't think anything is done in a malicious way. They also all seemed to ignore the 13-14 years prior to 2014 when POC in the acting categories were getting more nominations and wins than ever before. I guess the point is, no matter how this discussion is framed now there is definitely an image and belief among many that the Academy is out of date and out of touch and that needs to be fixed.
I hated so much when the Grammys took away the "MALE" and "FEMALE" specific categories and just lumped everyone into a "Best Pop Performance" type of thing... I pray that doesn't happen with the Oscars.
:(
Ten nominees per acting category is absurd. It would be open season and not in a good way. And like you say, it just wouldn't be special anymore. Everyone would get one soon enough including far too many that they would regret.
I emailed Nathaniel before he posted this hoping he would catch it. Alas... we all seem to be forgetting that Quentin Tarantino, a member (I assume) of both the writing and directing branches, admitted several months ago that he didn't even watch SELMA. Before nominations or after. He didn't watch all the best picture nominees and didn't even bother with a big title for nominations. If he is indicative of industry members his own age then no wonder there's cause for alarm if they won't even watch best picture nominees.
And it's especially galling considering Tarantino has built his career around black language, actors and genres and wouldn't even watch a best picture nominee about Martin Luther King.
Didn;t the Emmys have 8 nominees in one of the comedy categories that Allison Janney won last year, it LOOKED ridiculous. Plus what if you expand to 6 or 7 nominees ( I doubt they will jump to 10) and no POC get nominated, what then ?
This is getting ugly. I don't like it at all. Why is everyone targeting the Academy instead of blaming the studios?
Peggy Sue -- because it's easy and because most people are ignorant about how the Academy functions.
Rami -- agreed. once there are a ton of nominees you look like you're desperate for people to come to your party. Nobody wants the Oscars to be the Golden Satellites or something.
Glenn -- i did include that. I guess this accidentally went up while i was still revising the text.
Aah! I was probably typing my reply as you were adding it.
Still important to note, I think. Because it's ridiculous.
One thing that would be amusing to see is if the Academy really did go to ten nominees, how would other organisations react? Would the BFCA jump to 15 nominees per category?
If there was 10 nominees this year, Elba may still get snubbed and remaining The Big Short and Spotlight cast would get in :)
I don't like this either. Whatever the Academy does, they won't fix a thing until the industry changes. Even if next year we'll have 5 for 5 POC nominated, it won't mean a thing for either of them . What good things happened to Lupita? Or Viola Davis? Or Moni'que?
" the root of the problem -- which involves who makes decision in Hollywood and who gets cast and what type of movies they're in -- will still be there. "
EXACTLY.
Ideally, there are no big changes, and next year studios decide to take advantage of this need for inclusion and put some actual money into pushing diverse movies towards the Academy.
I agree with the sentiment (COMPLETELY), don't know about the solution.
1) Sure.
2) Not sure. Not a fan of BRPs.
3) Good idea.
4) The shoving-all-the-best-movies-in-at-the-end-of-the-year thing is awful—particularly for movie fans not in NY or LA. I don't know if this helps #OscarsSoWhite but it would help #MostOfMovieYearSoBoring.
5) How to police this?
6) Brackets! February Madness!
My assumption is that cooler heads won't prevail here.
The NYT article wisely pointed out that expanding nominee fields would not increase diversity, only add more of the same types of movies that they are already seeing. Is there a way they can go back throughout the past decades and find POC in the industry who were never let into the Academy over the years, and extend membership to them? I think the only way to fix this is, like they're already doing, diversifying their membership classes. I have a feeling this next pool of invites is going to be a massive number...
What I dislike about their possible solutions is they are not using my ideas.
Actresses should be the only ones nominating actresses. Actors should be the only ones nominating actors. The reason being it changes the way everyone who acts campaigns for Academy recognition. Especially women of color could receive empathy and it would cut down on the juggernauts like Lawrence and Streep being default contenders. There is professional jealousy and the possibility of less conventional choices would float to the surface to suppress those with an easy ride.
I woke up so disheartened today. It's hard to get an Oscar. You can't award what's not there. How is this not clear? I hate the idea of being on the edge of my seat in fear next year when the nominees are read... hoping that the name of one of the three ethnic possibilities is read so that we can avoid all of this. It seems extremely obvious that we have to expand on the amount of ethnic possibilities present. Not funnel their support into the same few performances.
The REAL culprit in all this are the studio heads who seldom produce or promote QUALITY work starring minorities or by minorities. Period. If there were more films by minorities in serious contention, more minorities will be nominated AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
@GlennDunk As much as I love Tarentino, your comments regarding Selma just makes me disappointed and disgusted on his part. I always had the impression that he watches as much films as possible, perhaps he doesn't gravitate to films that seemed "artful" and "cerebral" (eg. Notes On a Scandal and maybe Carol *roll eyes*) and message driven (maybe Selma falls into that). I have not seen hateful 8, but django unchained(which i detested) seemed to be a reflection of his escalating excesses and self-importance on is value as a writer and director.
@Nathaniel TRUEDAT REGARDING TOM hOOPER. I certainly am not for the idea of expanding nominees. But if they were to implement the rule that only members that have attended screenings be allowed to vote (lets say for the big 6), what would happen to members who are unable to make it due to valid reasons or are simply not living in the country?
Is there an online screener system in which you could monitor which members have watched which screeners (or at least how many they have watched)? Because if people can't attend screenings, there needs to be a way to know if members are watching their screeners (or make it a personal assistant's job to watch the screener with them). Maybe not every screener, but there should be a certain amount of screeners an Academy member needs to watch before they can vote, and yes, definitely keep a registry of who is voting and who isn't, and maybe if somebody doesn't vote three years in a row, their membership gets revoked. I think it's necessary for Academy members to view their membership as an obligation as well as a privilege. An obligation for this historical record of movies that cinephiles may be looking to in order to start learning about movies (which, as limited a record as it is, it's a very good starting point that eventually leads to a certain filmmaker's or actor's more daring work).
Anything, but please don't expand the nominee lists in the acting categories! Best Actor this year is weak enough as it is with five, just imagine what would end up on that list if there were 10 (and we'll constantly be speculating who the bottom 5 are, as opposed to celebrating all 10 as nominees).
Not every member is computer literate and not every member lives in an area with screenings, so they could just have members certify, with a notarized statement, that they've seen all the nominees in the "big 8" categories. (And maybe have them check off each film individually as part of the certification.) It would be an improvement over what they've got.
I like your third suggestion, because it might remind voters of performances of which they've forgotten. I wonder if they just end up nominating hyped up performances because they're the only ones they can remember when they're filling out their ballots.
I'm not sure about the eligibility of Beasts of No Nation since it's tied with Netflix, but that had a slew of potential nominations under it's belt. I think there needs to certainly be a change regarding voters...seems they're all becoming a bit lazy in this process.
I am so over this "controversy" thing about the Oscars. Bitches, how could POC can be nominated if there are not even roles for them to play? Hollywood system is at fault here.
And this is an award based on merit, not on race, this kind of thing that in the future will raise the sentiment that POC get nominated just because of their race alone.
Will Smith and his wife are just bitter cause he is "snubbed". Why can't people just react to this like Lupita Nyong'o and Idris Elba, with grace and thoughtfulness?
Yes I agree that The Oscar nominations are a symptom not the cause of the lack of diversity in film. What we need is more diversity in popular films. Star Wars lead being a black man for example...and what about Asian or Hispanic representation at the Oscars. Has someone with Asian heritage ever won an acting Oscar? Was Rita Moreno the last Hispanic actor to win an Oscar? What nominee should be replaced? I think there would be a lot of opinions about that.
Is Oscar Isaac boycotting...To think that the Oscars are some bellwether of greatness is just not so. What about Diversity in all American industries?
I wish Proposal 1 and 5 could actually be put into effect, even if it's impossible. To those who want to retain their membership but don't want to do the work involved, it's so easy to pass it onto their assistants or to vote for people that they like without having seen the work. This is rampant now anyway, and it's impossible to police.
That said, I'm not quite at the point where I'm raising alarm bells. I agree that nominations are a symptom of a much larger problem and that much of the outrage is misplaced because it doesn't attack the root of the problem. Let them make the changes, I say, them maybe more people will finally realize that nominations can only happen if there is actual work to nominate people for and attack the root of the problem.
The Oscars will survive because it's a vital marketing tool with a lot of money tied up in it -- it will not die. If we have a couple of years where there are 10 acting nominees, so what? If it's truly awful, it will change. If it ends up working, great! There is many an article out there of the foolish choices the Academy has made over the years, some of them in this very same website. They survived those, and they'll survive this.
My suggestions a little odd (alternative):
I'd like to see the Best Picture field returned to five slots (unless they choose to expand the directing fields, too), but also, see the actor fields expand to the 5-10 system currently used for the top award. To your point about prestige - I agree - Best Picture should reflect exclusivity to demonstrate the "exceptional" quality of those chosen films. And as I've said on another site - the current system - where several films are nominated for BP without a corresponding director nomination - makes those films look like scrubs. So unless they're going to expand director - let those two fields mirror each other as much as possible.
Now acting is a different story. No one is really going to know who 6-10 is - and if they qualify for inclusion (because they met a threshold) - they ought to be recognized. I know it'll kill those annual "snubbed" articles journalists are fond of writing - but these fields really ought to reflect the best acting of the year - not just the best-acting-in-Best-Picture-frontrunners - which annually take exclusive slots (Ms. McAdams, Mr. Ruffalo, Ms. Weaver, Mr. Arkin, Ms. Bonham Carter, among others) - where more niche, but superior performances with smaller but passionate fans can't break through. I've a hard time imagining - if the same rules applied to the acting categories as picture - performances like Ann Dowd in "Compliance" missing out - or Jake in "Nightcrawler" - or, yes, people of color in high profile (but not high profile enough) roles with fervent fans. I should be clear - I don't want a set number. I don't want a cold 10 every year, unless a cold ten qualifies every year.
Lastly, might they eliminate lifetime memberships? It seems to me that a ten, twenty, maybe thirty year membership term is enough time and reward for excellent work in film - and it's time to pass the torch to the next generation. This isn't about ageism - from my perspective - it's about the realities of taste and relevance. For example, I can't well fault an 80 year old ANYBODY for having an aversion to 'Compton' because of the generational-divide in music taste. I imagine a great many of them don't understand the genre in the least - but they sure as hell remember Dalton Trumbo. Terms are fair - and they are also an automatic mechanism for the Academy to keep its rolls fresh. I think twenty years is a sufficient term.
Here's some grace and thoughtfulness: Fuck QT. And if The Revenant's over two and a half hours of ice and snow and animal pelts weren't already enough to make me pass on his even longer "winter epic" for the time being, that Selma tidbit just sealed the deal.
Expand the fields and lengthen the show by another hour? Like that will help. It is beyond me how the people making decisions react to inappropriately EVERY time there's an upset. Obviously the lack of diversity is a problem. But does the weight of that lie on the shoulders of the academy, or on Hollywood at large? What if the expand the acting categories and in the end you still only have one or two minority groups represented? Is that better? Very frustrating. And would this conversation still be going on had Smith and Lee been nominated?
OT: we need a Contrarian Corner on Trumbo, Cranston's chances to thwart Leo and the unwarranted Mirren fatigue. Finally saw this a couple of nights ago. But I can't imagine who on Team Experience would be up for it.
"Show business has never been a business for the faint of heart or the fragile so the Oscars can't ever be like the Special Olympics - not everyone gets a nomination or emerges from the big night a winner."
Kind of a crass analogy, don't you think? The Special Olympics - for people too 'faint of heart' and 'fragile' to take real competition, apparently. Not like those Darwinian ubermenschen of the business we call Show!!!
Also an unhelpful one: nobody is suggesting everybody gets a prize - in fact, as far as I can tell, exactly the same number of people will win Oscars. In fact, more people would lose them...
Your suggested fixes make a lot of sense to me, particularly the Blue Ribbon Panels, which would help to counteract the studio's own chosen campaigns. As people have noted with reference to Creed, the studios' own sense of what is 'Oscar-ready' is part of the problem.
This problem is with the industry.
The Academy membership is a reflection of the industry at large.
From Mark Harris, who researched using the Academy database.
Executive Branch = 59 have joined since 2012. 48 are men. 2 are black. 9 female
VFX added 76 members - 73 male
Directors branch - added 63 members - 13% female / 35% non white
Writers branch: majority of Writing invitees last year were POC. Great!
But in 2014, 18 of 19 were white.
Actors Branch:
From 2008-11, the actors invited 74 members to join; from 2012-15 they invited 92.
2008-11: 80% white.
2012-15: 67% white
NET RESULT - percentage of black actors invited in has barely moved. They represented 12% of the 2008-11 total and 14% of the 2012-15 total. INCREASE 2% 21 black actors since 2008
7 Asian actors, 12 Latino actors, & 5 other non-black minority actors
Gender representation, the Actors branch has actually moved backward. 57% of 2008-11 invitees were male: 61% since then DECREASE 4% to level of 39% Female
There are a few branches--sound, cinematography--in which AMPAS non-diversity is so clearly reflective of industry non-diversity ... maybe those branches need fewer new members for a while.
>>>> How is it that in the Actors branch where there are more females in the industry that the Academy membership is 39% female to 61% male
No Gender parity is astonishing
Nathaniel, as you know I'm in favour of 10 slots for BP, and I like the idea of some choices or a short list being drawn up at the 6 month/half year point. But the poor academy is taking the beating that should better be directed towards the studios who have failed to invest in female and minority talent.
Expanding the acting categories is a TERRIBLE idea, but if they're making changes can we get them to set up some committee to veto category fraud?
DO, Myoshi Umeki won Best Supporting Actress for Sayonara in 1957. Haing Ngor won Best Supporting Actor for The Killing Fields in 1984.
" It's especially strange for Will Smith to raise a fuss this year since he's a two time nominee who showbiz has been enormously kind to over the years."
Because he's not raising a point about himself as an exceptionally successful black actor in Hollywood, he's raising a point about the system and attempting to support the sidelined others? "I'm not going to the Oscars because systemic racism" is a hell of a better look and reason than "I'm not going to the Oscars because my movie got 13 nominations but none for me."
Jinny -- the #1 saddest thing about there being any reigning controversy this year is that its killed the momentum on naming and blaming Category Fraud. Category Fraud affects all actors and especially, I'd argue POC because they already face an uphill battle to get good parts and then when any supporting player is great in something, there's a significantly high chance that a movie star will swoop in and take up all the converstaion that might have gone to them and helped them get the next part.
ladyedith -the gender disparity in the acting branch i wasn't aware of. I actually thought that and costuming branch were something like 50/50 (the only ones). disheartening to be wrong especially because technically there are the same number of men and women nominated each year so you'd think the membership would grow in roughly the same porpotion
I agree with Nathaniel's article and with the general tenor of the comments. It's the industry that needs to diversify, before the Academy can be expected to come up with more diverse nominees.
So I say, don't change the sizes of the acting categories. It will dilute the achievement of getting nominated. (And, as others here have said, what would happen if there were 10 slots in each acting category and still no POC?)
But Nathaniel's suggestions for changing voting procedures and for reminding voters earlier in the year about possible contenders could work. I definitely think that voters should be required to see the films they're voting on in all categories, at both the nominating and the winner stages. The Academy could find a way. It might reduce the number of votes in each category, but so what? Better that, surely, than having people voting on things sight unseen.
Stella -- true. i guess because i just watched that Janet Hubler video yesterday and because i have heard the complaint regularly that the Smiths are 'all about themselves' -- and his producing dollars definitely agree with that point -- so the timing looks unfortunate even if it's only meant in the most altruistic way. I wish he'd spoken up about SELMA last year if this is really how he feels. and also i don't understand his quote:
if that's true he's depriving them of seeing himself, one of the biggest stars the movies have ever had. Seems like a strange way to fight the system and fight for representation.just my personal opinion as a gay man who has learned over and over again that visibility is the key to progress. It's nothing like an exact correlative of course but visibility and representation go hand in hand.
Quentin Tarantino's use of the word "Ghetto" at the globes really flipped me off, but his speech sucked altogether.
Also...my thing about Will Smith (and I've mulled this over so much over the last week or so) is that...he is quoted as saying in November that "racism is rare". The Smiths have been notably silence about Black Lives Matter and the growing movement to expose and end extra-judicious murders of Black people, which is their right. No one has to say anything, of course. But to come out now and make these statements now, only when racism is finally affecting them...that seems disingenuous to me.
I also don't think boycotting the Oscars is the answer, nor is it going to send the statement they think it is. It's been said before about countless other arenas of American life, but Black people can't end racism because we didn't start it. It's going to take conscious effort on the part of white people in the industry because they are (largely...speaking in broad terms) the ones with the power. They are the gatekeepers and it will take awareness of the problem and a conscious effort to correct it. Not just words, but action. Allowing a more diverse array of stories about people of color outside of biopics and period pieces. Hiring more POC both in front of and behind the camera. That's why I found George Clooney calling out the Oscars for being too white incredibly obnoxious and disingenuous. What the hell is he doing to fix the problem? He has so much influence and power in Hollywood. He's a producer. Yet he has never produced a film directed by a non-white filmmaker. No amount of rule changes or retooling is going to fix the Academy Awards until the film industry changes.
I agree that the studios need to do a better job of casting POC in their films. They also need to do a better job of campaigning them for Oscar when they've done good work. On a recent podcast, Nathaniel & Co. regretted that Warner Bros hadn't put in an effort for Michael B. Jordan, Ryan Coogler, and Creed in general -- didn't they know what they had?!?
I don't think they did. I don't think studio executives are the best film critics. I think they're steeped in antiquated thinking about what sort of actors and films and voices the general public wants to see and will pay to see with the proper backing/advertising. I think they're (for the most part) astonishingly bad judges of what makes a good movie, and even when they saw Creed they had no idea how good it actually was. (Yes, I am feeling cynical today.)
If the Academy didn't hand out Best Picture nominations like candy it wouldn't be SO egregious when certain movies get snubbed. Their omissions only glare because the field is so wide and the net is so big. Imagine if the field was 10 wide this year and Carol and Star Wars got in. This literally digs the hole deeper for the Academy.
if in 2017 they expand the acting category and Trump becomes president, I will move to the mountains and never speak to anyone ever again.
Yeah, they really need to just make everyone watch the movies, first and foremost. How many people do you think just vote for category fraud because they didn't even see the movies for themselves?? Not to mention the Selma and Creed issues. The Tarantino thing is horrifying. The keys to change are making people watch the movies and inviting more diverse new members to the academy and, of course, giving more opportunities for people of color to give great performaces.
And yeah, the gender makeup of the actors' branch explains a LOT about the kinds of performances they nominate in each category. No wonder introspective/sensitive/romantic male performances like Christopher Abbott's, Tom Courtenay's, and even Michael B Jordan's (just to name a few from this year) don't stand a chance, while JLaw and other 20-something princesses keep racking up nominations and wins, deserving or not.
I also suspect that activist voters aren't casting their ballots in a purposeful-enough way. If you're giving your top two Best Actor spots to Will Smith and Michael B. Jordan, don't fill in the rest of your ballot with Trumbo, The Revenant and The Danish Girl.
Which films you DON'T throw crumbs to determines the potency of your highest-ranked contenders. That's true whether you're thinking politically about it or not.
For example, if I were a Jane Fonda activist this year I'd populate my ballot with Jane Fonda (5) and scratch the other 10 points I have to award on worthy outside shots. I wouldn't feed Rachel McAdams with what I had left because that only neutralizes 1-4 of the points I just gave Jane.
Do actors usually show up when their films have been nominated, even if they haven't been nominated themselves?
In that case, are the entire casts of Spotlight and The Big Short expected to show up this year or else be branded sore losers?
I think the idea of a list of potential nominees with headshots like the Emmys do is a great idea. It's a fairly simple way to subtly force the voters to think about their biases without changing nominating rules.
Returning to 10 BP nominees is also, I think, the best course of action. The current scheme is too convoluted. There's no guarantee that one of those ten will be written or directed by or star a person of color, but it can't hurt. And we shouldn't need Margot Robbie in a tub to explain how a voting process works.
I don't hate the idea of a Best New Artist-type "Outstanding First Feature" award for new directors. It could help spotlight emerging talents from all backgrounds. And that's the sort of award I would want to see adjudicated like Foreign Film or Docs with a shortlist to ensure some diversity and that smaller films get noticed.
The lack of diversity at the Oscars is a symptom, not the disease. As Viola Davis said, you can't get an award for a role that simply isn't there. And even the snubs we're talking about this year all have asterisks next to them. Did Elba lose out because of race or because of a rejection of the Netflix model? The Creed campaign was apparently lackluster. Nobody saw/loved Concussion. And all of those "snubbees" are dudes which is an even bigger problem.
There are Hollywood problems and AMPAS problems. The lack of diversity is on Hollywood, category fraud is on AMPAS. And while one is certainly much more important than the other, I share Nathaniel's disappointment that representation issues are sucking up all the outrage oxygen. The Academy can't easily fix more than a century of systematic whitewashing and denial of opportunity. It can, however, recognize the obvious fact that even if Cate Blanchett is the title character, it's Rooney Mara's effing story. They didn't put Jimmy Stewart in supporting for Harvey because the movie is named after the rabbit.
Why don't they just set up small nominating juries of say 100 members (could be more or less depending on who is not working in a calendar year) who are required to see every single movie theatrically released between Jan 1 and Dec 31? (or, to pare it down, since there are so many movies out in given year, a production company, studio or distributor has to submit films to the the Academy juries they think are awards contenders on a monthly basis). The members could be based anywhere in the world and could view all content through either an internet account or free screenings in NY/LA. All jury members would be given a salary (gotta make it worth their while). These juries are solely responsible for picking the acting and best picture nominees. I also think the Academy should invite top-tier critics into the fold (since they probably see more movies than voting members) as well as acting coaches, teachers, and casting directors (they can be vetted through an interview/recommendation process).
Once these juries finalize their nominations, the Academy as a whole will have to see no more than thirty films (if we keep the acting nominees at five and the pic nominees at ten). I say no more screeners; all films should be viewed online or at screenings where it is easier to keep track of who is watching what. If you don't watch all the movies, you don't get to vote.
Also, if you're a working director in the middle of your next opus, a la Tarantino, and you just don't have the time to watch everything, you gotta take the high road and bow out of the voting process. It's only fair.
the #1 saddest thing about there being any reigning controversy this year is that its killed the momentum on naming and blaming Category Fraud. Category Fraud affects all actors and especially, I'd argue POC
The mediocre Octavia Spencer swept award season when she won an Oscar for that bullshit The Help. Category Fraud has rarely if ever affected what nonwhite actors are nominated in the supporting categories. You have your agenda which genuinely believes everyone would get a fair shake if the system was not rigid to benefit co-leads with substantial screen time taking up space from those with truly supportive roles. No one cares.
Meryl Streep will continue on as a perennial nominee and a four-time future winner. Jennifer Lawrence could only ruin her career if she says something antisemitic which I hope she does soon. Hollywood is a patriarchal white supremacy. Maybe you don't believe such a thing exist and it is only a handful of racist people in power. Bitch it is bigger and deeper than that. But of course you were never a deep thinker --- asking bullshit questions like how come pretty movie stars don't win Oscars for being pretty movie stars in the movies? Vapid much.
Mark - I second the motion -Best New Artist-type "Outstanding First Feature" award for new directors. It's a really good way to let us see new talent, currently the DGA and the directors branch of the Academy are a real boys club. Last year Jennifer Kent (Babadook) would have been a nominee if not winner. This year "Diary of a Teenage Girl", "Girlhood", etc.
It's a good idea.
If we have to have affirmative action, I'd rather it be at the academy level than at the nomination level. In other words, don't expand the acting fields, but rather invite a diversity of people into the ranks of voters. If that means that they will come in as limited term voters, then that's okay.
Deep in my heart, I really don't have a problem with a membership going non-voting if it's been ten years since you were last involved with a film project.
Oh, and in this day and age, there has to be a way for people to certify that they are the ones who filled out the ballot.
I wonder how the Oscars would look if magazines and popular websites didn't predict the Oscars for months before the nominations or before most of the films were even seen. I think a lot of voters who read Variety or The Hollywood Reporter consult those predictions on what to watch. The same patterns get repeated over and over again. It's a cycle of adhering to "Oscar bait" (a dubious term already) and then complaining about the end result. Instead, I think we should be focusing on the actual best performances and best films of the year and not giving something like Trumbo or The Danish Girl any more attention and word of mouth than it deserves. If publications advocated best instead of trying to narrow the conversation I think things really would look different.
Glad Streep gets to avoid all the Oscar controversy this year.... Was a good year to sit out.
Upvote to @3rtful!
I want to disrupt this narrative that there were not enough performances by people of color this year to choose from. There were plenty. You can make arguments about quality, acclaim, visibility, but you'd have to make that argument for every single white performance for that to hold water. Why do they lift up white mediocrity (Rachel McAdams, argument for mediocrity made on this very site), but black performances and directors must pass some extra mystical test of quality and acclaim (Will Smith in Concussion)?
"The roles aren't there" feels like a cop out. It's true that there need to be more roles! But there are also some roles out there (and good ones!), and the Academy chooses to turn their eyes elsewhere. The Academy participates willingly in this system of oppression. I don't understand this compulsion to jump to their defense.