Finding Linky
Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 5:16PM LA Times the Academy has clarified some of its new rulings on membership due to confusion from within its own ranks - very useful info
In Contention Kris Tapley has some thoughts on that as well and depressingly mentions there is still talk of "expanding" the acting categories. This will be very hard for yours truly to stomach if it happens. Traditions are important (and no I dont mean traditions of discrimination - don't confuse the issue!). Changing an 80 year tradition of a set of five slots in no way helps diversity and may actually serve to make the Academy look much much worse sending an accidental message (you weren't good enough for five but maybe with seven -- oops you weren't good enough for seven either!) so I pray to all the cinematic gods that wiser heads prevail and they reject it.
Fistful of Films... speaking of working through something by talking about it. Fisti takes on the subject of Leo's Oscar baiting through the years and denies it! Interesting and entertaining though he's totally crazy that his work in The Revenant will be the best leading actor win in some time. (Noooo. I mean, he's fine but good ≠ great)
Guardian $17.5 for Nate Parker's Birth of a Nation a record Sundance sale
TFE ICYMI we were just discussing that film's buzz last night
Pajiba reminds us that Blade Runner 2 is about to start production so Harrison Ford is reviving another one of his classic roles
Pajiba also tries to decipher Kristen Stewart's much misquoted outrage producing "stop complaining - do something" quote by transcribing the interview. (This serves as yet another reminder why the outrage factory is so annoying and boring itself. People contradict themselves ALL THE TIME when they're talking on at length about complicated subjects and sometimes they dont even know what they're saying. And if you lift a few words out you can make anything look worse. Give everyone a f***ing break. Chances are they weren't trying to offend anyone.)
Comics Alliance I keep hearing competing things about Thor: Ragnarok. First that it's the "darkest" film yet (ugh) and second that it's going to be the funniest. Usually those things dont go hand in hand so who is telling the truth? But Taiki Waititi the new director has a good sense of humor (see What We Do In the Shadows) so let's hope for the second one.
i09 Speaking of Taika... the sequel to his great vampire mockumentary has a title We're Wolves (get it werewolves) but he has to wait until after Thor to do that.
Vulture Sir Ian McKellen would like to remind you that the Academy could be more inclusive with gay people too. Thank you Sir Ian, Hero.
Playbill well that didn't take long. Hamilton, Broadway's new mega hit, has already announced its tour plans to kick off in 2017
Playbill Jonathan Groff's turn in A New Brain -- which I don't think we discussed here - has been recorded for posterity. He was just superb in that staged reading and Saturday Night Live's Ana Gasteyer was sensational as his mom... can we get them both in movie musicals please?
Cinematic Corner reacts to a bunch of recent news but I'm linking up because it's always fun when Sati drools on Tom Hardy and she's so enthused about his enthusiasm over the Oscar nomination
Towleroad okay this is adorable. One of the dancers from Kinky Boots celebrates his 29th birthday by doing 29 death drops around Manhattan
Vulture has a longread on the fall of Ryan Kavanaugh and Relativity's bankruptcy
Variety Abe Vigoda, the film (The Godfather) and television (Barney Miller) actor has died at 94
John August... responds to that but encourages us not to dismisses the story as opportunism or embrace it as cautionary tale.
Today's Teaser
Awww, it's Ellen DeGeneres signature film role, returning to us in Finding Dory. In which we will find out if a character that was so wondrous in short comic relief doses can handle carrying a whole film...
Reader Comments (29)
Comparing expanding the acting categories to expanding the Best Picture slate feels like a really odd thing to do just because Oscar itself barely committed to that level of expansion. Now predicting the number of BP nominees is a much of an event as predicting the actual nominees.
And I do think going to seven or eight nominees per category is really odd, but Oscar is also the only letter of the EGOT not to bump up its number of nominees by one (with the caveat that the Emmys and Grammys already have a million more categories). Even BAFTA jumped up its slot numbers. This does feel like a "saving face" kind of move from the Academy but if it was just six nominees instead of eight I can't say it'd be a terribly bad thing. It's not great, especially if the actual aim is to bring out more diverse choices, but this feels like a really interesting choice in and of itself more than what it's said to be for, as long as it's not higher than six or some sliding scale thing.
I thought I was beyond being shocked by entertainment news, but I just read that a TV movie is in the works about a post 9/11 road trip taken by Marlon Brando (Brian Cox), Elizabeth Taylor (Stockard Channing) and Michael Jackson (Joseph Fiennes). And I am not kidding—about anything in that sentence.
Expanding the nominees on its own is not totally objectionable if they maybe went up to six, but to do in order to 'solve' the diversity issue is a terrible idea. This year the only POC actors with a legitimate shot was Elba (I'd say Carrell was 6th in the lead actor race) and even if they went to six Tremblay or Dano may have gotten in. Is 0 or even 1 out of 24 better than 0 of 20? It doesn't solve the core issue which is the lack of films being made with more representation in them.
I'm ready to fly to the US in case we need to demonstrate against the expansion of the acting categories. Atrocious idea.
Diversity is what they want, but expansion of slots won't necessarily guarantee a POC in there. What if there are 10 nominees and still no POC? They will still cry "discrimination". I suggest (yes, very sarcastically with eye rolling and all) they recycle their Best Picture rule with a slight tweak: There will be 5 or more nominees with no upper limit, until the first POC appear. Take this year's Best Actor for example (since Jada Pinkett Smith was so irritated her hubby wasn't nominated, and assume Will Smith scored the highest among POC) if he came in at #6, then there will be 6 nominees, if he came in at #8, then 8 nominees, and if he came in at #20 then god bless Oscars there will be 20 nominees for Best Actor.
But I believe Nathaniel won't be too happy about it as his Christmas Day will be ruined instantly. LOL
They, they, they.
Right, Paul? Seriously...
I do agree that the acting categories should not be expanded, both for the tradition reasons that Nathaniel outlined and also because it wouldn't solve the problem. I also think that it's possible to make that point without being glib, PJ and without (even facetiously) implying suggestions that no one in or out of the Academy is suggesting. I would also really love to know who "they" are.
I see how 10 nominees per category would be unwieldy; I see how expansion doesn't necessarily solve anything and feels like an arbitrary response to current critiques. But I don't think tradition for its own sake is a terribly persuasive argument. Other awards have added and rearranged categories over the years; the Olympics adds and drops events. It happens.
"Chances are they weren't trying to offend anyone" Glad the KStew thing was nipped in the bud (if only because I'm so tired of hearing white actors saying idiotic stuff) but incredibly few people ever MEAN to offend, no? Intentions only matter to a limited degree when the actions and words themselves are, well, offensive.
For a moment, let's ignore "diversity" as an impetus for expanding the acting fields. I just think it's a great idea. As a matter of fact, I'd like the see the much maligned BP selection system transplanted to the acting categories. In other words, expand the field to 6-10, not set number, and let the performances qualify for inclusion. This may simultaneous leave room for "best-acting-in-a-best-picture-front runner" performances that, frankly, steal slots from more deserving turns (*ahem* McAdams and I'm STILL scratching my head about that Jackie Weaver nomination), while leaving room for the smaller, less-seen performances with fervent fan bases. It also alleviates the arbitrary *set* number of qualifying performances. In other words, giving way to even more ridiculous inclusions just because the slots need to be filled to, say, 10. It increases suspense, because much like the BP race, we don't always know what performances/films have the support needed under a preferential system.
Tradition is important, but it ought not be binding. If for nothing else, a change to the acting categories MAY improve upon diversity in the nominee ranks, while also serving to bolster greater excitement during the pre-nomination phase.
The main problem I have with expanding those four categories is that it's too actor-centric. It has been suggested elsewhere that when you crunch the numbers, African-American actors have become increasingly recognized in proportion to the black population figures in the U.S. And if sensible people agree that the fundamental problem of diversity lies more with the industry itself and less with the Academy—although it's great for AMPAS to be pro-active—then you need to look at all 24 categories and talk about the number of women, people of color, LGBT people etc. working who are not getting nominated. Or are not getting the opportunities to do work that would get them nominated.
A New Brain really *was* spectacular, wasn't it? But you left out my favorite, Rema Webb, who slayed the role as the homeless woman. I can't wait to listen to her version of "Change" another time.
Also, the more I read about the membership changes, the more annoyed I become with what they ultimately did: made it complicated. If you're going to insist on terms - just go with a set, across the board, term limit. 10 15 or 20 years of active Academy voting, and then you become emeritus. Period. That means that age isn't really a factor - whether you became a member at 20 or 50, you get a set term. Maybe each branch can determine the term period, but it ought to apply to everyone in the branch.
In the article, they write:
"So why make these changes at all?
We want the Oscars to be voted on by people who are currently working in motion pictures, or who have been active for a long time."
Yet, earlier in the piece, they explain how someone who could have literally worked three times in the past three decades qualifies for lifetime membership. Is that their idea of someone whose been "active for a long time?" It certainly ain't "currently working..." Just strange. Now they've got to employ folks to comb through IMDb to determine voting status. Kinda silly.
I hate to interrupt all of this overblown Oscar talk, but is no one else astonished by The Birth of a Nation getting picked up for $17.5 million?? Apparently Netflix and Entertainment Studios bid $20 million each, but the people behind the movie wisely went with Fox Searchlight (the distributor behind the last two Best Picture winners). I'm happy for Nate Parker as I've been a longtime fan and hope the movie is as good as the early acclaim says.
@ MDA: It is pretty incredible. My excitement is a little tempered by a review I read that praises the film while acknowledging that it is clearly a first feature with a lot of rookie problems. I realize it's just one review and no movie is "perfect," but there's a lot riding on this one.
@Paul Outlaw - I understand your apprehension, but the fact that a first-time writer/director/producer is tackling a subject this ambitious with an inordinate amount of passion (he's been trying to get it made for years) overrides any fears I have about a filmmaker struggling to get their vision on screen. In any case, I prefer filmmakers that tackle large issues and produce middling results as opposed to a well-produced movie on a banal subject.
I'm excited for Nate Parker's film. I'm also thinking about the pressure Nick Davis spoke of on the podcast that's going to rest on "Black films" going forward that are positioned for even the tiniest level of prestige and it makes me worried about the ugliness that the discourse around this film is going to bring out from all sides, regardless of its quality. You can already see people like Jeff Wells being so weirdly resentful that the film is getting praise. It's a stark reminder that positive change is happening in terms of representation, but it's going to be met with the resistance and growing pains.
"It has been suggested elsewhere that when you crunch the numbers, African-American actors have become increasingly recognized in proportion to the black population figures in the U.S. "
This argument is stupid because it also suggests that the Academy is ONLY a representation of the US. It is not. If the Oscars are a representation of World Cinema then the nominees should have more POC than whites. Unless this arumant is saying that there are only Black people in the US and no other country.
Thanks so much for the link! Tom's joy is everything atm :) That Blade Runner news...it depresses me so much that Ford essentially just shows up these days to pass the torch. I rather see him leading BR not Gosling
I'm mostly annoyed at the BIRTH OF A NATION news because Fox Searchlight will hold out on everyone. They'll send it to Cannes or Venice, sure, but Americans will have to wait until October-December, and the rest of us will have to wait until February if at all (Australia, for instance, is a very racist country that rarely sees "black films" released without a big star or awards buzz). It's just so frustrating that we're going to have to wait forever and a day to actually see the movie, which can only hurt it in the long run if people eventually do see it and go "that's it?" At least if they released it soon they'd make money. If they wait they could miss out on even that.
I dunno.
Yes to Groff and Gasteyer in a musical. For some bizarre reasons, I've been listening to a song on Ana's new album (I'm Hip) called A Proper Cup of Coffee on repeat. It cracks me up.
@ Michael:
I only refer to "this argument" as it applies to representation of African American actors, not any other peoples of color or nationalities. And again, as it applies to the four acting categories.
Michael -- i don't think anyone truly thinks of Oscars as representative of world cinema. They are an American body through and through. That's why it's so rare that foreign films make a dent anywhere but in foreign film and why foreign language performances only rare make their way in.
If they weren't so dominant in the imagination i imagine you could call them "The American Césars" or "The American Goyas" or whatever and it'd be just as accurate. Each countries awards are very nationalistic when it all boils down.
Oh Glenn, I was waiting for your article about how Birth of a Nation (2016) compares to Best Man 3 in the grand scheme of things.
Fisti is a man of impeccable taste ;-)
@Pam - YES to Ana Gasteyer & Groff in a musical - any musical. Have you seen her gossip with Seth Rudetsky about SNL gossip and practicing for "Funny Girl" ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WGI8yhk-0w
Nathaniel-So does Dolores Hart qualify since she was in an Oscar-nominated Short recently? Does she keep her status, or even reach three decades because she worked in three different decades? Really she's the one I'm curious about most because her documentary's campaign made such a focus of her being a voting member of AMPAS. I'd love your opinion if she qualifies, as it's still hard to tell.
"Diversity is what they want, but expansion of slots won't necessarily guarantee a POC in there. What if there are 10 nominees and still no POC? They will still cry "discrimination"."
Yikes... I can't even wrap my head around how I feel about what you just said.
For the record, I don't agree with expanding acting categories, but this snooty "they cry discrimination" attitude (as if it doesn't exist...as if being excluded isn't a big deal. hello, this is why i have privilege as a white dude, i will never not see my people in media. of course being gay changes it up a bit, but racially i am always represented) frankly comes off as racist.