Official 2023 Oscar Nominations And Discussions Thread (1 Viewer)

[mark brown]

Cary Grant?

 

[Jeffrey D]

Cary Grant?

Nominated twice (Penny Serenade, and None But The Lonely Heart)- no wins

I think he was brilliant in his acting- very natural in delivering dialog.

While we’re on the subject of the deserving never winning an Oscar- my first name is Sidney Lumet. So many good films, but I guess timing, and competing films got in the way.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Nominated 5 times for director- Rebecca, Lifeboat, Spellbound, Rear Window and Psycho. At least Rebecca won best picture.

Hitch might've been someone who coulda gotten that late-career "makeup Oscar" but his late-career movies just weren't good enough.

Don't think Hitch made anything genuinely Oscar-worthy after "Birds" - the "Marnie" to "Plot" run varied from pretty good to blah.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Nominated twice (Penny Serenade, and None But The Lonely Heart)- no wins

I think he was brilliant in his acting- very natural in delivering dialog.

He might've suffered from the perception he was "playing Cary Grant".

John Wayne eventually got one for "playing John Wayne", but that's a tough stigma to escape.

 

[jayembee]

Nominated 5 times for director- Rebecca, Lifeboat, Spellbound, Rear Window and Psycho. At least Rebecca won best picture.

And it's not all that surprising that he didn't win any of those times. As always, everyone has their own opinions, but the first one in that list, he lost to John Ford for The Grapes of Wrath, so it was something of a toss-up, though I think William Wyler should've gotten it for The Letter.

For Lifeboat, he lost to Leo McCarey for Going My Way. Quite frankly, I think Hitch should still have lost, but to fellow nominees Billy Wilder for Double Indemnity or Otto Preminger for Laura.

For Spellbound, he lost to Wilder, for The Lost Weekend.

Rear Window could've gotten him a win, except that he lost to Elia Kazan for On the Waterfront, which is as it should've been.

For Psycho, he lost (again) to Wilder, for The Apartment. And again, that was probably a toss-up.

Of the films that he didn't get a nod for, and maybe should've, there's:

North by Northwest, which he would've lost to Wyler for Ben-Hur, or one of the other nominees: Wilder for Some Like It Hot.

Vertigo, which I think he should've won, let alone get nominated for. The ballot that year was Vincente Minnelli for Gigi (the winner), Richard Brooks for Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Stanley Kramer for The Defiant Ones, Mark Robson for The Inn of the Sixth Happiness, and Robert Wise for I Want to Live!

In any event, this is an example of having the bad luck to have tough competition.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

An interesting development…

Academy ‘Conducting Review’ After Andrea Riseborough’s Surprise Oscar Nomination

There are questions surrounding Andrea Riseborough's surprise best actress nomination for "To Leslie." Will there be clarity?

variety.com

I don't really get the controversy here. Even if she did enlist her friends to promote her performance, so what? How it any different than the big-budget "For Your Consideration" campaigns mounted by the studios?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think it’s worth noting that the Academy didn’t specify a specific performance or nomination they were looking at - it’s the trades that have leapt to the conclusion that they are out to get one specific person.

I’m not sure I see the controversy either. There was an incident a few years ago where a song from a film no one had heard of was nominated and then disqualified, but I think that disqualification was because the song was written by a president of an Academy branch who then used his official position to send out official correspondence encouraging members of his branch to nominate his song, which seems like a more cut and dried problem.

 

[Polbroth]

That Hitchcock didn't win has always made this a meaningless charade to me.

Indubitably, but a nostalgiac exercise nonetheless, albeit with ever more diminishing returns, slap or no slap.

I figure they get it approximately right somewhere around 5% of the time?

Any serious comparison between global cinematic treasures and Academy Award winners makes this glaringly evident; Oscar nominees/winners represent but a tiny slice of a rather large & beautiful pie.

The exceptions are fascinating however, as they do sometimes ALMOST get it right, as with The Godfather in 1972.

It's no Bitter Tears, Blacula, Butterflies Are Free, Solaris, Sounder, or Super Fly, but it definitely deserved its nomination, and arguably its win.

 

[Tino]

I figure they get it approximately right somewhere around 5% of the time?

Interesting opinion. Imo the Academy gets it right about 90% of the time.

 

[MartinP.]

I figure they get it approximately right somewhere around 5% of the time?

Any serious comparison between global cinematic treasures and Academy Award winners makes this glaringly evident; Oscar nominees/winners represent but a tiny slice of a rather large & beautiful pie.

The exceptions are fascinating however, as they do sometimes ALMOST get it right, as with The Godfather in 1972.

It's no Bitter Tears, Blacula, Butterflies Are Free, Solaris, Sounder, or Super Fly, but it definitely deserved its nomination, and arguably its win.

Didn't you write somewhere that...oh wait here it is:

I'm always happy to bash Hollywood in general

You may attach this line to your posts: "Differing opinions are not attacks, and those who present them not our enemies," but you present your opinions more like facts, IM"O" .

By the way, I would've picked Cabaret over The Godfather.

If anyone expects any movie award group's choice for the Best Film of any year to line up with their own opinion and then dismiss that group's opinion because it's not their own, I don't know what to tell you. I'd wager that the entire AMPAS membership doesn't even agree each year. When there were 5 choices each year the one with the most votes won Best Picture, so theoretically you could win with 20% + one vote. Entertainment Weekly used to have graphs each year with probable vote percentages for the winning picture and I don't recall any that were larger than 35% give or take. So that would mean a majority of the entire membership as a group never agrees the "best" was chosen.

So those who complain about AMPAS getting it wrong all the time...it's just noise. I like the Oscars because I like films and I like to see what people think are the best films of the year and if I agree or not. It stands to reason most people don't agree on these things. If you read those columns when they publish a few anonymous Oscar voters voting choices each year, you'll find that those voters never pick a majority of the actual winners, either.

Also, over time, people's opinions can evolve on what a good film is, that's why the AFI changes their Best Films list on occasion. No one even agrees on what a Best Film should be, either. Is it one like Nomadland or one like A Christmas Story that didn't get a single nomination or even play through December in 1983, but is now embraced more than it's ever been.

My personal criteria for a Best Picture is "Would I see it again?" and some years with Oscar the best I could do was "maybe."

 

[Malcolm R]

Most of the noms had relatively modest bumps this weekend. EEAAO had the biggest gross of the re-releases or expansions, but Women Talking had the best per-screen average (though I think this is the first weekend it's had a wide-ish release).

 

[Jake Lipson]

Women Talking had the best per-screen average (though I think this is the first weekend it's had a wide-ish release).

You are right that this is the widest point yet for Women Talking. According to The Numbers, it was in 154 theaters last weekend. I still don't think 554 theaters is all that wide, but it is certainly a jump from where the film was before.

 

[Polbroth]

I don't really get the controversy here. Even if she did enlist her friends to promote her performance, so what? How it any different than the big-budget "For Your Consideration" campaigns mounted by the studios?

The controversy is that the studios spend millions & millions to pump their properties, and some obscure indie's female star slips into the big tent with nary so much as a genuflection?

This simply will not do.

Interesting opinion. Imo the Academy gets it right about 90% of the time.

In terms of the very limited scope of what they're willing to honor and why, you might well be right.

Didn't you write somewhere that...oh wait here it is:

"I'm always happy to bash Hollywood in general"

That definitely sounds like me, yes.

You may attach this line to your posts: "Differing opinions are not attacks, and those who present them not our enemies," but you present your opinions more like facts, IM"O" .

YMMV

By the way, I would've picked Cabaret over The Godfather.

It's no Blacula, but a fine choice to be sure.

If anyone expects any movie award group's choice for the Best Film of any year to line up with their own opinion and then dismiss that group's opinion because it's not their own, I don't know what to tell you.

I don't know that this is the issue; it's certainly not the issue I'm raising.

I'd wager that the entire AMPAS membership doesn't even agree each year. When there were 5 choices each year the one with the most votes won Best Picture, so theoretically you could win with 20% + one vote. Entertainment Weekly used to have graphs each year with probable vote percentages for the winning picture and I don't recall any that were larger than 35% give or take. So that would mean a majority of the entire membership as a group never agrees the "best" was chosen.

I think the nominating process is the issue; inclusion or the lack thereof.

So those who complain about AMPAS getting it wrong all the time...

I'm not doing this of course.

it's just noise.

Is this an opinion, or a fact?

I like the Oscars because I like films and I like to see what people think are the best films of the year and if I agree or not.

That's great, and I know I'll be watching!

It stands to reason most people don't agree on these things. If you read those columns when they publish a few anonymous Oscar voters voting choices each year, you'll find that those voters never pick a majority of the actual winners, either.

Also, over time, people's opinions can evolve on what a good film is, that's why the AFI changes their Best Films list on occasion. No one even agrees on what a Best Film should be, either. Is it one like Nomadland or one like A Christmas Story that didn't get a single nomination or even play through December in 1983, but is now embraced more than it's ever been.

My personal criteria for a Best Picture is "Would I see it again?" and some years with Oscar the best I could do was "maybe."

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[MartinP.]

So those who complain about AMPAS getting it wrong all the time...

I'm not doing this of course.

I'm confused, as you wrote:

I figure they get it approximately right somewhere around 5% of the time?

 

[Jake Lipson]

It is the Academy's absolute right to look into whatever they want regarding the nominations process for their awards. Whether they will find anything or not is a different matter. That being said, I wish the film's distributor would make as much effort to get To Leslie booked on more screens as other people have complaining about Riseborough's nomination for it. According to this article, it does have one, but they only booked it in six theaters in North America this past weekend.

‘To Leslie’ Going Back Into Select Theaters Following Andrea Riseborough’s Oscar Nom

The actress scored a surprise best actress nomination after Jennifer Aniston and a number of celebrities launched a grassroots campaign in support of the indie drama from Momentum Pictures.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[SD_Brian]

I don't really get the controversy here. Even if she did enlist her friends to promote her performance, so what? How it any different than the big-budget "For Your Consideration" campaigns mounted by the studios?

The controversy, as I understand it, has to do how the weighted balloting process could potentially have been manipulated through a coordinated effort by a handful of voters, much like what happened with the silly "Fan Favorite" Oscar last year. Evidently the Academy is concerned that internet trolls may have infiltrated their ranks.

 

[Polbroth]

I'm confused, as you wrote:

"I figure they get it approximately right somewhere around 5% of the time?"

Hey - we're creative types; we hire people to do the maths for us, right?

But to clarify for you, 5% of the time is not all the time.

It is the Academy's absolute right to look into whatever they want regarding the nominations process for their awards.

Indeed - if some non-pedigreed dog suddenly pops up in We$tmin$ter, much pearl-clutching should be expected, and those responsible held to account.

I mean REALLY!

Whether they will find anything or not is a different matter.

They'd best be VERY careful, as the award is taken ever less seriously, and if they blatantly expose their profit-driven hypocrisy...

That being said, I wish the film's distributor would make as much effort to get To Leslie booked on more screens as other people have complaining about Riseborough's nomination for it. According to this article, it does have one, but they only booked it in six theaters in North America this past weekend.

‘To Leslie’ Going Back Into Select Theaters Following Andrea Riseborough’s Oscar Nom

The actress scored a surprise best actress nomination after Jennifer Aniston and a number of celebrities launched a grassroots campaign in support of the indie drama from Momentum Pictures.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Agreed, and I hope it'll happen in a few months if the Academy does the right thing, leaves her nom alone, and she wins.

The controversy, as I understand it, has to do how the weighted balloting process could potentially have been manipulated through a coordinated effort by a handful of voters, much like what happened with the silly "Fan Favorite" Oscar last year. Evidently the Academy is concerned that internet trolls may have infiltrated their ranks.

The Academy could figleaf pulling her nom in any way they wish, but they'll create a thousand times more controversy if they do the wrong thing and exclude her after the fact.

And if Polley wins for WT's BAS, the fireworks resulting from her acceptance speech could make everyone forget last year's slap entirely; Polley might very well *****slap the entire industry when she gets on mic, though being Canadian, she'll sugarcoat the dagger with maple syrup before plunging it in.

 

[Jake Lipson]

They'd best be VERY careful, as the award is taken ever less seriously, and if they blatantly expose their profit-driven hypocrisy...

I doubt very much that anyone who currently takes the award seriously will stop doing so just because the trades have decided that the Academy is looking into Andrea Riseborough's campaign. With all due respect to her, ost people probably don't even know who Andrea Riseborough is.

Agreed, and I hope it'll happen in a few months if the Academy does the right thing, leaves her nom alone, and she wins.

Like most people, I haven't seen the movie, so I can't judge Riseborough's work. But I don't think there is a circumstance where she wins. That race seems to be between Cate Blanchett and maybe Michelle Yoeh.

 

[Keith Cobby]

Andrea is a fine actress, I hope she wins.

 

[Jake Lipson]

The Academy has issued a statement. Andrea Riseborough is keeping her nomination.

Andrea Riseborough Will Retain Oscar Nomination, but Social Media Offenders Will be Addressed by Film Academy

Andrea Riseborough’s Oscar nomination for independent drama “To Leslie” will not be rescinded, but the use of social media in a grassroots campaign supporting her did not sit well…

variety.com