Official 2023 Oscar Nominations And Discussions Thread (2 Viewers)

[Malcolm R]

"The Academy strives to create an environment where votes are based solely on the artistic and technical merits of the eligible films and achievements, ....”

Then they need to ban campaigning altogether. If the only campaigns allowed are those backed by major money from major studios, and the smaller studios cannot mount a grass-roots style campaign, then that's biased against the smaller independent guys.

Stop campaign advertising completely and just let the films speak for themselves.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I’m totally fine with eliminating campaigning. Miramax really upped what had been a more informal process into something disgustingly over the top.

If I understand the rules correctly, the issue wasn’t that people were campaigning for that film or performance, but possibly in the way it was done. There is a rule that you’re not allowed to mention other films or performances when campaigning for one. So if you say “This was the best film ever!”, that’s fine, but if you say “This actress was even better than that actress”, that’s a no-go. I guess the Academy felt that some of the social media stuff was a little too close to someone saying “Riseborough was even better than Blanchett” but since they didn’t take any action, I guess that line wasn’t crossed. There are also supposed to be rules that campaigning messages come from more neutral distributors rather than directly from a promoter to a voter - studios that want to email Academy members to promote a film or screening are supposed to send that promotion through a system set up by the Academy rather than directly to individual members, and there are limits to how often such emails are allowed to be sent. Using social media has less transparency - when someone like Kate Winslet tweets that Riseborough gave the best female performance she’s ever seen, is that someone just giving a random opinion or is that someone who has been given compensation to do that?

I didn’t know much about this stuff until recently and it’s all inside baseball but I think it’s an interesting conversation.

In my stupid, non-insider point of view, right now we’re simply oversaturated with too many different award shows and too much campaigning. This season now seems to run from November to March and it’s just too much.

 

[Wayne_j]

I still don't see what the issue is with the campaign. The studios seem to be much more forceful with their campaigns.

 

[Malcolm R]

I still don't see what the issue is with the campaign.

I think the issue was mostly that an unknown actress was nominated for a film no one had heard of. Doesn't really fit with the glamorous movie-star mystique that the Academy wants to maintain.

 

[Wayne_j]

As long as the Oscar voters weren't bribed or threatened I'm ok with it.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I think the issue was mostly that an unknown actress was nominated for a film no one had heard of. Doesn't really fit with the glamorous movie-star mystique that the Academy wants to maintain.

Riseborough is far from "unknown".

I've never heard of Paul Mescal or "Aftersun". Should we revoke his nom?

 

[MartinP.]

Riseborough is far from "unknown".

Disagree:

--far
/fär/
adverb
1. at, to, or by a great distance (used to indicate the extent to which one thing is distant from another).

Of course some people know who she is, but she's way closer to unknown than known in the sphere of Oscar nominations. I pay attention to movies and what's being touted for awards and I'd never heard of her, or the movie. On the other hand I did hear about Aftersun.
___

As for the AMPAS issue, I don't know all the details, but one of the things that irked people was that someone had apparently gotten word out that "if you nominate a performer, for, say, Lead Actress in the first place position on your ballot, that you can secure a nomination with 218 first place votes." So people were being urged to vote for her in their first place position on their ballots. You're not supposed to tell people how to vote.

And I even knew that a nomination could be secured like that. How? The online award prognostication sites and articles have written about things like this, otherwise how would anyone know? Some person(s) decided to use that knowledge.

(That 218 number only applies to the Acting branch of AMPAS, which has the most members. It's far less in other branches.)

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Disagree:

--far
/fär/
adverb
1. at, to, or by a great distance (used to indicate the extent to which one thing is distant from another).

Of course some people know who she is, but she's way closer to unknown than known in the sphere of Oscar nominations. I pay attention to movies and what's being touted for awards and I'd never heard of her, or the movie. On the other hand I did hear about Aftersun.
_

Breaking out dictionary definitions - you told me!

Riseborough has been in a bunch of prominent projects.

Not sure how you've missed her, but she remains far from unknown.

 

[MartinP.]

I guess you don't read dictionary definitions. They always help to clarify a poster's meaning. You saying she is far from unknown is like those who said they don't believe someone won an election because they don't know anyone who voted for them.

Maybe I need to look up the dictionary definition of "prominent" as well. Here's the work she's done the last 4 years. I saw two of these and I still don't remember her or her name from the two I saw: What Remains, Roald Dahl's Matilda the Musical, Amsterdam, To Leslie, Please Baby Please, The Electrical Life of Louis Wain, Here Before, Actress (short film), ZeroZeroZero (mini-series), Luxor, Possessor, The Grudge, The Kindness of Strangers, Waco (mini series), Burden, Nancy, Mandy...

I want to be clear that my comments about this do not mean I'm dissing her or her nomination as I haven't seen it. One thing's for sure, people are learning about the actress now! They're also learning about Paul Paul Mescal. Why is his nomination not being scrutinized the same way? That was just as big a surprise to me and some other article writers I've read, though I had heard of Aftersun, but didn't know who was in it.

What I really don't like is that Andrea's nomination has been co-opted by the thought some women of color didn't get nominations because of it. Lil Rel Howery is quoted as saying, "I hate that’s the only investigation the Academy has because I feel like, even though they keep telling us the members are diverse, I don’t believe it. As Black people, we want to be recognized by the Academy so bad because we know what it does for our bag. You know what I’m saying? But are we ever going to get that due? Because I believe it should have been three nominees." The Oscars are being used for personal grievances like a lot of things are in this country at present.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I guess you don't read dictionary definitions. They always help to clarify a poster's meaning. You saying she is far from unknown is like those who said they don't believe someone won an election because they don't know anyone who voted for them.

No, that's the opposite. That's using a lack of knowledge of an action as validation, whereas in this case, presence of action influences validation.

You're the one doing the "I never heard of her so she's unknown" shtick.

I don't claim Riseborough is a major star. But she's not unknown - or close to it.

No matter how many dictionary definitions you provide.

 

[MartinP.]

--un·known
/ˌənˈnōn/
adj.
not known or familiar

 

[Colin Jacobson]

--un·known
/ˌənˈnōn/
adj.
not known or familiar

pedant
noun
ped·ant ˈpe-dᵊnt

1a: one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge

 

[Robert Crawford]

Guys, give us a break and stop it!

 

[Chris Will]

I still don't see what the issue is with the campaign. The studios seem to be much more forceful with their campaigns.

They got beat at their own game and started crying about it.

 

[Jake Lipson]

This is the most detailed and informative breakdown of the Andrea Riseborough situation that I have seen.

To be clear, this is not by not by me, but it's good.

 

[MartinP.]

Thanks for the informative video.

I think one thing most people have trouble with when any performer is nominated, is that if they personally aren't familiar with any of their other work, it's harder to judge their performance. In other words, are they just playing themselves, or are they really doing some acting? I watched To Leslie recently in that context of not knowing much about this actress' work. What I will say, is that at the end of this video at around the 40 minute mark, when Dan chooses a scene to highlight her talent, that is a moment in the film where you are feeling for this character that this actress has created. And it works better in context than out of context, obviously, but after watching the film with a friend, I said "If the Oscars ever use film clips again when they are naming the actresses nominated on the program..." I pointed to that same scene as to what should be shown.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I think one thing most people have trouble with when any performer is nominated, is that if they personally aren't familiar with any of their other work, it's harder to judge their performance. In other words, are they just playing themselves, or are they really doing some acting?

I saw Andrea Riseborough in Matilda last year. She was also in Birdman (which of course is a Best Picture winner) and Nocturnal Animals. She's clearly been around the industry for a while, even if she hasn't risen to the status of household name. But I wouldn't judge her performance in this movie against any of those necessarily. If what you are saying is the case, then how would voters evaluate the work of people being nominated for their first film? Julie Andrews for Mary Poppins and Jennifer Hudson for Dreamgirls, for example.

I don't understand why the distributor hasn't acted to book more theaters for the movie in light of its nomination. I know that it is available for digital rental, but theaters are playing other nominees that have long been available in the home at this point. Why not this one? The distributor is leaving money on the table right now, and interest in the film will not be as high as it Is right now if she does not win.

I didn't get around to seeing Tar in theaters last fall, but rather than renting it I decided to see if the Oscar nominations would prompt one of my local theaters to bring it back. They did, and I was able to go to a theater for Tar a couple weeks ago. I'd do the same thing here.

I'll probably rent To Leslie closer to the date of the actual ceremony if a theatrical engagement near me does not materialize. But I'd rather go out and see it if that option was available.

 

[MartinP.]

If what you are saying is the case, then how would voters evaluate the work of people being nominated for their first film? Julie Andrews for Mary Poppins and Jennifer Hudson for Dreamgirls, for example.

I don't have an answer for that exactly. I would suggest in the two cases you mentioned, they're both singers and I feel one might judge their singing capabilities better than their acting at first glance, although, in the case of Dreamgirls, I say tongue-in-cheek that it seems like anyone who sings "I Am Telling You I'm Not Going," wins an award.

Here's an interesting article from a few years ago:

https://www.vulture.com/2019/02/15-actors-who-earned-oscar-noms-for-first-ever-performances.html

However, the article states: We’ve limited the selections to people who’ve truly never acted before in any real capacity, which means excluding film debuts from actors who previously had a career, however brief, on stage or in radio. This covers a lot of people, including some much celebrated performers with acclaimed debuts: Orson Welles, Eva Marie Saint, Julie Andrews, Marlee Matlin, Lupita Nyong’o, Whoopi Goldberg, and Barbra Streisand, to name just a few.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

A good performance is a good performance. An actor doesn't need to show a "body of work" to prove he/she is stretching for a role for that performance to be good.

I don't agree that an actor needs to have a handful of movies to his/her credit before we can say a particular performance is good.

And I don't believe in "playing yourself" anyway. Acting is still involved even if you star in your own autobiography.

 

[MartinP.]

I don't agree that an actor needs to have a handful of movies to his/her credit before we can say a particular performance is good.

I agree with you. We're talking about voters choosing a performance to award and they might do that if they don't have a strong preference among the choices. Voters also vote for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with the achievement they're up for. There are people who vote for their friends or don't vote for those they dislike and many voters don't even see all the films nominated that they vote on. I knew an AMPAS voter once who told me they just voted on what they thought was going to win. Really. I was aghast.