"For the most part, Oscar voters refused to bow in the direction of popular movies. Furious 7, Jurassic World and Avengers: Age of Ultron got nothing, even in the work-a-day categories. And Star Wars: The Force Awakens, which picked up five nominations in craft categories, came up far short of the original Star Wars, which was a best picture nominee in 1978."
As usual, the nominees consisted almost exclusively of white people.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Oscar Nominations 2016 - A bunch of films nobody will ever see
Oscar Nominations 2016 - A bunch of films nobody will ever see
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I never understand the complaints about "snubs." Lots of people cast votes for all sorts of reasons, some informed and carefully-considered and some not, and these are just the numerical results. For instance, "The Hunting Ground" wasn't "snubbed," it just didn't deserve a nomination for Best Documentary. It's a ridiculous piece of anti-male propaganda based on bogus stats and didn't even deserve the title of "documentary." "Carol" was overrated and dull, with costumes and art direction that were far more interesting than any character in it. And when there are 8 to 10 "Best Picture" slots and only 5 "Best Director" slots, basic math should tell you that 3 or 4 directors will get "snubbed." Maybe a "snub" just means "not good enough to make the cut."
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, some people get nominations just because they're popular. A lot of deserving actresses got "snubbed" so that Jennifer Lawrence could be nominated yet again for "Joy," a disappointing movie in which she was horribly miscast. Maybe that should be called a reverse snub.
Another way to look at it: Judi Dench (the shorter, uglier Jennifer Lawrence of her own generation) was snubbed by the Golden Globes, Oscars and the BAFTAs this year. Oh, I know she didn't do anything memorable this year, but that has never stopped the nominating committees before. After all, the BAFTAs always nominate her (she once had dual nominations in two successive years and has had more than two dozen altogether), so their failure to do so now is an obvious snub!
ReplyDeleteExcellent point about Judi Dench. The general public doesn't realize how these awards work, but you'd think that critics would know better than to suggest the results represent deliberate "snubs," as if the voters all get together and hold a conspiracy meeting. My wife is a Grammy voter, and during the nominating phase, thousands of songs and albums are submitted. To be totally fair, you'd have to listen to every one. In the three weeks or so that you’re given, that’s physically impossible. She usually concentrates on just one or two categories, so she can at least sample every contender. But if it's that hard even to sample all the albums in a handful of Grammy categories, what are the odds that Oscar voters will watch every feature-length film that's been submitted? I have a feeling many hand off their ballots to their assistants, who vote for whomever or whatever they've heard is best.
ReplyDeleteIt seems as if this trend of repeat nominees is getting worse. Meryl Streep has racked up a record 19 Oscar nominations in 36 years. It took Katherine Hepburn 48 years to score 12 nominations. Jennifer Lawrence has had 4 in the past 5 years alone. She's good, but is she really four times better than Katherine Hepburn? And nearly twice as good as Meryl Streep? Are today's A-list actors really that much better at their craft, or are voters just more susceptible to celebrity heat and media hype, or so busy that they simply vote for the same people out of habit? It's like when the Emmy for Best Sitcom Actress kept going to Candice Bergen for "Murphy Brown" (a mediocre-but-then-politically hip sitcom that’s since disappeared from the public consciousness) 5 times in 7 years, until she finally became so embarrassed, she told them to knock it off already and give someone else a chance.