Forum Replies Created
October 14, 2020 at 12:55 pm #1203778645
And you all do realize that this book was incredibly popular with liberal elites after the election.. despite the ideology it espouses being as dangerous and misleading as it was (which is a much longer conversation in itself,) it was absolutely touted by many mainstream media outlets as a means to explain the outcome of the election. So I never understood the idea that it wouldn’t appeal to Oscar voters because of its conservative ideals, when in reality Oscar voters fit the exact same demographic that the book appealed most to.October 12, 2020 at 4:33 pm #1203773809
And yeah, I’m fully aware that I’m beating a dead horse given that I’ve often said that statistics aren’t set in stone, but nevertheless. In the last 20 years that BAFTA’s been a bonafide precursor, no Supporting Actress has won over someone who won both GG and SAG and who was nominated at BAFTA that year. It’s happened 3 times in Lead Actress, once in Lead Actor, and twice in Supporting Actor.
Obviously this isn’t infallible, but it’s a rare enough occurrence to make it nonetheless confusing to me why people would have so much confidence in this happening. If Close loses BAFTA, it’s likely going to be because she lost every other precursor, wasn’t nominated at all, or has a significantly vulnerable campaign that caused her to win either GG or SAG but not both. If Netflix actually pulls off a huge campaign that triggers a repeat at the Globes and SAG, I can’t see a major studio of their stature then dropping the ball overseas and giving her so little exposure to BAFTA voters that she would lose.October 12, 2020 at 8:53 am #1203772836
Reviews themselves won’t keep this one in or out, it depends much more on how HBO prioritizes it in campaign season. The reviews so far aren’t bad enough to suggest that they would completely bury something with such large names attached, so I’m not ready to count it out yet.October 12, 2020 at 7:11 am #1203772695
Whoever wins BAFTA this year is very likely winning every other precursor. Betting against a clean sweep in supporting categories is sketchy at best – for every few times there’s been a split at BAFTA, there’s been a clean sweep that people predicted to be stopped there, so mischaracterizing those very specific circumstances and expecting them to repeat this year seems questionable to me.
Colman did not win simply because she is loved and British – it may have helped, but she was at the center of a campaign that specifically had a strong focus at BAFTA, the circumstances of which are unlikely to be repeated in this year’s race. If the eventual winner this year has the big studio resources to win GG and SAG, they’re winning BAFTA – there’s no evidence that they will simply always switch to someone just because they’re loved in Britain.
There’s also no evidence to suggest they have a specific grudge against Close given that BAFTA wasn’t really a precursor in the 80’s when she netted most of her corresponding Oscar nominations. The campaign system was completely different and mostly focused on US distribution back then, so claiming that those snubs speak to something now seems irrelevant. It wasn’t until studio moguls in the 90’s and early 2000’s aggressively courted the British block that they became more of a deciding factor in Oscar races. And I’ll reiterate again, Colman’s win there was because of her campaign resources, not because they had anything against Close. The grudge against her was something read into and manufactured, not proven.October 9, 2020 at 12:16 pm #1203768936
I genuinely can’t think of a weaker field. It came down to Kim Basinger who didn’t do much in LA Confidential and in a normal year would be at best a coattail nominee of a BP film, and Gloria Stuart who barely even acted in Titanic. Julianne Moore was pretty good but I wouldn’t even call Boogie Nights one of her top 3 performances.
M probably thought you were talking about the 1998-99 lineup with Bates, which was a fair bit more competitive than the previous year with Redgrave and Griffiths in the mix.
Moore was the only performance in that category worth a damn in the 1997-98 category, followed distantly by Cusack. I already consider the Supporting Actor and Lead Actress categories that year a fair bit weaker though.October 9, 2020 at 12:05 pm #1203768926
I was taught not to underestimate Focus Features after Erivo last year. I think after this news, Mulligan is very likely in given that SPC might not be able to handle both The Father and French Exit. However, I don’t doubt that Netflix is strong enough to get at least Davis and Kirby in. They had multiple bids in Leading Actor last year, but a win might be where they run into trouble.October 9, 2020 at 12:00 pm #1203768920
I am the only one who actually really liked Dern’s performance in marriage story lol??
There seems to be this thing here where there’s no such thing as having a tepid or middle-of-the-road valuation of a film. As soon as MS didn’t quite live up to the rapturous reviews it got at festivals, it became an incredibly easy target for a lot of people. Sure, it hasn’t aged amazingly well, but I can’t believe the type of vitriol I witnessed towards it given what’s usually nominated. The criticism that it fed into bourgeois themes (while valid) seemed incredibly lazy when you could make that cursory link to almost any major awards release and yet no one seemed to want to do that. Co-opting such an argument to quickly dismiss a film you don’t like yet not viewing any other aspect of the film industry through the same lens wasn’t a good look when these things happen to be systemic issues and not only related to individual films.
While she didn’t reinvent acting, a lot of the outrage over Dern’s win seemed to be somewhat manufactured because people got a vicarious thrill out of rooting against a frontrunner. I’ll admit that this feeds into my personal bias, but I actually think that she’s one of the most daring Hollywood actresses of her generation and she was overdue for recognition after elevating character roles to an art and pushing the definition of acting to its limits in David Lynch productions such as Inland Empire. Why people suddenly acted like the Oscars should always be about “performance” when they never have been in response to that specific win was kind of confusing to me given how weak of a category it was. Have there not been more offensive wins just in the last five years that people never talk about?October 8, 2020 at 1:29 pm #1203767306
And not to mention, I have seen so many claim that “SJW” critics were trying to sink films that you all stanned last year and that nevertheless these films would happen at the Oscars regardless… and yet one apparent review is absolutely ending Glenn’s chances? Sounds about right.October 7, 2020 at 11:31 am #1203765431
It’s telling to me that the input of Walker’s great-granddaughter was completely ignored in the development of the show; they also had to cut down the original 10-episode script to 4, so it makes it all the more jarring that they chose to keep the large colorism conflict in outside of any of the other aspects of Walker’s life. It’s obviously supposed to be maudlin weekend entertainment so a full critique on how systemic issues and class ideology are completely ignored would be pointless and laborious, but yeah this show was a hot mess and I’m surprised that I didn’t see people go in on the really glaring directorial, editing, and writing choices made if they were so eager to drag Octavia’s nomination. Those last 10 minutes still feel so discombobulated that it’s more like something I hallucinated than watched.
That being said, Octavia was still better than a few in her category and I consider being able to craft a strong emotional appeal in the face of material that tonally pulls you every which way an impressive feat.October 7, 2020 at 10:05 am #1203765274
Malcolm in the Middle was the first show I decided to watch through from beginning to end when I moved in with my current roommate and she had Netflix lol. Such a solid show that still holds up, which makes it even more upsetting that it didn’t get as much Emmy recognition as it should have back in the day. SN: That episode with Bea Arthur was one of the first times in a LONG time that I had to pause and rewind a show because I was laughing so hard that I’d missed what had happened in the scenes right after (if you remember the episode, you’ll probably know what scene I’m talking about).
That Water Park episode is one of my favorites, and I would argue that Muniz would deserve to win that year had he submitted it, and the same goes for Traffic Jam. That silent exchange between Malcolm and Reese before they push Lois down the slide was expertly done by both, and served as a great callback to the way that Francis passed on many of his own traits and mannerisms to his brothers.October 7, 2020 at 8:46 am #1203765140
If I may ask, why are people on this site so quick to generalize very specific cases like Ali and Waltz yet remain willfully ignorant to trends that can easily be explained through the financial aspects of awards season? Waltz was at the center of a Weinstein campaign, Ali was at the center of Universal’s most heavily pushed film of the decade, and Colman is the secondary priority for a small studio that has at most received one acting win and two nominations this decade. It’s already been clearly laid how Colman is facing pretty much the polar opposite set of financial circumstances than she did when campaigning for The Favourite, and that doesn’t change just because people here want to falsely label awards season as a meritocracy when it never has been.
The claim that she was underestimated in 2018 so she must be competitive for a win now has no basis in the ways that awards seasons actually operate because that claim is based on what was said here, and ignores the clearly stated fact that she was at the center of one of the biggest campaigns of the decade that year and is not in the same boat this year. The generalization that she is always undeniable and transcends the political machine that is awards season was invented and has yet to be proven outside of subjective evaluations of her stature and cursory generalizations to wildly different situations.October 6, 2020 at 10:27 am #1203763678
I think that Jane’s best shot at winning was in 2001 and 2006 based on my memory of the submissions. Patricia Heaton deserved her win for “Bad Moon Rising” in 2000, but not for her submission of “The Canister” in 2001. I thought that the winner would have been between Jane Kaczmarek and Debra Messing in 2001. Debra’s submission of Low’s in the Mid 80s was a fantastic submission from Will & Grace with the laughs, range and impact. Jane’s submission of “Flackback” was very good too. If I recall, Tom O’Neil had communication with Jane Kaczmarek or someone from her team about an episode being made for her that would be sympathetic, range, impact, etc. This was Jane’s submission in 2006.
Woah, that’s a great factoid about Tom, I guess we all have to thank him for that one since that’s one of my all-time favorite MITM episodes and actually ended up being thematically vital to the wrap-up of the series.
It’s true that no one was beating Heaton in 2000, but I personally love the Red Dress submission. It was probably one of the best choices she had that season, and while she was supporting, it had that perfect blend of pathos, misanthropic overtones, and physical comedy that a lot of those early episodes didn’t allow her.