The Oscars 2019

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I Always figured the Academy was at the head of political correctness. How could it bow to it?

That's not really the criticism they got in the latest few years. They even made a big effort to appoint more young, female and non-white Academy members so their vote wouldn't be as "old white man".




I think the biggest thing to understand about the Oscars though are tht they're an industry award. The people voting on it are industry professionals. And because of the way the movie industry works they tend to be "above the line" jobs. What those are? In the closing credits of a film there is often a transition between large names having the screen to themselves and a big list of smaller names, in older movies the names were often all presented in list format, but the font could get smaller at this point, and there was a line between the segments. Below that line are all the technical jobs. You can be the greatest assistant director (=people wrangler and organisational boss) or the best stunt coördinator, you will always be in the part of the credits that scrolls by really fast, so it's hard to build up a name for yourself. The recognized professionals that get into clubs like the Academy tend to be from above the line. Above the line we find the creative jobs, directors, script writers and directors of photography. Artsy types. We also find producers here, because of course there was room for the people with the money. Those are the people who vote for the Oscars: artsy types, and people with money. They like what artsy types and people with money like.

Another thing about this to remember is that none of these people are professional Oscar voters. They don't get paid to watch every nominated movie or to know the details of every category. The awards for sound mixing and sound editing for instance, two very distinct technical categories, tend to go to the same movie, one that was memorable for anything vaguely related to sound. I'm sure Bohemian Rhapsody had great sound mixing and even better sound editing (I don't know the first thing about either of those disciplines myself), but the fact that it was full of Queen songs didn't hurt it. Inception with its slowed down dream music gimmick also won both.

But the more important part of that sentence at the start of the last paragraph is that these people are not payed to watch every movie. They are movie professionals, they see films. But they don't go and see every film. They visit the movies that appeal to them and they vote for the movies they've seen. It's not that they consider themselves above voting for an animated Spiderman movie for best picture, it's that going to a film like that doesn't appeal to enough of them that it wouldn't stand a chance against movies that do attract artsy types and people with money. Sure, Black Panther got some good press, but it was still a superhero action flick which also happened to be a sequel of sorts to roughly a few dozen other movies in the same category. It's not immediately appealing for someone who likes long drawn out shots of scenery, the lingering faces of stage actors giving their all to look devastated and clever musical references to the golden years of Hollywood. You could make the greatest movie on the planet, if voters don't see it they don't vote for it.

And that's fine, because that's how industry awards work. The car dealers of New York state have decided that Crazy Johnny's Corvette And More was the best dealer this year because they got the highest margins on their sales yet spent the least time on convincing the customer to upgrade, being able to process an unprecedented amount of car buyers. (<-Fictional Example.) The Oscars are about the movies that the movie makers of Hollywood enjoyed. Nothing more, nothing less. You want an award show where Black Panther wins? Go watch the Saturn Awards or something, or some Youtuber's film top 10 of the year. You'll probably agree a lot more with those people. Unless you really appreciate poetic voice overs, grainy faux-black and white and well directed 3 minute long shots in which nothing happens of course, or if you have a lot of money.

[Mechalich]

I think the biggest thing to understand about the Oscars though are tht they're an industry award. The people voting on it are industry professionals. And because of the way the movie industry works they tend to be "above the line" jobs. What those are? In the closing credits of a film there is often a transition between large names having the screen to themselves and a big list of smaller names, in older movies the names were often all presented in list format, but the font could get smaller at this point, and there was a line between the segments. Below that line are all the technical jobs. You can be the greatest assistant director (=people wrangler and organisational boss) or the best stunt coördinator, you will always be in the part of the credits that scrolls by really fast, so it's hard to build up a name for yourself. The recognized professionals that get into clubs like the Academy tend to be from above the line. Above the line we find the creative jobs, directors, script writers and directors of photography. Artsy types. We also find producers here, because of course there was room for the people with the money. Those are the people who vote for the Oscars: artsy types, and people with money. They like what artsy types and people with money like.

The Academy is composed of 17 distinct branches with people drawn from across various film disciplines, most of which have at least one Oscar directly correlated with their discipline. For example, one of the branches is Make Up Artists & Hair Stylists, and there's an Oscar for that. So there are plenty of technical people in the Academy. However, the requirements for admission into the various branches favor film professionals int he technical categories with a lot of supervisory experience and time served. This is one of the many reasons why the Academy membership skews very old. The largest branch, by a massive margin, is the Actors branch, but it's still only about 1/6th of the total.

[Iruka]

Pretentious elitism and vapid virtue-signaling... A perfect fit for Hollywood.

But TBF, Black Panther doesn't deserve to even be considered for "Best Movie". It's not even a particularly good Marvel movie. It was perfectly mediocre.

A movie about a white chauffeur seems a weird pick for virtue signaling ...

If I were a voting member of the Academy, I would definitely not vote for some hugely popular movie but brather try to bring some attention to some movie that did in my opinion something new/brave/unique.

[Bartmanhomer]

I'm pretty sure that people who work at the Oscars watch the movie to see if it's Oscar-Worthy to get nominated.

[Peelee]

I'm pretty sure that people who work at the Oscars watch the movie to see if it's Oscar-Worthy to get nominated.

You do realize members of the academy have openly stated they rarely watch any of the movies and just vote for whatever sounds like it should win, right?

Granted, a few can't speak for all, but I doubt that that isn't a prevailing attitude among most of them.

[Bartmanhomer]

You do realize members of the academy have openly stated they rarely watch any of the movies and just vote for whatever sounds like it should win, right?

Granted, a few can't speak for all, but I don't doubt that that isn't a prevailing attitude among most of them.

No I didn't even know that and that really doesn't make any sense for the members of the Oscars never watch the movie and voted if it's good or not.

[Peelee]

No I didn't even know that and that really doesn't make any sense for the members of the Oscars never watch the movie and voted if it's good or not.

Imagine if the elder was voting on the Oscars. Different subject, same attitude.

[Eldan]

My personal marvel rating system has four categories:

Spoiler

Show

Fantastic:
Ragnarök
Doctor Strange
Thor
Guardians of the Galaxy

Good:
Iron Man
Iron Man 3
Winter Soldier
Civil War
Avengers
Infinity War
Homecoming
Guardians 2

Meh, entertaining I guess
Thor 2
Iron Man 2
Age of Ultron

Bad:
Captain America
Ant-Man
The Incredible Hulk

On that list, I'd put Black Panther pretty solidly as a Class 3 movie: "Meh, entertaining for an evening, probably not going to watch it again". The costumes and some of the world building were interesting, but I found the basic plot, the main character, the villain and both of their powers pretty dull and the visuals weren't outstanding either.

The question is, I suppose, what the Oscars are for: good movies, or important movies.

[Bartmanhomer]

Imagine if the elder was voting on the Oscars. Different subject, same attitude.

Hilarious! If I was a member of the Academy Awards, I would at least to have a chance to see the movie if it's good or not.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

No I didn't even know that and that really doesn't make any sense for the members of the Oscars never watch the movie and voted if it's good or not.

There has been a consistent rumour that they are only required to see the films up for best picture. Except, as far as I can tell, they are only required to watch the films up for best animated pictures, and even then not all of them ("Those serving on the committee will be required to see a minimum percentage of submitted eligible films" & "Producers may provide screenings of films in specialized formats for Academy members, but attendance at such screenings is not required for voting purposes."). The full rules are here, in carefully written legalese, though, so I have not gone through the whole thing. Heck, I only found the one for animated picture by coincidence. Best Picture doesn't mention anything about having to watch the films before voting, though, as far as I can tell.

Grey Wolf

[zimmerwald1915]

The question is, I suppose, what the Oscars are for: good movies, or important movies.

They're not for either. For AMPAS, as far as the broad mass of the public is concerned, the awards aren't the point - the show is. If people are talking about the awards show after the fact, whether in awe at the spectacle or in outrage at the winners, it's done its job. It has gotten people invested in Hollywood.

[Bartmanhomer]

There has been a consistent rumour that they are only required to see the films up for best picture. Except, as far as I can tell, they are only required to watch the films up for best animated pictures, and even then not all of them ("Those serving on the committee will be required to see a minimum percentage of submitted eligible films" & "Producers may provide screenings of films in specialized formats for Academy members, but attendance at such screenings is not required for voting purposes."). The full rules are here, in carefully written legalese, though, so I have not gone through the whole thing. Heck, I only found the one for animated picture by coincidence. Best Picture doesn't mention anything about having to watch the films before voting, though, as far as I can tell.

Grey Wolf

That's good info right here. Thanks.

[Peelee]

They're not for either. For AMPAS, as far as the broad mass of the public is concerned, the awards aren't the point - the show is. If people are talking about the awards show after the fact, whether in awe at the spectacle or in outrage at the winners, it's done its job. It has gotten people invested in Hollywood.

Which doesn't necessarily bring in money. I haven't watched the Oscars in I don't even know how long, and typically the only conversation I have about the show is to disparage it (deservedly, IMO). I certainly am not bringing the viewership numbers up, which doesn't do anything for the advertisers. Hell, with the internet, it's easier than ever to just look up who won what after the fact and get all the answers immediately instead of tediously drawn out over several hours, which even if one cares about who won what is significantly better than watching a bunch of people congratulate themselves for an entire evening.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That's good info right here. Thanks.

Legalese aside, there is two points to consider:
1) These are American rules, and American democratic culture has never required an informed vote. There are pros and cons to this, which I won't go into because politics, but that's the reality of it.

2) That second quote I put in ("Producers may provide screenings of films in specialized formats for Academy members, but attendance at such screenings is not required for voting purposes.") hints at a deeper reason why voters can't be required: the process is already mired in controversy enough. If voters were required to see the films, then the producers pushing for the awards would throw lavish watching parties that would make the current under-the-table process of promoting their films into an overt attempt to buy the votes via gifts and the like.

So I'd imagine that the Academy would prefer to rely on professionals being professional about the awards and thus that they'd do the right thing and watch the films before voting... but there is no way to be sure.

And honestly, the pick this year is only controversial because it is so "safe". I think I saw on twitter the joke "The Green Book is the film the parents in Get Out would feel proud about having watched" (or the more on the nose "Some of The Green Book's favorite friends are black movies"). I.e. it's the kind of film a white person who doesn't want to think of itself as racist will vote for because they are a bit more racist than they feel comfortable admitting to themselves.

I'm not suggesting that most of the voters are that way, though. I've seen articles suggesting it was a divided vote and, since they used ranked voting, The Green Book might have been most people's "safe" second or third pick, and won kinda by default. I can very much believe this, because the bland middle is what ranked voting systems are designed to produce.

(Also, I did notice reading through the rules that other Oscars like make-up are encouraged to send still or clips that showcase their work, which makes a lot of sense - no point watching an entire film when a close-up of the specific work you are comparing will do a much better job of showcasing the work).

Grey Wolf

[Lemmy]

A movie about a white chauffeur seems a weird pick for virtue signaling ...

If I were a voting member of the Academy, I would definitely not vote for some hugely popular movie but rather try to bring some attention to some movie that did in my opinion something new/brave/unique.

I didn't mean the win for Green Notebook...

The academy never cared about super-hero movies. They still don't. It's not "refined" and "deep" enough for them... It's for the masses, not them, the "enlightened elite". The only reason Black Panther got indicated was virtue signalling... But it never had a chance to win. So it was given some (undeserved, IMO) oscars as "participation prize".

[Iruka]

I didn't mean the win for Green Notebook...

The academy never cared about super-hero movies. They still don't. It's not "refined" and "deep" enough for them... It's for the masses, not them, the "enlightened elite". The only reason Black Panther got indicated was virtue signalling... But it never had a chance to win. So it was given some (undeserved, IMO) oscars as "participation prize".

My bad, I assumed GN to be the topic from the previous posts. Which virtue did they signal in your opinion?

The categories it was nominated for seem fair enough. Since I did not see all the other movies, I could not tell if the win was deserved.

[Lemmy]

My bad, I assumed GN to be the topic from the previous posts. Which virtue did they signal in your opinion?

The categories it was nominated for seem fair enough. Since I did not see all the other movies, I could not tell if the win was deserved.

BP won Best Art Direction, Best Costumes and best... something (OST maybe?). I honestly don't remember what...

Now... Even assuming BP actually deserved those wins.. Do you honestly think the Academy suddenly decided to pay attention to and recognize superhero movies?

To me, it's pretty clear BP only won because of politics and so that Hollywood gets to circle-jerk itself with a big "look how progressive and enlightened we are!" display.

[The Glyphstone]

When you become convinced that the only reason a movie featuring minorities was even nominated for awards, let alone winning said awards, is because of its 'progressive credentials' and not because of any actual merits the movie had...is the problem really with the awards at that point?

Because let's be clear here. You are objecting to Black Panther's wins on Best Original Score and Best Costume Design, neither of which have even the slightest relation to the skin color of a movie's cast.

[Iruka]

BP won Best Art Direction, Best Costumes and best... something (OST maybe?). I honestly don't remember what...

Now... Even assuming BP actually deserved those wins.. Do you honestly think the Academy suddenly decided to pay attention to and recognize superhero movies?

To me, it's pretty clear BP only won because of politics and so that Hollywood gets to circle-jerk itself with a big "look how progressive and enlightened we are!" display.

Yeah, BP also got Best OST.

But nominations in these more technical categories are not exactly a new thing for super hero movies. I mean, Dark Knight got 7 or 8 nominations? A number of super hero movies have recieved awards for visual effects, sound editing or make-up.
BP is AFAIK only unique in actually winning three of them. Which was bound to happen sooner or later and is possibly a sign of demographical change within the Academy.

[zimmerwald1915]

Which doesn't necessarily bring in money.

The show doesn't necessarily have to break even, because the service it performs for the industry is not financial, but ideological. And not even in the straightforward sense of selling people on the idea that Hollywood is good. It's more about memetic propagation - the Oscars are a thing you should pay attention to, and because of that, you will pay attention to Hollywood and probably see Hollywood movies at some point. It's about getting you to buy in, not shell out.

[zimmerwald1915]

When you become convinced that the only reason a movie featuring minorities was even nominated for awards, let alone winning said awards, is because of its 'progressive credentials' and not because of any actual merits the movie had...is the problem really with the awards at that point?

When you become convinced that the reason all or most movies featuring minorities, maybe. But a particular, not-very-good movie, in a year with much more deserving films by and/or featuring PoC that were passed over for Best Picture or for nominations? Eh, I struggle to get exercised. Particularly when BP actually won two awards.

I think that much of the furor over BP in this particular community is a residual desire of the formerly-marginal geek culture, having made the jump to broad mass appeal, to make the further leap to respectable high art. Hate to tell ya, but BP ain't the vehicle for it, even if some of its political overtones (of which entirely too much is made IMHO, in a year when Sorry to Bother You came out) might make it seem like a good vehicle in an opportunistic sense.

[The Glyphstone]

When you become convinced that the reason all or most movies featuring minorities, maybe. But a particular, not-very-good movie, in a year with much more deserving films by and/or featuring PoC that were passed over for Best Picture or for nominations? Eh, I struggle to get exercised. Particularly when BP actually won two awards.

That was sort of what I was getting at. Panther was big and loud and showy, but those don't make a Best Picture on its own. I can't really offer my opinions on the others because I haven't seen any, but it losing the banner-leading trophy doesn't surprise me...a superhero flick being nominated for Best Picture is a milestone in itself. Actually winning is yet to come. But claiming Panther only won any awards at all because of its PoC cast/creators is pushing credulity.

I think that much of the furor over BP in this particular community is a residual desire of the formerly-marginal geek culture, having made the jump to broad mass appeal, to make the further leap to respectable high art. Hate to tell ya, but BP ain't the vehicle for it, even if some of its political overtones (of which entirely too much is made IMHO, in a year when Sorry to Bother You came out) might make it seem like a good vehicle in an opportunistic sense.

That's probably accurate, in a multidirectional sense. I think as much of the Panther hate is backlash against its overly enthusiastic supporters as much as it is rational criticism of the movie itself. Admittedly, I thought it won a spot in my top 5 MCU releases (mixed in no particular order with Dr Strange, Thor 3, Ant-Man, and Iron Man), but it wasn't the greatest movie of all time.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

When you become convinced that the reason all or most movies featuring minorities, maybe. But a particular, not-very-good movie, in a year with much more deserving films by and/or featuring PoC that were passed over for Best Picture or for nominations? Eh, I struggle to get exercised. Particularly when BP actually won two awards.

I think that much of the furor over BP in this particular community is a residual desire of the formerly-marginal geek culture, having made the jump to broad mass appeal, to make the further leap to respectable high art. Hate to tell ya, but BP ain't the vehicle for it, even if some of its political overtones (of which entirely too much is made IMHO, in a year when Sorry to Bother You came out) might make it seem like a good vehicle in an opportunistic sense.

Your assertion that BP is a "not-very-good movie" is a) your opinion and 2) irrelevant. What is crucial about Black Panther is how well it executed its primary artistic intention, which was showcasing Afrofuturism, and therefore celebrate African diaspora culture. And there isn't any other film this year, good, bad or mediocre that did it, and for that alone BP belonged in the top picks. From that lens, BP was not a "not-very-good" movie, but an excellent one.

Grey Wolf

[Iruka]

The show doesn't necessarily have to break even, because the service it performs for the industry is not financial, but ideological. And not even in the straightforward sense of selling people on the idea that Hollywood is good. It's more about memetic propagation - the Oscars are a thing you should pay attention to, and because of that, you will pay attention to Hollywood and probably see Hollywood movies at some point. It's about getting you to buy in, not shell out.

But how do I know if a movie is a Hollywood movie? Serious question.
I could make some educated guesses, but if some Hollywood production monolith cares that much about brand recognition, they should rather step up their game in other areas.

[Peelee]

The show doesn't necessarily have to break even, because the service it performs for the industry is not financial, but ideological. And not even in the straightforward sense of selling people on the idea that Hollywood is good. It's more about memetic propagation - the Oscars are a thing you should pay attention to, and because of that, you will pay attention to Hollywood and probably see Hollywood movies at some point. It's about getting you to buy in, not shell out.

Fair point. However, I don't buy into the "no publicity is bad publicity" idea, and can just swing back to my prior argument:

The Academy is trying to look less out of touch

They could accomplish this by trying to actually stop being out of touch, but I have yet to see that idea floated by.

[Bartmanhomer]

I'm actually glad that Black Panther won a few awards in the Oscars. After all it was an excellent movie but that just my honest opinion.

[zimmerwald1915]

Fair point. However, I don't buy into the "no publicity is bad publicity" idea, and can just swing back to my prior argument:

It is, in part, the movie industry's role to shape and set the bounds of public consciousness and permissible thought. If they end up merely tailing the public, they have abdicated that role.

[Tvtyrant]

It is, in part, the movie industry's role to shape and set the bounds of public consciousness and permissible thought. If they end up merely tailing the public, they have abdicated that role.

Truly there is no social good higher then shaping cultural conciousness via massive corporate conglomerates. I'm more then happy for billion dollar corporations owned by millionaires to abdicate that particular responsibility.

[Aedilred]

Your assertion that BP is a "not-very-good movie" is a) your opinion and 2) irrelevant. What is crucial about Black Panther is how well it executed its primary artistic intention, which was showcasing Afrofuturism, and therefore celebrate African diaspora culture. And there isn't any other film this year, good, bad or mediocre that did it, and for that alone BP belonged in the top picks. From that lens, BP was not a "not-very-good" movie, but an excellent one.

Grey Wolf

This is an important consideration, but I think in order for a movie to be considered great, as opposed to merely quite good, it has to do more than execute its primary artistic intention and attain a favourable judgment on terms other than its own.

The first critical point is that the artistic intention has to be worth a damn. Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will may be masterpieces of cinematography and perfect showcases for their artistic and ideological intentions but there's a reason nobody other than serious film students ever watches them.

And while it's not essential for a best-picture film it's helpful if there is something timeless about the film's artistic vision too rather than being too slavishly contemporary or welded to contemporary concerns. Previous Oscar-winners have suffered from this: watching American Beauty or Crash now it's hard not to suck one's teeth and go "really?" I have a feeling that Black Panther will look rather dated in not too long.


Secondly, I think a great film really ought to do something transcendental rather than just tick off the boxes and go home. Horror is an easy genre to prod at here, and in particular the exploitation films which relatively often hit their marks in terms of what the film is trying to do. The Last House on the Left and Cannibal Holocaust succeed on their own terms, almost too well, but the narrowness of their focus means they can only be considered important films rather than great ones.

At the other end of the respectability scale you have something like Gosford Park which is virtually flawless but feels hollow and empty in a way one suspects it wasn't meant to. I feel the same about some Wes Anderson movies where it's all very impressive but you get to the end and go "so what was all that about?"


In the case of Black Panther, I think that (leaving aside concerns about its dating) it succeeds on the first point but not the second. There are a couple of missteps that bother me (most notably, the Hanuman business which I shan't get into here for board rules) but the vision it presents and the motivation behind it are solid. But it doesn't really do anything on the second point. There's nothing remarkable about the plot or the screenplay or really even any of the performances. There's nothing there in the sense of the Nolan Batman films to suggest that this is a film to be taken critically seriously. It doesn't have the sparkling wit in the direction or the dialogue which so animated The Avengers or Thor Ragnarok. For a film which is in some ways quite subversive it plays itself very straight.

I'm glad the film was made and I'm glad it did well, but the film itself didn't do a lot for me.

[t209]

I'm actually glad that Black Panther won a few awards in the Oscars. After all it was an excellent movie but that just my honest opinion.

Well, I am only glad that it was a major step up for Hudlin's "tech-and-cancer-cure-hoarding judgemental xenophobes, but they are good guys for some reason" for Black Panther.
I mean imagine how the entire movie would be like if they adopted, or worse let him, from his awful book. Even "anti PC" would agree with "PC" on how hypocritical T'Challa (unironically) by having him critique other countries but not bother to share his tech.
Contrast it with the movie, which at least showed its faults like how everyone in Wakanda has a degree of Xenophobia (except Shuri, T'Chaka, and T'Challa who were moderate) and pointed out, by a villain no less, on how awful consequences came from their inaction.
The only issue is that the Best Picture nominee is basically "three films with questionable qualities" (Green Book's behind-the-scenes controversy, BP's good but not Best Picture quality, not sure about other movies but Freddie Mercury movie had its dlaws based on Sacha Baron Cohen's account of the band members siding against him).