No, there’s some sense there. The director does the same job, no matter their gender, and likewise the composer of the score, and the set designer, and so on. If you’re a studio looking to make a movie, you could equally well choose a male or female director.
But male and female thespians don’t take the same roles. Sure, for some roles, gender is unimportant, but for a lot of them, it matters. For such roles, you’re probably going to get a male actor for male roles, and a female actor for female roles.
If Page keeps on working as an actor, then they’re likely to get female roles, because (at least, for right now) they look a lot more female than male, and looks matter for actors. Maybe they’ll get surgery, hormones, or other treatments that’ll change their appearance, and look male enough to take male roles. Maybe they’ll even be able to find enough nonbinary roles to make a career out of. But for the moment, female roles look most likely.
Sure, which roles an actor gets are going to be based on gender most of the time - but that doesn’t mean there have to separate award categories. There’s no reason why there can simply be a single award for the best acting performance, just like there is a single " Best Picture" award rather than separate ones for “Best Comedy” ,“Best Drama” and “Best Musical”
Chronos already gave reasons, other reasons are that removing half the acting awards are in no one’s best interest. The acting branch won’t be for that. Producers won’t be for that, because “Academy Award winning actor/ess” is a selling point. The audience who enjoys watching the show (if you don’t watch it anyway I am not talking about you) won’t be for that because those are two of the major awards that the general public are actually familiar with. I can’t even imagine non-binary actors would truly be for that because they’d now have even less of a chance at actually winning. Not to mention that it will inevitably end up with more men nominated than women.
I can’t of think any reason why doing such a thing would be a positive change. When the Oscars made the big change to allow up to ten movies, it was to open the field to other works, not to make the restrictions even tighter and have less winners/nominees.
I actually didn’t say it would be a positive change - or at least I didn’t mean to. Just that the existence of male and female roles doesn’t in itself require separate awards. But not all awards have gender divisions and some have genre divisions - " Best Actor in a Comedy" and “Best Actor in a Drama” leaves the same number of awards as currently.
And it would be a lot harder to disguise sexism when 80 or 90% of the nominees are men for a gender neutral award.
Why not just have a Best Actors category (and a Best Supporting Actors) and award as many as reach a certain threshold of votes? Make the threshold high and allow each voter multiple votes. I’m thinking Baseball Hall of Fame type voting here. Here are the 20 nominees. You get 3 votes. Any actor reaching 75% or more as measured by the number of voters returning ballots (or 67 or whatever) gets a statue.
That might or might not solve the sexism problem, but it would certainly make it possible to make the award gender-neutral without halving the number of winners.
And I’m not certain that the award should be split by genders; I’m just saying that it makes more sense to do so than for the other categories. Does it make ENOUGH more sense? I dunno.
I dunno either. I was just offering a suggestion to address the “don’t split by genders, but don’t reduce the potential award count” conundrum. But the more I think about it, the more I like it.
Acting is acting - be it done by a guy, a gal, or someone non-binary. Change the title to Outstanding Achievement in Acting. Then give out as many as are deserved.
Oh, and Academy? If you’re listening, you can have the idea, I just want tickets. And put us next to somebody cool. The costume and set design people always looks like they’re a riot to hang out with. So them maybe. Thanks!
No, you’re sadly right. But it does seem to make it at least marginally more likely than if there’s no focus on the issue. It does seem that Hollywood (and the Academy specifically) are unusually resistant to change though.
When I first became aware of the Academy awards, I wondered why they had separate categories for men and women. But now that I see how men get all the good roles, I see some justice in it.
I’d let nonbinary people pick their category. Similar to picking a public restroom. It’s imperfect, but it gets the job done.
Is there any acting award anywhere that does not separate men and women? It’s not an Oscars thing, it’s an acting thing. I’ve never wondered that because men and women generally play different roles. And I agree, if this ever actually becomes something that comes up rather than just a hypothetical, the easiest and fairest is just let that person decide, like they have to do in every other aspect of their day to day life. Creating a whole separate category or taking away a category to suit the whims of one person (I guess everyone else doesn’t matter) seems so shortsighted and stupid.
I’d like to remind you that this is Cafe Society, and casual swipes at trans people, like what you just wrote, are absolutely not appropriate here. You could easily have expressed your opinion on awards without that.
Well, I first learned of the practice from the Oscars, and as a feminist child, I was not deeply aware of how different the roles are that are available to men and women. So I thought it weird.
In addition to actor/actress, there are other awards that are separated into male/female. Page’s list of awards shows many with a female designation (e.g. Outstanding Female Performance).
One thing that strikes me odd about having non-binary people choose a gender category rather than having their own is that it does seem like mislabeling. Page’s award list in the future may list Male awards even though they may not really identify that way. As an analogy, imagine that there were awards at work, but they were designated as Conservative and Liberal (e.g. Best Liberal/Conservative Employee). If someone did not align with either of those, it seems odd that they would have to put themselves into one of those categories in order to to be recognized as an outstanding employee. Then they would see themselves referred to as that way when the awards were listed. Like on the award display in the lobby they would see their picture with the caption “Best Liberal Employee”. Other people in the company would assume that person was a Liberal even though they might be independent or have some other political stance.
Reviving this thread, as I had recalled that Eddie Izzard had also been mentioned in it – Izzard announced last week, while appearing on the English TV show Portrait Artist of the Year, that she will now be using the pronouns she/her.
Has she said whether she’ll be changing her name, and whether she’ll still be accepting male roles?
Though I will admit that I’m a bit surprised that a celebrity who’s been comfortable wearing dresses in public for decades is only just now deciding to use female pronouns.
I would suspect that there’s two factors (at least) there:
Izzard did not always, previously, dress as a female when appearing as herself; as she notes in that article, she has considered herself to be gender-fluid.
How transgender people are viewed and treated in western culture is rapidly changing, and it seems to me that it’s only in the past few years that preferred pronouns for transgender people are being more widely used.