Should the Oscars go non-binary?

[Clothahump]

**Should the Oscars go non-binary?
**
In a word: No.

Not that anyone pays any attention to them in the first place, but there is a rationale to having some kudos for men’s roles and women’s roles.

[phreesh]

It’s fun to see even the intelligent folks of the SD bend themselves into pretzels trying to justify gender-based acting awards. This is silly for a number of reasons:

1. ‘Best’ actor/actress is a silly award to start with. It’s very, very subjective. I think there is a difference between a bad actor and a good one, but at some level of aptitude, the only real difference is the role. If a role calls for a bland accountant, it may be played astonishingly well, but such an acting job will never win an award against, say a modestly well-acted AIDS activist with mommy issues.
2. You just have to look at the Oscars themselves to see that gender-specific awards are foolish. Best director? Best writer? Best cinematographer? All genderless with no uproar. Why are acting roles any different?
3. Women and men play their roles differently. So what? So do thin people and fat people. So do Asian people and black people. Do we need special acting awards for those folks?
4. Mostly men would win. Again, so what? That might be a great way to point out that women need more juicy roles to play. And its also supposition. Whose to say that the men wouldn’t be bitching that Meryl Streep keeps winning the best actor award when there’s so many great male actors who aren’t getting recognized.
5. Half the awards would go away. I like the idea posted above to expanding the types of acting awarded. I love comedies and action movies and would love to see their work recognized. Add awards for the best actors in those sorts of movies to make up the numbers. I’d watch the hell out of that.

[Go_Arachnid_Laser_1]

@jtur88

I explained that in an earlier post. Because the actors are visible to the audience, and because they are, for that reason, not interchangeable in a particular role without regard to gender.

Get a screenwriter to write a story in which the gender of the characters is irrelevant to the story line, and the gender of the actors would then be interchangeable.

Can’t we see their age, height, weight, race and so on too?

[Jophiel]

The answer to “so what?” is that the awards are ultimately advertising for Hollywood and the film industry. There’s little to be gained in controversy over “men won 80% of the time” when most people are fine with the dual sets of acting awards.

[RickJay]

@phreesh

It’s fun to see even the intelligent folks of the SD bend themselves into pretzels trying to justify gender-based acting awards. This is silly for a number of reasons:

1. ‘Best’ actor/actress is a silly award to start with. It’s very, very subjective. I think there is a difference between a bad actor and a good one…

You’re right that the award is subjective. You aren’t making any argument that hasn’t been made before; in fact, George Clooney made exactly your argument about being unable to judge between actors in different roles while he was accepting his Oscar. However, if you’re going to make this line of argument, the entire discussion is dead in the water; if the award is invalid for being subjective, then the issue of gender separation is irrelevant. There’s nothing else to say. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

So let’s just assume it benefits the cinema industry to have these awards - which it absolutely does - and go from there.

[Sage_Rat]

@phreesh

4. Mostly men would win. Again, so what? That might be a great way to point out that women need more juicy roles to play. And its also supposition. Whose to say that the men wouldn’t be bitching that Meryl Streep keeps winning the best actor award when there’s so many great male actors who aren’t getting recognized.

I didn’t really state why this matters, but my intent was to explain why they’re not going to change the Oscars to be non-binary willingly. I wasn’t making an argument for or against the change, I was just saying that it’s not going to happen.

If someone like Asia ends up getting into the running, that might cause the sort of pressure that would make them change. But they’ll probably do it wrong once, before acceding to the change. They’re already being lambasted for having so few Asian and African American winners. Doing something which could tank the prospects of women to make a showing is going to be about as far from their mind as can be.

[swampspruce]

@jtur88

I explained that in an earlier post. Because the actors are visible to the audience, and because they are, for that reason, not interchangeable in a particular role without regard to gender.

Get a screenwriter to write a story in which the gender of the characters is irrelevant to the story line, and the gender of the actors would then be interchangeable.

Sorry, I don’t buy that premise. There have been several films where the characters’ genders have been altered and the story still works. Any character is a role, and a capable actor will be able to make it their own irrespective of gender, ethnicity, or any other construct you want to throw at it. I will grant that can become a stickier issue when you are portraying a real individual. At a guess, a white, female playing Nelson Mandela would be a hard sell. The thing is it’s not impossible, and if they could pull it off, I’d say they were worthy of an Oscar!

[Chronos]

One issue that comes to mind is that romance is an element of a lot of movies, and most romances consist of one man and one woman, with the result that many movies end up having a male lead and a female lead. Under the current system, this means that the top two actors from each movie can be in contention for their awards. By contrast, if we went to a genre-based system, then the two leads would be competing directly against each other.

I’m not sure which way is better, but it’s something to keep in mind.

[Pleonast]

@RickJay

Amy Adams will win an Oscar within five years.

As to the issue of age, it is indisputably the case that female actors who win Oscars are younger than male actors. It is actually rare for young men to win Oscars; only one man, Adrien Brody, has won Best Actor before turning 30 and then just by a few weeks. Many women have won Best Actress in their twenties; Emma Stone was 28 when she was handed her statue, and she’s not even one of the ten youngest women to win Best Actress.

In the supporting categories only four men in their twenties (Timothy Hutton, Cuba Gooding Jr., George Chakiris, and Heath Ledger) have won; in Best Supporting Actress the list is, again, a long one, including three children (the number of children nominated is at least fifteen, by my count.)

Now, I suppose it’s possible that there is some genetic thing that makes women’s acting skill peak earlier. But I really doubt it.

This could be used to create non-gender-based awards. Remove gender current awards: Actor/Actress in a Leading Role, Actor/Actress in a Supporting Role. Instead have…
Best Actor in a Leading Role: regardless of gender.
Best Actor in a Supporting Role: regardless of gender.
Best New Actor: regardless of gender or age, and in their first Oscar-qualifying movie.
Best Young Actor: regardless of gender, and either under 30 years or with 5 or fewer Oscar-qualifying movies.
Best Established Actor: regardless of gender, and either 30 years or older, or 6 or more qualifying movies.

And other Oscars I’d like to see, to sweeten the pot for removing some…
Best Duo of Actors: regardless of gender, best pair of actors.
Best Ensemble of Actors: regardless of gender, best group of 3 or more actors.
Best Actor in a Drama.
Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical.
Best Actor in an Animation: voice actors deserve some recognition.

Each category would have 5 to 10 nominees, using some sort of soft criteria like what they use for Best Picture.

(I agree about Amy Adams!)

[Jophiel]

@Pleonast

Best Young Actor: regardless of gender, and either under 30 years or with 5 or fewer Oscar-qualifying movies.
Best Established Actor: regardless of gender, and either 30 years or older, or 6 or more qualifying movies.

Terribly unfair. At best, one range is only 29 years and the other is approximately 40 years. More realistically, “under 30” is likely 5-10 years or so since, younger than that, you have fewer roles or accomplished acting performances. The potential pools are far different sizes. Why are you discriminating against actors over age 30?

Also, what counts as a qualifying movie? Is this a legitimate term (it may be, I don’t follow the Oscars)? If you had a bit role in a film up for Best Picture, are you using up one of your “Oscar qualifying movies”? Or Best Effects?

[phreesh]

@RickJay

You’re right that the award is subjective. You aren’t making any argument that hasn’t been made before; in fact, George Clooney made exactly your argument about being unable to judge between actors in different roles while he was accepting his Oscar. However, if you’re going to make this line of argument, the entire discussion is dead in the water; if the award is invalid for being subjective, then the issue of gender separation is irrelevant. There’s nothing else to say. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

So let’s just assume it benefits the cinema industry to have these awards - which it absolutely does - and go from there.

Fine. Who’s to argue with George?

Please disregard the totally valid first point of my post in the interest of pursuing the separate argument that it’s silly to separate acting awards into male and female roles. Discuss.