Since it seems inevitable at this point that every year when the nominations come around the focus of the conversation will shift to “quotas” and “representation” - by what logic can the “Best Actor” category be divided into two genders but the “Best Director” one can’t?
Any pundit who writes an article objecting to the lack of diversity in a category should be required to state who they’d boot out. Which director would you kick out for Greta Gerwig? Or which actress for Jennifer Lopez? Makes your job a little tougher, don’t it?
My personal opinion: I don’t know. The lack of diversity is alarming but I don’t have a solution so I’m not writing.
This is the very definition of blind privilege. Append the words “other than white and male” and it makes a lot more sense. Because the voters who are predominately white and male don’t see that by voting for white and male, they are bringing race and gender into this. Because to them that is “just normal”, which implies that everything else is outside of normal. Sigh.
:rolleyes: I said nothing about what is “normal.” I said I am sick of people bitching that there weren’t enough women or minorities nominated. Again, are you looking for a quota system or something? Save 1/5 in every category for a minority even if you don’t think they are the best? The Oscars are totally subjective.
And I am sick and tired of people devaluing works that focus on women or people of color. I guess we’d stop bring race and gender into things if race and gender hadn’t been used against us and continues to be brought against us.
Basically, I’m totally fine with bringing up race and gender up until the point when systemic discrimination doesn’t factor into these things. Until then, you can continue to be sick and tired.
Not suggesting quotas. Just pointing out implicit bias, which is unintentional. And you didn’t need to say anything about “normal” out loud. It’s implicit in your “sick and tired” comment.
[Moderating]
Just so folks know, I’ve gotten a report that this discussion about diversity might be a hijack. However, on looking over it, it appears to be relevant to the thread’s (fairly broad) topic, and the discussion so far has been civil, and so I don’t see any problem, here. If that changes, let me know, but for now, I won’t be taking any moderatorial action.
[Moderating]
Just so folks know, I’ve gotten a report that this discussion about diversity might be a hijack. However, on looking over it, it appears to be relevant to the thread’s (fairly broad) topic, and the discussion so far has been civil, and so I don’t see any problem, here. If that changes, let me know, but for now, I won’t be taking any moderatorial action.
I happen to agree 100% with Stephen King on the topic:
I think he has backpedaled a bit since saying that, which is a shame.
Why should anything *but *quality matter when awarding for quality?
mmm
Exactly!
Nobody is talking about any other factor than quality. NOBODY!
But when the gatekeepers are largely white and male, they will be the arbiters of what is considered “quality” and those standards, those criteria are going to be weighted toward what the white males most identify with, most relate to, most understand, are most moved by. Given this is Hollywood, you can add “rich” and “older” to that characterization, too.
And they are not going to be necessarily representative of what a larger, more diverse body of artists consider “quality”. Not by a long shot. But those other voices, those opinions, those perspectives will always be marginalized as long as they are underrepresented among the gatekeepers.
This isn’t about “compromising” on quality. It’s about teaching a more homogeneous body that “quality” is more expansive, more subtle, and more complex than they will often give it credit for. Art forms are always going to change and evolve and voices and styles that are forward-thinking, outside the mainstream, and diverse are going to be hard to get used to and will take longer to gain credibility. History has shown that time has not always been kind to many Oscar-winners of other eras.
But the then-ignored films of past eras that are now often considered the great ones usually had contemporary champions if you knew where to look and where to listen. But that was rarely within the Hollywood establishment, even when those films were staring them in the face.
Those films are here now. But the establishment is still going to embrace what it wants and let films fall through the cracks left and right, both in the marketplace and the awards podium. This year was a particularly egregious example because of how disproportionately popular some films were at the expense of others that were (debatably) their equals. But that happens every year. It’s the way things are but that doesn’t make it any less frustrating. That’s all.
So as the person who started this thread, I respectively ask that this line of debate be closed. If you want to continue it further, feel free to create your own thread and link it back to this one. But art will always be subjective and the standards people set for themselves will be informed by many different factors. Any further discussion on those standards should be specific to the Oscar-nominated films in competition currently, since like it or not, we know who are the final contenders and all others that didn’t make the list will have to watch from the sidelines and continue to do their best in the future.
Thanks to everyone for the conversation! ~MM
Which actress for Jennifer Lopez? That is so easy. Scarlet Johansson.
Agree 100%. This is the perfect example of people voting for a part (highly sympathetic character, funny and touching) rather than the performance. ScarJo is very good in Marriage Story and she’s fine in Jojo but you see nothing that any number of other actresses couldn’t have done. It really is impossible to imagine anyone but JLo in her part without completely changing the movie.
Wait, I’m losing track. Are we again allowed to discuss diversity in this thread?
Because I respectfully avoided responding to the OP’s lengthy opinion on the topic - you know, the one that s/he concluded with the request that the subject be closed - only to see that the OP and those who agree with him/her are continuing the debate.
At least their side of it.
mmm
The first quote discusses diversity, the second quote is the OP respectfully asking to turn discussion to the specific nominations (my interpretation, admittedly). The last two quotes are discussion of an alternate acting performance for Best Supporting Actress, suggesting an actress explicitly listed as a strong contender for a nomination in the OP. I don’t see anything in those last two posts that even touches on diversity as a topic.
In reply to the discussion, I would not have objected to Jennifer Lopez in the nominations. She stole the show in a nominally supporting performance in Hustlers. But I think Scarlett Johansson’s performance in JoJo Rabbit is equally standout. For me, Laura Dern and ScarJo were mortal locks based on the sheer impact of their performances. Margot Robbie did an outstanding job in Bombshell and turned in another lead performance in a nominally supporting role, while Florence Pugh really nailed a new take on the character of Amy in Little Women. Kathy Bates is always outstanding, but the role she played and its place in the screenplay made it minor rather than major Bates.
So, if you must pop J Lo in, I’d sacrifice Bates, though I think all of the actresses gave really good performances, plus a few others I could list, so I’m not crushed by her exclusion.
I’m blown away people think Scarlett Johansson deserves a nomination for Jojo Rabbit. I loved that movie, but her part could have been played by a no-name actress just as well and it would receive no attention. She did not do a bad job, but the role was not a stand-out role at all.
The little kid in the movie, though. What a great performance!
Thanks, yes, that was the intention. JLo racked up a ton of critic awards and nominations, so her exclusion is fair game in its conspicuousness, regardless of speculating the reasons that may or may not have been behind it.
And I haven’t seen the Eastwood (and won’t) so it doesn’t surprise me that a role that got little attention gets a nod that goes to an Oscar-regular. It may be a good turn (Bates is always fairly reliable), but looking back over the Academy’s alumni is an equally lazy way to fill out a slate instead of taking the chance of digging deeper for other options.
While I don’t think Richard Jewell is one of the best films of the year, it is a well crafted, well cast movie that stays engaging for its entire length (I can’t think of any Eastwood helmed pictures I would consider a “bad movie”). Eastwood has built a pretty formidable stable of actors that he can call on, but I think most of his films over the past few years are more musing on the state of mankind than “statement” projects, which ends up muting their potential.
Did a two-fer yesterday, 1917 and Ford v Ferrari.
Ford v Ferrari was very entertaining but not without its flaws. I felt it was overlong. Some of the race scenes, while well done, could have been shortened. They got a bit repetitive after a while. And there were several cliched scenes I could have done without. Christian Bale’s performance stood out.
I thoroughly enjoyed 1917. I had a nitpick or two, but I cannot remember what they were, so they must have been pretty insignificant. The two leads, who are relatively unknowns (brilliant casting decision), are perfect for the roles.
mmm