The 96th Academy Awards

[Mister Mets]

Yesterday, I saw American Fiction and Zone of Silence, so I've now caught all the Best Picture nominees. All were decent at worse.

My favorite films of the year are Oppenheimer, Killers of the Flower Moon, Anatomy of a Fall, Poor Things and Zone of Interest, so the Directors branch chose their nominees well.

[Nods]

The Academy doesn't fill out nomination slots. That's not how it works.

Individuals choose their favorite in a category, typically one where they have experience (IE- writers pick screenplays, actors pick the four performances; some people are able to vote in multiple categories like writers who also direct) for the nomination. Then the members of the academy can vote among the nominees for all categories.

Often the winner of Best Picture doesn't win Best Director. But that's happened in the past. In the 1940s, 1950s and 2000s, there were three times each decade when Best Director didn't correspond to Best Picture. It was 50/50 in the 2010s, and that may be more about small sample size and a side effect of expanding the selection of Best Picture nominees.

Looking at resumes of winners, it seems that a big difference is that directors tended to be more prolific. Joseph Mankiewicz won Best Director twice in his first five years, but he also made nine movies in the same time period.

I like older movies and there are plenty of good ones that didn't win and were never seriously in the running because it was the wrong genre. I certainly think Spider-Man: No Way Home should have been nominated for a lot of awards, but recent Best Picture winners have included a sci-fi film about the multiverse, a Korean black comedy thriller and a romance with a sea creature.

.

Well you have points here...however the voter rolls were purged about 10 years ago. What we see is voting blocks "winning" every year or so but if the master film makers don't appeal to any sort of block they'll get nominated but they won't actually win. The problem in all of this though is film makers now win Oscars and become marginalized, the studios that fund projects don't take the film makers seriously because they are just viewed as token winners. Someone like Katharine Bigelow was a more successful filmmaker before she won an Oscar than afterwards.

The Academy also started it's diversity agenda way back in the 1950's. Miyoshi Umek, Dorothy Dandrige, jose Ferer, and Sidny Poitier were all receiving Oscar nominations/wins. This was also done to try and do away with the Hayes code which which had led to a number of racial issues in the past. If you ever want to watch some good forgotten films The Good Earh and Captains Corageous have been erased from history but are very good films.

[Username taken]

Well you have points here...however the voter rolls were purged about 10 years ago. What we see is voting blocks "winning" every year or so but if the master film makers don't appeal to any sort of block they'll get nominated but they won't actually win. The problem in all of this though is film makers now win Oscars and become marginalized, the studios that fund projects don't take the film makers seriously because they are just viewed as token winners. Someone like Katharine Bigelow was a more successful filmmaker before she won an Oscar than afterwards.

The Academy also started it's diversity agenda way back in the 1950's. Miyoshi Umek, Dorothy Dandrige, jose Ferer, and Sidny Poitier were all receiving Oscar nominations/wins. This was also done to try and do away with the Hayes code which which had led to a number of racial issues in the past. If you ever want to watch some good forgotten films The Good Earh and Captains Corageous have been erased from history but are very good films.

Are you suggesting these actors only won/nominated because of their race? This in the time of segregation?

The diversity agenda you're referring to suggests they shouldn't have been awarded because they're not white.

I say this because some of these actors were nominated when the Hays Code existed.

[krazijoe]

Guess Hattie McDaniel was a diversity winner...

[Username taken]

Guess Hattie McDaniel was a diversity winner...

It's a very odd one because that was a time of pretty intense open racism and the Hays Code was indeed in effect.

Heck, the Hays Code actually reinforced racism back when some of these minority actors won awards.

So, I'm not sure how diversity quotas come in when the exact opposite was happening.

[Nods]

Are you suggesting these actors only won/nominated because of their race? This in the time of segregation?

The diversity agenda you're referring to suggests they shouldn't have been awarded because they're not white.

I say this because some of these actors were nominated when the Hays Code existed.

I think the racial issues of the time definitely pushed for winners and nominations from Hollywood. If you actually watched a movies I don't know if you would agree with the minority winners in the early days. But what I'm really doing is correcting you of your historical ignorance.

[Angilasman]

The best part of Oscar season is them putting stuff I missed the first go-round back in theaters.

Pretty great year for movies! A decade ago you'd see all the categories filled with by-the-numbers biopics and the like, but now we've got a ton of interesting movies nominated.

[Nods]

It's a very odd one because that was a time of pretty intense open racism and the Hays Code was indeed in effect.

Heck, the Hays Code actually reinforced racism back when some of these minority actors won awards.

So, I'm not sure how diversity quotas come in when the exact opposite was happening.

Miscegenation was the only part of the Hay's code which applied racially at the time. POC were in movies back then you just couldn't have an interracial relationship. But to just casually act like the Academy didn't start nominating (with regularity) POC in the 50's...is certainly a choice.

[Username taken]

I think the racial issues of the time definitely pushed for winners and nominations from Hollywood. If you actually watched a movies I don't know if you would agree with the minority winners in the early days. But what I'm really doing is correcting you of your historical ignorance.

Let me refine my question, where did you get the Hollywood had a "diversity quota" back then from?

Is it written or documented anywhere, I'd like to read about that.

Segregation was the order of the day both within and outside Hollywood, so I'm wondering how Hollywood implemented a diversity quota.

[Username taken]

Miscegenation was the only part of the Hay's code which applied racially at the time. POC were in movies back then you just couldn't have an interracial relationship. But to just casually act like the Academy didn't start nominating (with regularity) POC in the 50's...is certainly a choice.

The poster I quoted and myself were suggesting the exact opposite.

Minority actors were nominated and won because they deserved them (not because of a quota, moreso in the face of segregation).

[80sbaby]

Let me refine my question, where did you get the Hollywood had a "diversity quota" back then from?

Is it written or documented anywhere, I'd like to read about that.

Segregation was the order of the day both within and outside Hollywood, so I'm wondering how Hollywood implemented a diversity quota.

He's basically saying POCs were only nominated because they were POCs and not actually deserving.

[Mister Mets]

Well you have points here...however the voter rolls were purged about 10 years ago. What we see is voting blocks "winning" every year or so but if the master film makers don't appeal to any sort of block they'll get nominated but they won't actually win. The problem in all of this though is film makers now win Oscars and become marginalized, the studios that fund projects don't take the film makers seriously because they are just viewed as token winners. Someone like Katharine Bigelow was a more successful filmmaker before she won an Oscar than afterwards.

The Academy also started it's diversity agenda way back in the 1950's. Miyoshi Umek, Dorothy Dandrige, jose Ferer, and Sidny Poitier were all receiving Oscar nominations/wins. This was also done to try and do away with the Hayes code which which had led to a number of racial issues in the past. If you ever want to watch some good forgotten films The Good Earh and Captains Corageous have been erased from history but are very good films.

If the Academy has a diversity agenda, it would suggest that minority performers have a better chance of winning than white performers (unless there's some kind of argument that white performances are somehow more worthy.)

I don't think it's the case now, and it certainly wasn't at any point in the 20th Century.

As for whether Kathryn Bigelow was a more successful filmmaker before her Oscar, she followed it up with Zero Dark Thirty pretty quickly.

[Username taken]

He's basically saying POCs were only nominated because they were POCs and not actually deserving.

That seems to be the case which is very, very, very, very, very strange considering US history.

I can't imagine anything like that existing back then. If anything, it was the exact opposite.

Even now, there's zero evidence of any diversity quotas with the Oscars. #Oscarssowhite was a thing that happened a few years ago.

[Username taken]

If the Academy has a diversity agenda, it would suggest that minority performers have a better chance of winning than white performers (unless there's some kind of argument that white performances are somehow more worthy.)

I don't think it's the case now, and it certainly wasn't at any point in the 20th Century.

As for whether Kathryn Bigelow was a more successful filmmaker before her Oscar, she followed it up with Zero Dark Thirty pretty quickly.

My thoughts exactly.

[Nods]

He's basically saying POCs were only nominated because they were POCs and not actually deserving.

I think what he's saying and I am close to him what with being him and all is that he doesn't think any of you have ever bothered to watch any of these performances or films. And that I think many of you are speaking from a place of politics rather than experience.

Hollywood started awarding and nominating POC in the 50's on a regular basis. I'm sorry that you wish to just ignore that that happened. My current point which seems to be lost on many of you is that the current system isn't really that much better. You could even make the case that it's kinda of worse.

The Oscars are basically trifecta of three issues...money, politics, and power. For the last 20 years or so...a full on generation we have a fairly accurate sample size of award winners. It's a very diverse field...on the surface. Almost every year the winning film serves some sort of narative for typically marginalized people. The problem is because many of these filmmakers weren't ever established as legitimate creators once they win their awards they are then marginalized. To use an analogy the Oscars are turning into the Best New Artist Award at the Grammy's. The studios got the award then decide to just move on to the next one to something different.

As for whether Kathryn Bigelow was a more successful filmmaker before her Oscar, she followed it up with Zero Dark Thirty pretty quickly.

A film which is now 10 years old...and in those 10 years since she made 1 film. Detroit which was a race film which as a white woman she likely couldn't make today. Where's Chloe Zhao's next film? How about Jane Champion...nothing in production Sian Hater whats she been up to since CODA won. Boon Joon-Yi Oscar followup is coming out in 8 weeks...how do you think that films going to do coming out the weekend after Ghostbusters and the same time as Godzilla and King Kong. Alfonso Cauron released classic after classic you might see the reboot of his Harry Potter film before you see another film from him. Guilermo Del Toro...a genius filmmaker who has to work for Netflix a company that will not release films theatrically and recently lost it's prestige producer.

If the Academy has a diversity agenda, it would suggest that minority performers have a better chance of winning than white performers (unless there's some kind of argument that white performances are somehow more worthy.)
.

How many people of the 20 actors are white, straight, American and we'll say Christian as opposed to not Jewish because that sounds bad. The divisions are not solely racial, regional voting lines and religious voting lines also seem to exist. What's going to happen 20 years from now when people look back at the names of the winners, and try and dive into the filmographies of these artists and they end up finding...what.