Oscar nominations vs. Mine/Yours

[Stewball]

I've always taken the Oscars with a grain of salt, but this year they were so watered down, you can't even make duck soup out of them. I've seen all of them but Moonlight, which given the previews and story line I don't plan to see. I therefore won't make any accusations of political correctness behind its nomination and win.

Most were worthwhile while Hidden Figures and Arrival should have been way below any cutoff. And this years animated films were especially wanting, but for the superior semi-animated The Jungle Book, which should have been nominated for best film period. The Oscar nominations were.....: (I'd put them in order but it just ain't worth the effort, though Hidden Figures would be at the bottom

Arrival
Fences
Hacksaw Ridge
Hell or High Water
Hidden Figures
La La Land
Lion
Manchester by the Sea
Moonlight

Why only nine?

My nominations, (any one of which I'll put up against any one of the official ones:

(10+/10)
The Accountant

(9/10--in order)
The Dressmaker
The Jungle Book
Captain Fantastic
Nerve
Free State of Jones
Blood Father
Sully
Lion

Only one match with the Academy to be had, Lion; and if I had to pick a 10th one from my 8/10s I'd probably pick La La Land.

Are you in general agreement with the Oscars or are your top 10 from 2016 off in non-La La Land?

BTW, I lied, Moonlight's nomination/win is PC to the core.

[VinegarBob]

I've seen almost all of the nominated English language feature films from 2016, and from those nominated I'd put Moonlight at the top. I think it was the best film of 2016 along with I, Daniel Blake. I'd put La La Land at the bottom. I was expecting La La Land to win and was pretty stoked when they announced they'd made a mistake and in fact Moonlight had won. I actually think the Academy got most of the major awards right this year, although I'd say that it wasn't a great year on the whole.

[mattorama12]

Moonlight's nomination/win is PC to the core.

Care to explain what you mean by that? I'm really not sure how much sense this type of criticism makes here.

For example, if you said that a gay black man was hired as CEO of a company despite his lack of qualifications, I could completely understand the argument that it was "PC to the core."

But when we're talking about a movie, isn't the whole point about how it makes people feel? By that I mean, clearly the fact that Moonlight is about a minority-within-a-minority is directly part of its appeal. People (yours truly included) enjoyed the fact that it showed us a character who struggles with his identity because he is such an outcast. So, yes, people were drawn to the film and appreciated it because of the subject. But how is that a criticism?

Now, if the movie itself were terrible, I think you'd have a much stronger case. But as you haven't seen it, you seem be basing your entire decision on the subject matter itself. If you want to see an example of the Academy being PC and giving accolades to a bad film, look no further than Crash.

That said, I'm sure there was some influence (likely subconscious, but perhaps conscious as well) from last year's Oscarssowhite (mostly dumb) controversy. But the other awards showed that it wasn't a huge influence on their voting. Denzel easily could have won for Best Actor and would have if people were really concerned about voting too white. Jenkins easily could have won for Best Director, as well. (In fact, I would have rather seen La La Land get Best Picture and Jenkins get Best Director if there was going to be a split.)


Anyway, looking through my rankings and excluding a decidedly non-Oscar-type Popstar, my top five would be:

Nocturnal Animals
O.J.: Made in America
Sing Street
Zootopia
Moonlight

[Darren]

mattorama12 you have to realize that to some people(old white people mainly) any movie that features people of color or is directed by a POC that isn't history based (but hell even slave movies are too PC for most white folks these days) is going to get criticism for being "too PC" as if just telling our stories is in and of itself just a plea for white recognition from liberals or an attempt to make white conservatives feel bad "just for being white". It's all a part of the narrative being created by white people to prove that they're the true minorities in North America.

[Stewball]

mattorama12 you have to realize that to some people(old white people mainly) any movie that features people of color or is directed by a POC that isn't history based (but hell even slave movies are too PC for most white folks these days) is going to get criticism for being "too PC" as if just telling our stories is in and of itself just a plea for white recognition from liberals or an attempt to make white conservatives feel bad "just for being white". It's all a part of the narrative being created by white people to prove that they're the true minorities in North America.

Judgmental and prejudicial spring to mind reading that. You don't know me at all. I played a small part in the initial desegregation of the UGA, in the Klan South, for which I was called nigger-lover and threatened more times than I can count. My best friend in high school was a "homosexual" (as they called themselves then) (and no, I'm straight), and ran with a crowd in college, three of whom were "gay" (which they did not call themselves). I called myself a socialist and voted Democrat for 20 years, including for McGovern , until I realized what they were doing. The Democrats are the real racists (the KKK being the military wing of the Democrat Party). I'd been played, which is what the awards riot for Moonlight is trying to do, regardless of the quality of the production or the Truth it might contain. It's not the movie itself that's a power play, it's the recognition it gets which has little to do with its quality. The left runs the public face of Hollywood and intends to rub it in our faces every chance they get, as revenge for the sins of our grandparents.

BTW, Denzel Washington should have won best director for Fences (of the films nominated), but that would have generated too much "white recognition" for a black Hollywood maverick, or dare I say, given some of his recent comments, Uncle Tom.

[Stewball]

Moonlight's nomination/win is PC to the core.

Care to explain what you mean by that? I'm really not sure how much sense this type of criticism makes here.

For example, if you said that a gay black man was hired as CEO of a company despite his lack of qualifications, I could completely understand the argument that it was "PC to the core."

But when we're talking about a movie, isn't the whole point about how it makes people feel? By that I mean, clearly the fact that Moonlight is about a minority-within-a-minority is directly part of its appeal. People (yours truly included) enjoyed the fact that it showed us a character who struggles with his identity because he is such an outcast. So, yes, people were drawn to the film and appreciated it because of the subject. But how is that a criticism?

Now, if the movie itself were terrible, I think you'd have a much stronger case. But as you haven't seen it, you seem be basing your entire decision on the subject matter itself. If you want to see an example of the Academy being PC and giving accolades to a bad film, look no further than Crash.

That said, I'm sure there was some influence (likely subconscious, but perhaps conscious as well) from last year's Oscarssowhite (mostly dumb) controversy. But the other awards showed that it wasn't a huge influence on their voting. Denzel easily could have won for Best Actor and would have if people were really concerned about voting too white. Jenkins easily could have won for Best Director, as well. (In fact, I would have rather seen La La Land get Best Picture and Jenkins get Best Director if there was going to be a split.)


Anyway, looking through my rankings and excluding a decidedly non-Oscar-type Popstar, my top five would be:

Nocturnal Animals
O.J.: Made in America
Sing Street
Zootopia
Moonlight

Why did you like Nocturnal Animals so much. I'm a big fan of Amy Adams but her last two movies weren't that great, which isn't a reflection on her performances. Arrival turned into a simple monster movie with a terrible ending, and while Nocturnal Animals was very well done, ultimately, it was dark and pointless.

[Stewball]

Got an eta for when the academy will get bored of striving for political correctness, and movies about black people can justifiably win an oscar?

When rationalists finally become ascendant--the hope for which is probably irrational since socially, man has never been there. But hope springs eternal that our youth will one day receive an accurate education. And the fact that that's unlikely is no reason not to struggle for it.

I am quite happy that La La Land did not get it.

As long as the Oscars continues to pursue political correctness, it'll continue to not get it right while ignoring true art and profundity. And I'm not saying social themes should be ignored, just the opposite. But they should be presented in context instead of as a cause on a pedestal. A perfect example of all of that is the unrecognized masterpiece from 2016, The Accountant, which deals with autism in a way that avoided pathos and actually showed that it can be cool. It's the most underrated film of all time, since that was only one of the themes that was going on.

[mattorama12]

Why did you like Nocturnal Animals so much. . . . while [it] was very well done, ultimately, it was dark and pointless.

Lots of reasons. I know that you and I share a love for good narration in films, even though narration is often seen as a crutch. When used properly, it can really enhance everything. I feel the same way about framing devices. 90% of the time they are at best useless (Titanic, The Princess Bride) or actively make the movie worse (The Lone Ranger). But the other 10% of the time, when they're done right, they are just amazing. I guess it may be a bit of a stretch to really call it a framing device in Nocturnal Animals since the "framing" narrative is close to half the screen time, but hot damn if it isn't executed well. Every scene from the dueling narratives informs the characters, motivations, and story of the other narrative in a way that is both complex and easily digestible. The two narratives also allow the movie to get in lots of different ideas/concepts/genres organically. You get domestic drama, action, violence, etc. Usually when you have a film with action and violence, any domestic drama seems dull in comparison. Because there are two narratives each with their own stakes, neither overpowers the other.

Thematically, it has tons of depth. The framing story explores notions of love and marriage (breathing some life into a tired contrast between the partner who may not be a provider but is otherwise great and a partner who is a provider but otherwise lacking), nostalgia, manipulation, loneliness. The novel story explores sexual violence, physical power, and drive. Together, the stories create interesting looks into creative impulses, power, and vengeance, among others.

What more could you really ask for?

I'm a big fan of Amy Adams but her last two movies weren't that great, which isn't a reflection on her performances. Arrival turned into a simple monster movie with a terrible ending.

I wonder what part of the ending you didn't like? I had my qualms with the movie, but mostly liked it overall. Weird that you call it a "simple monster movie" when I think it was anything but. If anything, it flipped the monster movie script on its head because the "monsters" were complex creatures with no desire or attempt to harm the humans (despite what some characters thought).

[CosmicMonkey]

Finally, it's happened! Stewball has found a way to combine both his perpetual complaints about political correctness and his undying fanboy-ism for The Accountant into a single forum post. Given how much he loves to talk about these topics,it was only a matter of time, I suppose.

[Stewball]

Why did you like Nocturnal Animals so much. . . . while [it] was very well done, ultimately, it was dark and pointless.

Lots of reasons. I know that you and I share a love for good narration in films, even though narration is often seen as a crutch. When used properly, it can really enhance everything. I feel the same way about framing devices. 90% of the time they are at best useless (Titanic, The Princess Bride) or actively make the movie worse (The Lone Ranger). But the other 10% of the time, when they're done right, they are just amazing. I guess it may be a bit of a stretch to really call it a framing device in Nocturnal Animals since the "framing" narrative is close to half the screen time, but hot damn if it isn't executed well. Every scene from the dueling narratives informs the characters, motivations, and story of the other narrative in a way that is both complex and easily digestible. The two narratives also allow the movie to get in lots of different ideas/concepts/genres organically. You get domestic drama, action, violence, etc. Usually when you have a film with action and violence, any domestic drama seems dull in comparison. Because there are two narratives each with their own stakes, neither overpowers the other.

Thematically, it has tons of depth. The framing story explores notions of love and marriage (breathing some life into a tired contrast between the partner who may not be a provider but is otherwise great and a partner who is a provider but otherwise lacking), nostalgia, manipulation, loneliness. The novel story explores sexual violence, physical power, and drive. Together, the stories create interesting looks into creative impulses, power, and vengeance, among others.

I agree. Like I said, it was well done, and you're right, narration is almost never bad IMHO. We can't always be expected to know what's going through a character's mind, or share some humorous/meaningful aside. There's also on camera asides that can be off-putting, but they can we well done as too like with Kevin Spacey and House of Cards, revealing his hidden, uber-cynicism. Both enable direct connections between a character and the audience without shattering our immersion in the story-usually.

What more could you really ask for?

A point, or at least one that wasn't buried in a tar pit somewhere.

I'm a big fan of Amy Adams but her last two movies weren't that great, which isn't a reflection on her performances. Arrival turned into a simple monster movie with a terrible ending.

I wonder what part of the ending you didn't like? I had my qualms with the movie, but mostly liked it overall. Weird that you call it a "simple monster movie" when I think it was anything but. If anything, it flipped the monster movie script on its head because the "monsters" were complex creatures with no desire or attempt to harm the humans (despite what some characters thought).

Yeah, they turned out to be basically good guys, but the producers just couldn't resist pushing the Adrenalin button for the typical monster lovers in the audience before their benign character was revealed. And the consistent overreactions of the one-dimensional military was a downer as well. As for the ending, there was an incredibly stupid line that Jeremy Renner had to deliver that so traumatized me with embarrassment for him that it must have caused me to block exactly what it was he said from my mind. And besides that, the ending felt unfulfilling or unfinished, sort of like a plea for viewers to clamor for a sequel.